Talk:Climate change/Archive 92

Sentence in the lead that starts with "smaller contributions"
I have a question about the sentence in the lead that says: Smaller contributions come from agriculture, industrial processes, and forest loss. Smaller makes it sound like they are almost negligible compared to the Burning fossil fuels that is in the previous sentence. Is this really so? Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the other processes would still be a huge problem. Also where is the thawing of permafrost mentioned as a contributor to GHG emissions, not just as an effect of climate change (it's mentioned currently in the paragraph that summarises effects)? So anyway, could we change "smaller" to "further"? E.g. emissions from cement production (subsumed in the sentence about industrial processes is not small. GHG emissions from agriculture is not "small" either. Small is relative. Further or additional or other would be better. EMsmile (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What's important is the relative quantities of particular GHGs, as well as their heat-retentive strength and their longevity in the atmosphere. Subject matter experts should contribute their understanding on this issue, but I actually had the idea opposite to EMsmile's: I held the mild opinion that the sentence could be deleted from the lead altogether, leaving the sentence about the two primary GHGs, CO2 and CH4. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Is that really so": per Table 6 in The Global Carbon Budget land-use change contributes to less than 10% of overall emissions. Cement makes up a smaller percentage. I don't think smaller makes it sound like negligible, and is needed to put it in perspective.
 * We recently agreed to remove feedbacks from the lede. Permafrost isn't the biggest feedback, so I would not support mentioning it. Femke (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support RCraig09's mild opinion to remove that sentence altogether because it's so incomplete. Either list everything that contributes or nothing but not such a somewhat arbitrary collection. I don't have the numbers at my finger tips but GHG emissions from agriculture are certainly not "small". Some useful graphs in the article greenhouse gas emissions e.g. this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions#/media/File:Global_GHG_Emissions_by_Sector_2016.png (in that overview by sector, agriculture is 12% of total GHG emissions). Don't want to waste people's time with this. My suggestion would be to either remove "small" (replace with "further") or to delete the sentence altogether from the first para of the lead. But fine if you think it's a mute point. EMsmile (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agricultural activity burns a lot of fossil fuels, and that's what's being counted in that graph you linked to. Each sector burns lots of fossil fuels. This is a better graph talking about sources, not sectors: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_Emissions_by_Source_Since_1880.svg Efbrazil (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewrite that I think covers everything being talked about here. It goes a bit further than just cutting that one sentence, doing these additional things:
 * Making it clear that fossil fuel burning is the primary cause, but not the only cause
 * Keeping mention of land use (deforestation), which is a major source separate from fossil fuels as per the global carbon project, but also being clear that it is not the only other source (eg cement manufacturing would be another example)
 * Trying to improve readability with a bit of wording tweaks for flow

In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its impacts on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans. Burning fossil fuels adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, most importantly carbon dioxide and methane. Smaller contributions come from agriculture, industrial processes, and forest loss. Greenhouse gases warm the air burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use and activities like deforestation add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide and methane. These gases warm the air by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping the heat near the surface. Greenhouse gas emissions amplify this effect, causing the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it can radiate Adding to greenhouse gases causes the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it radiates back into space. Efbrazil (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * OK to focus discussion here. On balance, based on the 20:06 explanations, I agree with the 20:06 proposal. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I like many of these changes. My small comments:


 * 1) I don't like the usage of the word "plus" (seems sloppy) in Fossil fuel use plus activities like.
 * 2) Do we purposefully no longer wikilink the words "Climate change in a broader sense" to Climate variability and change? I thought it would be good to link it to that, or possibly to climate change (disambiguation) although I suppose we are not meant to link to disambiguation pages (?).
 * 3) Is this really correct or too simplified: activities like deforestation add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - do you refer here to the burning of forests? It doesn't add methane though? Isn't the bigger problem from deforestation that it removes carbon sinks in the process (and also leads to changes in the water cycle, but that's another story)?
 * 4) Is this really correct or overly simplified: causing the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it can radiate back into space., I find the word "can" strange as if Earth is a person. Perhaps better to say "causing the Earth to accumulate more heat than before which results in an energy imbalance". For comparison, see the wording used at greenhouse effect, e.g. Additionally, human-caused increases in greenhouse gases trap greater amounts of heat, causing the Earth to grow warmer over time. - I suppose there are lots of similar ways to say the same thing, perhaps this has already been discussed to death before. EMsmile (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! Comments mostly incorporated above:
 * # Changed "plus activities like" to "and activities like"
 * # Femke removed it recently, I do not know why, maybe they can comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&type=revision&diff=1115066576&oldid=1114786315
 * # Deforestation can change a carbon sink into a source, primarily through changes to the carbon cycle but also as vegetarion is burned and then land is converted to having cattle. We aren't specific in saying which greenhouse gas is released by deforestation. I don't see the mention here as too simplified, and would rather not move from deforestation to something nuetral and non-descriptive like "land use changes".
 * # Use of the word "can" is a bit problematic, so I simply cut that from the wording above as it's not really necessary. I think it is important to say that the heating of earth is from sunlight though, to correct the intuitive misperception that heat generated from fossil fuel burning is the source of global warming.
 * 16:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Efbrazil (talk)
 * 16:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Efbrazil (talk)


 * Adding green quote box above, to simplify discussion. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Craig, I like the green box approach with shared editing. I couldn't help myself and tweaked the ending again. It's all the same content, it's just about getting the wording to be clear to someone learning for the first time and hopefully coming to consensus. Efbrazil (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I interpret your comment as making the green box "shared editing" so I've simplified language in line with (my memory of) previous discussions; perhaps most significant is removing mention of GW in the final sentence. If you want to claim the greenbox as your own editing space, feel free to revert my changes and we can proceed without a shared editing box. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks great! Just two concerns from my end now:


 * We mention methane but without giving an explanation or an example where the methane is coming from. That's a problem, isn't it? The methane does not primarily come from burning fossil fuels and from deforestation; it comes from agriculture, permafrost thawing, .... Maybe it would help if we at least linked to the article on Methane emissions. That article formulates it like this: bout one-third (33%) of anthropogenic emissions are from gas release during the extraction and delivery of fossil fuels; mostly due to gas venting and gas leaks from both active fossil fuel infrastructure and orphan wells. [...] Animal agriculture is a similarly large source (30%); primarily because of enteric fermentation by ruminant livestock such as cattle and sheep.. Of course this would be way too long but perhaps we can summarise this in a few words. So I think in summary it's good that we mention methane but we should also mention something about where the human-caused emission of methane is coming from.
 * This is difficult to read: Greenhouse gases absorb the heat the Earth radiates in response to sunlight - what I find difficult (as a non-native speaker) is the "the heat the Earth" combination. Could we at least change it to "the heat which the Earth..."? But also "in response to sunlight" doesn't sound right to me. Maybe Greenhouse gases absorb (or trap) the heat which the Earth radiates back into space after receiving it from the sun. - And there are probably loads of "plain English" explanations on the internet available to explain this greenhouse effect issue to children. Can we be inspired from one of those websites for this sentence? See e.g. their statement here: Our globe is warming because the carbon dioxide gas in the air is trapping the sun's heat near the Earth. EMsmile (talk)
 * — I've just made a few changes to the green quote box, including making the phrase "such as carbon dioxide and methane" come immediately after the words "greenhouse gases", to avoid the disjointed phrasing, "to the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane". I think that methane sourcing is too detailed for the lead paragraph of a top-level article, but I think my changes respond to EMsmile's second-paragraph suggestions. We have to be careful to distinguish sunlight from heat. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * — P.S. I slightly favor somehow re-inserting specific mention of global warming (now in gray text) in the final sentence, but I took it out earlier because I perceived earlier consensus to be to avoid repetition of the term "GW" in the same paragraph. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I like those changes Craig and EMsmile! I would not add "to cause global warming" though. First, it extends the sentence into run on length. Second, people will quibble that we are describing how greenhouse gases work here, which is the case whether there is global warming or not. The way I had addressed that before was to have 2 sentences- the first describing how greenhouse gases work, the second describing how greenhouse gas emissions causes global warming, but there's been push back on having 2 sentences. I think your wording above does a good job of getting the ideas across in one sentence. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand that adding to greenhouse gases will cause warming. Efbrazil (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks all pretty good to me. Now I stumbled over the word "create" (its wikilink goes to the emissions article): Fossil fuel use and activities like deforestation create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. I guess it's because we think the word "to emit" is difficult to understand? "Create" sounds strange in my ears. Perhaps "produce"? Or "produce additional greenhouse gases"? And I would suggest to put a wiklink to methane emissions behind "methane" in that sentence. EMsmile (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * — Agree re "produce" and methane emissions link.
 * — Separately: acknowledging the value of shorter sentences, I'm now thinking that it's better to recite what GHGs do (cause global warming) rather than what they do not do (allow heat to escape). I support the former phrase, and not the latter. (I think it's OK to mention GW a second time because the concept is so important, while earth's Energy Imbalance is more arcane.) — RCraig09 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added "the" before heat as I think it makes it clear that we are talking about the heat we mentioned earlier in the sentence. I also deleted the small text about global warming as I think we're agreed on not saying that.
 * Regarding heat escaping into space, I tweaked that text, as I would like to leave the idea in there if there's agreement to do so. The idea helps make it clear that there is momentum behind behind the system as heat is accumulating year after year. It's also very useful for people to understand that global warming is essentially a simple equation of energy in - energy out, and I like having a wiki link to Earth's energy imbalance. However, if others aren't persuaded by that argument I'm fine cutting that text in order to get to consensus. I can see the argument for brevity. Efbrazil (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to acquiesce about mentioning GW a second time despite its central importance. Separately, the language re preventing escaping to space does not in fact make it clear to lay readers that GW "is essentially a simple equation of energy in-energy out". Saying "the" heat is prevented from escaping into space, implies all heat is captured, which it isn't. If we're in favor of brevity, I think that phrase should be left out. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, took out "the" in front of heat. I changed the optional little text to scratch both our itches- it's now a separate concluding sentence for the paragraph that includes mention of global warming and reduced radiation into space. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit seems anti-brevity. I've re-worded. "Trapping heat near the Earth's surface" already implies it won't radiate into space, so I've been against the can't-escape-to-space phrase, not for it. Therefore I've moved the internal link for Earth's Energy Imbalance to a phrase where it doesn't add to word count describing what's already implied. I'm still mildly in favor of mentioning GW at the end of the paragraph (adds 4 words) since we don't want lay readers to have to "put together" how GW is caused; we should ''tell' them. — RCraig09 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those additional 4 words that RCraig09 suggested would be good. I agree that people need to be told and not have to infer. EMsmile (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why there was no wikilink for global average temperature in either the first or the third sentence? My suggestions is to add a wikilink to instrumental temperature record when it occurs for the second time in the third sentence. Could alternatively link to global surface temperature but this is maybe not as good as it includes content prior to the human made impacts as well. EMsmile (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One small stylistic concern: we have one sentence ending with "fossil fuel" and the next one starting with "fossil fuel": ...caused by humans]] burning fossil fuels.[2 cites] Fossil fuel use and activities like...|undefined This is not elegant. Perhaps start that sentence with "This fossil fuel use...", or "Continued fossil fuel use..." or some other construct? Or perhaps others don't think it's bad style how it is now. EMsmile (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Good to see the wikilink added to global average temperature. I don't think beginning and ending sentences with "fossil fuel" is a problem or reads weird, at least to this American, so I made no changes there.

I appreciate the concerns around brevity and being careful not to say that all heat is trapped. Unfortunately, I think the latest edits to the last sentence were a step backwards in terms of clarity and readability. Combining both how greenhouse gases work and also Earth's energy imbalance caused by GGE into the same sentence makes for a mess. For instance, the changed sentence says "trap more of the heat" without saying that any heat is trapped in the first place.

I went back and edited into 2 sentences but was careful to address the specific concerns about brevity and not implying that all heat is being retained. Note that even though it is 2 sentences now, the length is unchanged from the previous edit. Efbrazil (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm a little concerned with "deforestation produces greenhouse gas". It's not the actual deforestation that produces the greenhouse gases, it's the breakdown of forest OM, generally through combustion or decomposition, that produces the greenhouse gas. All forests (and all aerobic organisms) produce greenhouse gas. Obviously it's a much larger net loss with deforestation. I think we need to clarify that. Crescent77 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned with "ongoing increase in global average temperarure". That's been going on for ~20K years, but the primary topic of climate change is the accelerated warming over the last century. I think we need to clarify there. Crescent77 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we've arrived at a happy point where we can select between two good proposals. Bottomline, I agree with Efbrazil's 16:37 version. The language re deforestation both correct and concise, and unworthy of further explanation in a lead paragraph of a top-level article; and warming has not been ongoing since Earth climbed out of the latest ice age 10,000 years ago, so I don't think "ongoing" (meaning present-day) needs correction or clarification. — RCraig09 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the Efbrazil's 16:37 version. I had earlier raised a similar concern about the deforestation aspect but I think the current wording is OK, given that this is just the first paragraph of the lead of this article. One cannot squeeze everything into this paragraphs. So I would say the Efbrazil's 16:37 version should now be implemented (some small tweaks are always a possibility), and then we should perhaps all step away for a few days or weeks and then come back later with a fresher brain to continue optimise this important lead of this important article (I plan to take a little pause myself to let it all sink in a bit).EMsmile (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. just when I say I am going to step away now... but would it be OK to include "and agriculture" (or more precisely: animal husbandry?] after deforestation? Then it would also make more sense that methane is mentioned shortly after. Suggestion: {{tq|Fossil fuel use and activities like deforestation and animal husbandry produce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Or "intensive agriculture" or just "agriculture". I think mentioning agriculture would be wise as it would also implicitly link with the excessive meat consumption, methane from cows etc. Or we could wikilink with greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (which is how it was in the 3 October version where it had said Smaller contributions come from agriculture, industrial processes, and forest loss. EMsmile (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that. I also think we are a bit weak in saying "such as carbon dioxide and methane", as those are really the only two greenhouse gases we are creating that are significant. I also think we should perhaps not say "produce", as deforestation adds to greenhouse gases by limiting sequestration instead. So, current sentence is this:
 * Fossil fuel use and activities like deforestation produce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.
 * The neutral change would be to just go with land use changes, like this:
 * Fossil fuel use and certain land use changes add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide and methane.
 * The more aggressive, wordy, and possibly controversial change would be to point at the primary land use change responsible and then back it up using sources pulled from the section we wrote on Agriculture and industry down below:
 * Fossil fuel use and activities like deforestation for livestock add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide and methane. Efbrazil (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That retreats from brevity and adds detail not needed in a lead of a top-level article. The longer language also re-introduces the disjoining phrase "to the atmosphere" chopping what should be a continuous phrase, "greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane". I've just changed the green box to "Fossil fuel use and land use changes like deforestation increase {{gray|atmospheric}} greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane." Separately, I think listing only CO2 and CH4 is not weak, but appropriate. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leave out atmospheric and I'm fine with it. You want to roll it live? Efbrazil (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So I can't convince you to mention agriculture (with a wikilink to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in this first paragraph? It's in the version that is currently live, so removing agriculture would be a step backward in my opinion. I don't think that brevity is a killer argument here: the lead is only 460 words long. My personal rule of thumb is that leads are ideally 450-600 words long. If agriculture can't be mentioned in the first paragraph then perhaps at least later where we talk about mitigation measures? That would be in the fourth paragraph where it says {{tq|by farming with methods that capture carbon in soil}} but that's actually an overly specific example and wikilink. I still think a link to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture would be good somewhere in the lead. But fine to be overruled, I think we might be getting exhausted and perhaps can't see the forest anymore for the trees (at least in my case). EMsmile (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've subtracted "atmospheric" and added agriculture . I think we can light this candle. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, I'd say "go for it". Thanks for steering this discussion so well. :-) EMsmile (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to "Fossil fuel use and land use changes like deforestation and agriculture". It's not like all agriculture is "bad" and necessarily adds to greenhouse gases. Some farming practices sequester carbon.
 * I backed the text off to "Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices...". That's the safest route to go and will result in the least push back. It also allows for an additional wiki link to cement manufacturing.
 * If I were telling it I'd probably be more pointed and say something like "Fossil fuel use and farming practices like burning forests for livestock", since that's the key issue according to the sources we have down below in the article. But I'm OK pulling our punches and aiming for inclusion here. Efbrazil (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a question of how far down the list of GHG causes we want to include in the lead. Walking down Memory Lane: the "summary" chart File:20200118 Global warming and climate change - vertical block diagram - causes effects feedback.svg shows deforestation and agriculture to be the two items besides fossil fuels. However, I agree with the first of the two 16:59 suggestions (the second suggestion, "burning forests for livestock", is too specific for a lead). — RCraig09 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cement manufacturing causes CO2 emissions separate from fossil fuel use: when calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed it produces lime and carbon dioxide. Cement manufacturing causes 4% to 8% of annual CO2 emissions: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth
 * Do you know the numbers from agriculture that are separate from fossil fuel use and deforestation? If not, I think its safest to leave the text as I wrote it. Efbrazil (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We're summarizing general principles. I agree with the text as you wrote it (first of the your two 16:59 suggestions, which you properly incorporated into the green box). 17:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah good! OK, I will roll it live now. Efbrazil (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)



Thanks! Great work. I spotted one small issue about readability now in the last sentence but will start a new section about this on the talk page, and would totally understand if you say "not now, later, I need a break". EMsmile (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

{{collapse top |title=Click to show/hide refs }} {{reflist-talk}} {{collapse bottom}}

Nonsense on both points, that's all well sourced. Crescent77 (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this comment is referring to. Efbrazil (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It had to do with Crescent77's 22:38, 14 Oct statement detailing "breakdown of forest OM"(?) (which I responded, was too detailed for a lead), and their 22:50, 14 Oct statement that the "ongoing increase in global temperature" "has been going on for ~20K years" (which per various charts in Global temperature record is simply not true for the most recent 10K of those 20K years). They called my response "nonsense". — RCraig09 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Pfft. Depending on the resolution used, it's not even an absolute over the last 50 years, but it's all very clearly a period of ongoing warming. Crescent77 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * — The most recent "~20K years" has not been "all very clearly a period of ongoing warming": File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png — RCraig09 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also you didn't say anything about too "detailed", you said the existing response was "correct" which it is not, as explained earlier. Crescent77 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * — First you wrote that you wanted "clarification" re deforestation—which involved details. I said it was "unworthy of further explanation in a lead paragraph of a top-level article". ... Now you say the present content is not correct. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As I first said. Are you actually saying it is correct, or are you saying you are willing to accept the inaccuracy for the sake of brevity? Crescent77 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"Adding to these gases..."
There is a new sentence that I stumbled over with regards to readability: It's the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead which now says Adding to these gases traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. I think for non-native English speakers, starting a sentence with "Adding to these gases" is difficult to understand. Maybe it could be changed to simpler language by saying: When more of these gases are added to the atmosphere they trap more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. Or "By adding..." Or "When increasing the concentration of these gases..." (is it useful to mention concentration here or is that the same as the absolute amount anyhow?). Note: I am finding Quillbot useful to try out different ways of formulating this. It's a free tool although you do have to register for a free account after you've used it on 5 sentences or so. EMsmile (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't want to increase the letter count or introduce more advanced concepts unless necessary. Replacing "Adding to these gases" with "Increasing the concentration of these gases" adds to length and conceptual complexity (concentration), making the text harder to digest (for Americans at least). I didn't see how Quillbot evaluates text, so could you explain why "adding to" is a problem? Efbrazil (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As a non-native English speaker myself I can say that a sentence that starts with "Adding to these gases" is not that easy to understand. Quillbot is a tool that helps to come up with alternative (often simpler) wording to say the same thing. Who is adding to these gases? What is being added to these gases? I think the two letters "by" would be a small improvement already: "By adding to these gases...". Or maybe: "By adding more of these gases, more heat is trapped..." (still not that easy to understand) EMsmile (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the present wording, but as an alternative: "Humans adding to these gases traps more heat near the Earth's surface,...". — RCraig09 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we need to address the "who" question, because whether humans or martians are adding to the gases doesn't matter for the purpose of the statement; global warming is caused by more of the gases being there. Besides, we've already addressed the "who" at that point.
 * Regarding the question of "what is being added", I'd be OK with a tweak there if EMSmile thinks it's unclear that we're talking about adding more of the gases in question. It's funny that doesn't even cross my mind as a question when I read it as an American, but English has lots of crazy rules that maybe I'm just intuiting.
 * How about we just go with "Increasing these gases..." as it avoids the word "concentration" and resolves the question of "adding what?". Efbrazil (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also OK with "Increasing these gases...", though it is another "—ing" participle (like adding) that non-native-English-speaking people might find difficult. EMsmile may want to comment. — RCraig09 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Does "Increasing these gases..." scratch your itch? Efbrazil (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the grammar construction is called "starting a sentence with a gerund" (-ing clause as Subject). It's grammatically correct but I would say it's slightly "fancy English" and thus not that readable for non-native speakers. However, one could argue that this is the English Wikipedia after all, so what. But if we could think of a wording that avoids starting with a gerund, I think that would be better. "Increasing" might be slightly better than "adding to"; so then it would be Increasing these gases traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. Still not easy to understand. I think clearer would be When these gases are increased, this traps more heat near the Earth's surface, causing global warming.. - Are there others in this group, from their own language background, who can confirm or reject my feeling that a sentence that starts with a gerund is most likely a bit "complicated"? I had a quick scan of the climate change article and am happy to report that we don't start many sentences with a gerund. - for another opinion regarding readability here.  EMsmile (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the sentence is too difficult, and I don't think it's linguistically correct either (increasing these gases also feels grammatically wrong to me). The same problem exists before ("some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases". It's about the level of GHGs in the atmosphere, not about their existence; having them in the ocean wouldn't raise temperatures.
 * I've not been able to follow the discussion due to the "collaborative editing space", rather than having subsequent proposals and compromises. Can we please go back to how we did discussions before? Femke (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Addition: it's not the act of adding that increases heat entrapment, but the subsequent raised GHG levels. You could add, and then also subtract. Femke (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (Gerund it is! :-) ) Proposal:
 * FYI, the collaborative editing space was useful for more complex discussions for an entire paragraph. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy with Craig's proposal, but then again we were both happy with "Adding to" so we could be missing the point. I'm not happy with "When these gases are increased...", it sounds stilted and lengthens the content too much.
 * I don't buy the critique from femke that we should be specifying that greenhouse gas emissions are only a problem if they are going into the atmosphere and are also not being offset by sequestration. We aren't constructing a legal contract here, and we don't want to lengthen the paragraph further. I mean, we could also go on a digression about how fossil fuels produce aerosols that can have a cooling effect, or how GGE into the ocean could cause saturation and may limit its sequestration ability and keep gases in the air or cause a breakdown of biological cycles and so on and so forth. Efbrazil (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t have a strong opinion on the alternatives presented here, other than to say that all of them seem somewhat complex, and that the sentence is best moved to the main body of the article. Dtetta (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A good analogy is to look at the article on Evolution, as it is similarly presenting an important scientific concept for which there are deniers. We don't start the article on Evolution saying "it is so because experts say it is so", we start by describing the mechanism driving it. There's actually a lot more detail on the mechanism in that article than what we are presenting in this article on climate change. When you introduce a controversial scientific topic you need to start with a solid foundation, then build on that.
 * Your thoughts on wording? Efbrazil (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Efbrazil thanks. I'm a bit undecided but think that almost any wording that doesn't start the sentence with a gerund is an improvement. My suggestion now would be . I think including the word atmosphere is fair because it hasn't been mentioned once in the first para yet. Also, adding CO2 to the ocean has a different effect. - As to the process we used in the last few weeks for collaboration, I thought it worked quite well. I did notice a "drop off" in participation by different people and wonder if that was because it was too fast paced at times. Not sure. EMsmile (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with either my 18:38 proposal or EMsmile's 09:03 proposal with "in the atmosphere". Eighteen words is not an unduly long or complex sentence (it flows well, proceeding from cause to effect). — RCraig09 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't qualify greenhouse gases with "in the atmosphere" there, as by doing it there we are implying that in the prior sentences we weren't talking about greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Is what I did is change "near the Earth's surface" to "in Earth's lower atmosphere". I think that captures the issue without screwing up prior sentences, since that qualification is talking about where the heating is occurring. Since we are now specific about the heating being in the lower atmosphere I think it's even more obvious that we're talking about gases in the atmosphere. I rolled it live because I felt pretty confident that it strikes the right balance, but feel free to back out if you disagree. Efbrazil (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✔ Good wordsmithing solution — RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying terminology in the lead
Man, you guys are just scapegoating the new editor. You've created the confusion, he just brought it (back) into the light (though I do agree he talks in some confusing run on phrasing with lots of tangents) The meaning of the term should be clearly and concisely covered in the lead, that's what an encyclopedia does. I understand the need for a Terminology section for further clarification, but one shouldn't have read that far into it for a start. Femke pointed out the German Wikipedia setup, I think they've got much a clearer setup concerning climate change and global warming. Crescent77 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any scapegoating here. The new editor FinancialCents kept harping on about the article title. We should have perhaps referred them straight away to Climate change but would they have listened? I think they were just convinced that the article title needed to be changed. But on the upshot it has prompted us to improve the "terminology" section, so that's good. And I disagree about the role of the lead: The lead (about 4 paragraphs long, around 600 words) is meant to be a summary of the entire article. If you devoted one whole paragraph to the terminology it would end up not being a good summary! One or two sentences on terminology in the lead is sufficient. OK, true, I now see that no mention is made explicitly about terminology in the lead. Maybe we should indeed add one extra sentence about terminology to the lead? Maybe this one: "Though the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, scientifically, global warming refers only to increased surface warming, and climate change describes the full effect of greenhouse gases on the climate.EMsmile (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Crescent77: which meaning of the term climate change do you think should be covered in the lead? The generic meaning (covered in a different article) or the common meaning (i.e. shorthand for human-caused climate change)? It's very annoying that these two differ, so that whatever option we choose, there will be confusion.
 * The first sentence implicitly defines climate change, in the common meaning. The sentence EMsmile suggests would duplicate that information more explicitly, so I'm not a fan, and I don't think it addresses the concern Crescent has (please correct me if I'm wrong).
 * Crescent, I think your preferred solution would be something in the direction of
 * rename this article back to global warming
 * make climate change a disambiguation page for global warming and climate variability and change
 * If you would like to formally propose that, I can help you to understand the process + policies if you'd like. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page.
 * I think a path with a higher chance of success it tweaking the lead / adding more context about natural climate change in the body, and possibly renaming climate variability and change. Do you think that could partially resolve the issues you have with the article? If so, do you have specific changes in mind? Femke (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That would completely work to rename the page about global warming, "global warming." Then a page called climate change could state what climate change is, and clarify that global warming is one type of climate change.  It seems that global warming could be on the same page, but it could also be a link to that page.  I think there is still confusion about splits.  Climate change is all changes in climate.  Global warming is mostly due to greenhouse gas emissions but it also is caused by deforestation since photosynthesis and the carbon cycle and nitrogen cycle and everything trees do are cooling to the earth, and the breakdown of nature emits carbon; and also paving over with black asphalt is going to change the water cycle and heat the earth, as would a nuclear plant that warms up the water in a lake in order to cool its towers.  I think in general people consider global warming as trending and not variable; and I would say most variable climate change is natural.  But some natural climate change is not variable.  It doesn't bother me at all if there is an article about Climate Variability that has been linked from the climate change article that has defined what climate change is and explains that some changes in climate are variable. FinancialCents (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is no need to change the title of this article to global warming because this article not only contains phenomenons and trends of global warming but also introduces problems like global dimming caused by aerosols and clouds and ocean acidification with absorbing more CO2. In addition, at the beginning of this article, it says 'In common usage, climate change describes global warming.' Since the author implies at the beginning that global warming is one aspect of climate change and there is another article called 'What’s the difference between climate change and global warming?' supporting this idea, from my perspective, it is more important to focus on the definition of climate change instead of talking about which is better for the title between climate change and global warming. For the definition of climate change, FCCC and IPCC have different official explanations. FCCC defines climate change as 'a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity, that alters the composition of the global atmosphere, and that is in addition to natural climate variability over comparable time periods.' (Roger A. Pielke, Jr., 515) This definition is mentioned in the Terminology part. However, IPCC offered the definition of 'any change in climate over time whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.' (Roger A. Pielke, Jr., 515) In Roger's article, these two definitions should be the main problem that how people should consider and face climate change, which is also we should consider whether put this into Wikipedia of Climate Change. 2600:8806:6006:4600:34D4:133F:1A23:2371 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Femke, I think any of your 3 proposals could address the issue. I'm not inclined to go with a formal procedure, I feel like that would be foolish of me. Even though I may disagree with folks here in methodology, I am happy to see that all folks here are editing with good intent. As that is not the case on alot of WP, were I to pursue formal procedures, it would be to address the agenda driven editors I see on several other articles. To reiterate, it's great to see all the efforts of many well intentioned folk here, including genuine discussion; if folks here are hell bent on maintaining current naming, so be it.

Likewise, we seem to agree that Climate Variablity and Change is a poor name, but to rename it to the more seemly Climate Change would require a change here that folks seem reluctant to accept. All that material could be included here, but that may make for too long an article and/or take too much effort.

On a more functional note, I think the opening should cover both the common and generic meanings, in a succinct manner. How about for an opening sentence something along the lines of "Climate Change is a long term shift in weather patterns." Then follow with something addressing anthropogenic driven global warming as the current state of affairs and therefore the default understanding of the term. Both the UN and NASA take that direction, I'm not understanding the resistance to that here. Crescent77 (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to adding an additional sentence to the lead somewhere (not necessarily in the first paragraph) but wouldn't we repeat what is in the hatnote already? It says there: This article is about contemporary climate change. For historical climate trends, see Climate variability and change. Or perhaps the hatnote is too easy to overlook, especially for novice readers? Regarding the article Climate variability and change, I also find its title a bit sub-optimal. I am sure there was a long discussion about it in the past already. But I am wondering: Maybe it could be renamed to Climate change (entire history of Earth). But the article confuses me a bit anyhow as it seems to overlap too much with content at climate change. Maybe it needs to be streamlined better. Could it be refocused to become Climate change (prior to human influences)? EMsmile (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the opening word is a specifier indicating only a subset of climate change seems very unencyclopedic to me. I really feel it should start with the broadest meaning and build the specifics from there. Because the hat note is technical feature and not the direct wording of the article the duplication there doesn't seem inappropriate to me, as you say I do think it is easy to overlook.

I do think "Climate Change" and "climate variability and change" should be combined as one article, perhaps with subsections named as ESmile suggests above, but that would be alot of work that I wouldn't be able to effectively undertake. Crescent77 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Having been involved in the earlier move/rename, I strongly assert that the best course is to avoid a rename or merge altogether. I agree with the suggestion to start the lead with the broadest definition of CC and follow immediately with what this WP article focuses on. Let's work to iron out specific lead language with our bold edits in the following quote box, to avoid experimenting on the article itself until consensus is reached here. (I put it in a quote box to emphasize it's "our" workspace and not "my" post.) — RCraig09 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I realize my proposal adds 1.5 sentences, but I think the clarification is worth the added word count. It immediately crystallizes the nomenclature issue before it's detailed in the /* Terminology */ section. — RCraig09 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that this would cause further confusion. The first sentence gives the distinct impression this article is about climatic changes in general. WP:First sentence says it should be about the topic of this article instead.
 * What about switching the two around? That way we can bold the pertinent climate change too. Femke (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good observation and brilliantly simple fix. I've just reversed the first two sentences above, per your suggestion. — RCraig09 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that climate change does not refer only to past events. It includes past events, present and future.  And even though anthropogenic global warming is the main concern currently, there are still other types of climate change that occur now. FinancialCents (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Chidgk1 (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it, and great idea about the quote box for experimenting, RCraig09. One thing that occurred to me is this wording "its impacts on Earth's weather patterns". This now seems too narrow to me. Shouldn't it be broader because things like melting glaciers is not just weather changes? In the terminology section we wrote "and climate change describes the full effect of greenhouse gases on the climate". Another example definition is from NASA: "“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times." EMsmile (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just changed to recite climate system. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting, for sure better than before, thanks. I think climate system is much better than weather patterns. The only (minor) issue is perhaps that most people don't really know what is meant with "climate system". Even for me, I was glad to have the wikilink to look it up... I hadn't looked at that article before. It's a GA article but its pageviews are surprisingly low (indicating that this is not a commonly known term?). I think climate system is probably a good solution but how come the other definitions don't use it: Compare e.g. with the NASA definition (in easy language within their FAQs): "“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet". In the terminology section we wrote "and climate change describes the full effect of greenhouse gases on the climate" (ah, wait, I see you have already changed that to climate system as well; good move). - So I think "climate system" is a pretty good solution for this but perhaps we should provide a source for this? That NASA 2008 website includes the term "climate system" only once in the image caption but not in the main text: By any other name ... Whether referred to as "global warming" or "climate change," the consequences of the widescale changes currently being observed in Earth's climate system could be considerable.. EMsmile (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Climate system is more concise than the FAQ's vague quotation ("changes that are happening to our planet"). Separately, "Earth's climate system" is more appropriate than "Earth's climate" since climate by itself is often applied to regions. As you note, the /* Terminology */ section already explicitly cites NASA/Conway/2008, so sourcing is not a problem. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, more concise yes, but is it very readable / understandable to lay persons? I have my doubts. Also, why are we using a website post from 2008 as a source for such an important sentence, don't we have something that is more WP:RS? Secondly, that source does not state it in the same words as we do. They don't use "climate system". The key statement on that website is "Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect." So either we need to find a better reference or we need to modify the sentence and stick more closely to the source, right? Perhaps even with quotation marks. I am not sure. I kind of like "our" definition but my concern is that we should have a reference that uses the same term (shouldn't we?) or we should use a term that is more easily understood (we could still wikilink with climate system even if we do it like this: "and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect". EMsmile (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * NASA/Conway/2008, apparently authored by Erik M. Conway, explicitly uses climate system in explicit reference to "the consequences of the wide scale changes currently being observed in Earth's climate system"—which is spot on to what we are talking about. On an issue so basic, the NASA/Conway/2008 reference, which is still extant, is reliable. If you want to search for a reference that's somehow better in some way, that's fine, but the content itself is solid. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that "explicit mention" appears only in the image caption below the photo of a woman smelling a flower (strange choice of image?!) but not in the main text. I know this could be "academic" but as it's appearing in the first sentence of the lead (maybe we should also give that first sentence a source by the way, just to be sure?), and as we had those hours of discussions with FinancialCents about it, it's important to get it 100% right. It's fine though, happy to drop this issue for now and I encourage everyone to keep their eyes open for suitable references we can use that also talk about the climate system in this context... EMsmile (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The definitions are highlighted in a box for clarity and emphasis. FinancialCents (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You guys are really into the esoteric. Too bad it detracts from broader understanding. Crescent77 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "esoteric" in this context, I don't understand? Also, who is "you guys" exactly? EMsmile (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been almost five days since the blue quote-box suggestion, which has met either with approval or with suggestions that have been adopted. If I don't see disagreement, I think it's time to insert that quote-box material into the article lead. Speak up now if you have further suggestions. — RCraig09 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the material within the suggested blue box is incorrect. Could you please look over my other comments and the VENN diagram I added to the draft page? I have been asked to not repeat myself too many times.  I am just looking for use of a page that is accurate.  If we could get to correct and accurate that would be super helpful.  Let's put the blue box suggestion on hold until the VENN diagram is understood, please? FinancialCents (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)04:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the diagram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Climate_Change_(scientific)#/media/File:VENNclimatechange.jpg FinancialCents (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC) 04:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Building on Femke's recent change away from "broadest" sense, note the minor proposed changes, "refers to" and "a broader" in the blue box. Agreed? — RCraig09 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that the "In common usage, climate change describes" wording is not ideal under WP:REFERSTO (i.e. it violates the use–mention distinction that is generally observed on Wikipedia). The previous wording of "Contemporary climate change includes/comprises" is superior on this count. — Goszei (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the insight and links, Goszei. This article is in a special situation—one in which two terms (global warming and climate change) have been under extensive discussion, and are differentiated as terms in the lead paragraph. The article was finally renamed global warming --> climate change only two years ago, bringing discussion of the overlapping terms to the fore. — RCraig09 (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There wasn't overwhelming consensus on that particular "in common usage" wording. As discussed in readability, maybe that's not the best wording for that section. Crescent77 (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rcraig09's response to Goszei, well said. This is a special case, exceptions from Wikipedia rules are possible. And I think the "in common usage" wording is excellent, it hits the nail on the head and is easy to understand for lay persons. I can't think of a better wording for this. @Crescent77 I don't know what you would define as "overwhelming consensus" given that only about half a dozen people actively participate in this discussion here on the talk page in the last few weeks. I would say the consensus was "sufficient". EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough EMsmile. "Sufficient" is sufficient, no more, no less. FY, I'm a little concerned with your tendency to readily agree with RCraig, considering his tendency to gatekeep and minimalize other folks points of discussion, including yours. Crescent77 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, don't worry, I've had my fair amount of disagreements with RCraig09 in the past on other articles and other issues... ;-) So I don't "always" agree with them (there is a likelihood that this user is male - just purely based on statistics - but as I can't see it from the person's user page, I am using the pronoun "they/them"). Just happen to agree with their efforts of steering the discussion here and trying to reach consensus on a difficult topic here. Definitely good faith work, I would say. EMsmile (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree, it is good faith work. But "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I'm a little concerned with ownership behavior here. I do see you disagree, but your concerns seem to be regularly sidelined. Crescent77 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I have dealt specifically with every opposing argument, and have acquiesced in several of them, as these lengthy sections will attest. I try to make discussions focused on resolvable issues, such as by making "proposed editing space" quote-boxes we can all modify during discussion, a practice about which other editors have expressed approval. I have bent over backwards, spending hours repeatedly trying to explain to FinancialCents how he might have a chance at influencing consensus on this website. These actions indicate the opposite of ownership. Yes, I have expressed disagreement, I believe always with reasoning—not by saying "Pfft" as you have done. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you seem quite inclined to proclaim your work. Seems like ownership to me.

Sorry for the exclamations, I didn't expect them to derail you so readily. That may explain why you failed to address my reasoning. Crescent77 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving History Section Up
The recent discussions about terminology section reminded me of this. Can we move History section and its subsections up, after Terminology section? It seems like a more logical and chronological place. Terminology, History, and then the rest of the article. Bogazicili (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In its current state, I'd rather not. It's has a lot of details that should not be moved to such a prominent place, and the consensus paragraph(s) moved there have not yet been integrated properly. Femke (alt) (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In most Wikipedia articles, history section is usually on top, after terminology or etymology sections. What has not been integrated btw? Second and third paragraphs? Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No, please don't move the history section up. I don't think it's what people primarily are looking for when reading Wikipedia articles on science type topics. History at the start makes sense for articles on cities or countries perhaps but I don't think the history section needs to be first when it comes to science and technology type articles. For comparison purposes: Note that at WikiProject Medicine there was also a broad consensus to move history towards the end which is how it's done for most disease articles for example. EMsmile (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't move. Here, History is not as important as /* Terminology */ because of public confusion of the terms CC and GW that defines the very scope of this article. Though the Scientific Consensus sub-section would be good for informing skeptics (the ones who read, anyway), consensus among editors here seems to be to downplay Consensus content as it is perceived to be defensive or reactive to denialism. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the public is confused about the terms CC and GW. I think it's more of an issue with the euphenism treadmill. Crescent77 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I think the history is less important than other sections so should not be moved Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about anchor HTML code
Do we still need these anchors here for the section on solar activity? === Solar and volcanic activity ===. I wonder if the snytax is outdated: It seems to cause an error when I use the excerpt template to transcribe this section to climate change mitigation. Could I just delete the   string? EMsmile (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out now and it did fix my problem with the excerpt at climate change mitigation. If we do need this kind of anchor here, is there an updated HTML syntax that works better? If not, I could use the "noinclude" tags to prevent transcription of this section to the other article. EMsmile (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused regarding land use as a driver of climate change
I'm confused, I'm hoping someone can offer clarity. The latest IPCC report shows land use changes as being a net negative (cooling) factor on balance. See here, which is just a reflection of SPM.2c: File:Physical Drivers of climate change.svg. SPM.4 repeats the assertion that land use change has a net cooling effect and is talked about along with aerosols.

That obviously runs against the other sources we have, which report land use changes as being a significant contributor to carbon emissions. For instance, here from the global carbon project: File:CO2 Emissions by Source Since 1880.svg

Can somebody explain the disparity here? I have a few theories, but I don't know if they are true. One is that the IPCC is just looking at warming influence change from 2010 - 2019 and finds land use change in that particular decade was net negative, maybe due to irrigation / reflectivity changes and because they are ignoring how much future warming is being banked by land use emissions today. Or maybe the IPCC was ignoring deforestation when they came up with their graphic, since they are qualifying land use changes as being irrigation and reflectivity, although the graphic makes it sound like its looking at all key factors. Anybody know what's actually going on here? Efbrazil (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right: the deforestation part of it is reflected in the CO2 bar, rather than the land use change bar. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. I changed the graphic from saying "Land-use changes" to saying "Irrigation and albedo". Efbrazil (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Efbrazil what software or tool did you use to create or change the graphic by the way? I am thinking of embarking on the process to learn how to make my own graphics for Wikipedia. In the past, I've only ever used Excel or Powerpoint for this... EMsmile (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's mostly all I use. For that graphic I put the data in Excel, pasted the chart into Powerpoint, then added the text there along with stuff like the curly braces, exported as svg from powerpoint, then touched up the svg in notepad to get the fonts right and remove some weird span breaks in the text so that localization can be done. It's not very elegant I'm afraid. For a minor edit like that text change I mentioned I simply check the file out, open it in notepad, make the text change, then check it back in. No localization or anything else gets messed up that way.
 * The other thing you can use is inkscape, which is an open source svg editor that works pretty well. It's pretty heavy duty though- feels a bit like an adobe product in terms of having a hundred toolbar buttons on screen at once. I use that to edit svg files visually. Efbrazil (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Jaynean (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding an english translation of a german video produced by public tv about carbon dioxide as a climate factor
I have just discovered that the page is restricted from editing. However the German version of this article has an.

I have translated the audiotrack of the original video and uploaded the and wanted to include the video also to this article. However I don't want to qualify for sanctions which is why I am opening the topic here and hope someone can help me!

-- Renepick (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I watched the video but it doesn't really grab me. Perhaps too complex for laypersons and too simplistic for scientists? Not sure but maybe it would fit better with the article greenhouse effect or Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere? I think this main climate change article is already too full and wouldn't benefit from this video. EMsmile (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about aerosols in "Drivers of recent temperature rise"
I wonder why aerosols come second in the section "Drivers of recent temperature rise" (even before land surface changes) even though aerosols are complicated as they can contribute to warming and cooling. Could we drop them to third place? So far it looks like this in the table of contents: 3 Drivers of recent temperature rise 3.1 Greenhouse gases 3.2 Aerosols and clouds 3.3 Land surface changes 3.4 Solar and volcanic activity 3.5 Climate change feedback In comparison, in the article Attribution of recent climate change (less well developed than the climate change article of course) it looks like this: 3 Key attributions 3.1Greenhouse gases 3.1.1 Water vapor 3.2Land use 3.2.1Livestock and land use 3.3 Aerosol I am asking today because I had included the same list and ordering in the article climate change mitigation but another editor (User:Hedgehoque) deleted the aerosols bullet point from the list saying: Sorry to remove aerosols again. But as commented earlier they are no driver for temperature rise. Quoting the excerpt: "aerosols having a dampening effect". If you want to include them, we need a separate list for this kind.. So I would like to get the story straight for how the aerosol issue is included best in the "drivers of recent temperature rise" section for all three articles. EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See the "I'm confused" section below, which was inspired by this question.
 * The way the IPCC breaks things down is they say land surface changes are a minor dampener on climate change because they put the impacts of deforestation into the "greenhouse gases" bucket, not the land use bucket. Land surface change to them is just reflectivity and irrigation impacts, which are minor dampeners.
 * Anyhow, that's not the approach we're taking here, which means we might be wrong. I don't see why we have a section on greenhouse gases and a section on land use that is a source of greenhouse gases, but not a section on the primary greenhouse gas source: fossil fuel use.
 * Further, the section is named "Drivers of recent temperature rise", but in fact only greenhouse gases are a driver. All the other subsections are either dampeners or feedbacks or sources of greenhouse gases or just non-factors, like solar activity.
 * Aerosols are a dampener but are a key part of the equation for how much warming we have. They are responsible for the lack of warming prior to 1970, and air pollution regulations combined with increasing concentrations drove warming that has happened since.
 * So, upshot is I'd want a deeper reorganization that just putting aerosols third. Maybe this:
 * 3 Causes of recent global temperature change
 * 3.1 Greenhouse gases
 * 3.1.1 Fossil fuel use
 * 3.1.2 Land use changes
 * 3.2 Aerosols and clouds
 * 3.3 Solar and volcanic activity
 * 3.4 Climate change feedbacks Efbrazil (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I am still confused: I wonder if the section heading "Causes of recent global temperature change" is basically poorly worded (if later on aerosols is a sub-heading). Maybe better: "Causes of recent climate change" (or "Drivers of recent climate change")? In the graphic that you mentioned below (here) it's called "Physical drivers of climate change" but perhaps that's a different listing. EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's better, but I think better still is "Attribution of recent climate change", which is the main subtopic title. It's better because only greenhouse gases are the cause, all the other stuff we talk about in that section is not a contributor.
 * So maybe this:
 * 3 Attribution of recent climate change
 * 3.1 Greenhouse gases
 * 3.1.1 Fossil fuel use
 * 3.1.2 Land use changes
 * 3.2 Aerosols and clouds
 * 3.3 Solar and volcanic activity
 * 3.4 Climate change feedbacks
 * Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, on reading through all the content, my proposal won't work without a serious rewrite I don't have time for. So I changed the header to "Attribution of recent temperature rise" and left it at that for now. Efbrazil (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Efbrazil, I think it was good that you changed the heading to "Attribution of recent temperature rise". However, there is still the small confusion for me about the aerosols within this section as they would have tended to lead to cooling, not warming. In fact, it's the "removal of aerosols" that has led to more warming, correct? So all the other sub-headings are leading to temperature increase, whereas aerosols can lead to cooling or warming. EMsmile (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you like the renaming! It's true aerosols are primarily a cooling influence, but I don't think that means they don't belong in this (renamed) section. Figuring out all influences on the climate is part of the attribution process, not just the factors causing heating. Importantly, aerosols explain why the planet was effectively not heating up until the 1970s despite rising CO2 levels before then, and also (like you say) the reduction in particulates is partly responsible for unleashing heating since then. Efbrazil (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Going further, you could even say that the "recent" part of the title can be taken to mean "since 1970", and aerosols are an important part of why warming didn't happen sooner. I mean, if length weren't an issue I'd title the section "factors in the equation that explains annualized global surface temperature since the industrial revolution". But since length matters, I don't have a better idea than what's there now. Efbrazil (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Information about oceans and ocean acidification in the lead?
I feel that the topic of oceans is underrepresented in the lead and wonder if we could add one sentence about the effects of climate change on oceans? I see that the issue of ocean acidification is framed in the lead and in the main text as "just" a "long term issue". I think this is misleading as those changes are already happening now and are having an impact. Also, there is so much more to oceans than just warming and a lowering pH value. The first sentence of the article effects of climate change on oceans will be too long but I am just adding it here to show that there are so many effects on the ocean. I think this needs to come out more clearly, in the lead and in the main text: There are many significant effects of climate change on oceans including: an increase in sea surface temperature as well as ocean temperatures at greater depths, more frequent marine heatwaves, a reduction in pH value, a rise in sea level from ocean warming and ice sheet melting, sea ice decline in the Arctic, increased upper ocean stratification, reductions in oxygen levels, increased contrasts in salinity (salty areas becoming saltier and fresher areas becoming less salty), changes to ocean currents including a weakening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, and stronger tropical cyclones and monsoons. EMsmile (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I have changed "more acidic ocean water" to "reducing pH value" in the lead as we are still a long way off from having a pH less than 7, so it's not acidic yet but a lower pH than before. I think it would be good to mention the technical term - ocean acidification - in the lead once, instead of just wikilinking to it behind "more acidic" or "lower pH value"? I know it's a "complicated word" but it might need to be introduced. EMsmile (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Though difficult to measure the exact amount of carbon stored by the world’s oceans, these bodies of water which occupy 71% of the planet are estimated to hold fifty times the amount of carbon as the atmosphere." https://oceanblueproject.org/carbon-dioxide-in-the-ocean/ Anyone who has opened a can of warm soda pop knows that carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm water than cold. Indeed, carbon dioxide solubility drops by approximately 1/2 between zero and 20 degrees centigrade. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html So, as the Earth warms, we should expect a higher atmospheric carbon dioxide partial pressure. Thus, there is a solid reason for increased carbon dioxide as a result of warmer oceans. Next, the James Webb telescope had to be put in space not because of carbon dioxide, but because of water vapor. Let me be clear, water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide absorbs a very small fraction of the heat that water vapor does. As the oceans warm, the major effect is from the increased water vapor in the atmosphere and anyone who has boiled water should know that the partial pressure of water vapor is first equal to one atmosphere at 100 degrees centigrade, there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere. Archaic carbon dioxide, many centuries old, is released due to ocean currents mixing deep water with shallow water in our oceans. If someone assumes that carbon dioxide causes climate change and then looks at the data, it will just confuse them. Consider what an actual researcher says “At the beginning, we thought the important aspect was the increase in atmospheric CO2,” says Le Quéré. “And now, I think the changes in ocean physics [mixing] are very important as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the changes in marine ecosystems become equally important, but we just haven’t seen this yet.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon Spurious correlation is when two things are correlated but causally related through a third variable. The proponents of the carbon dioxide causes global warming theory would have to first discount their being linked by water temperature. For example, eating ice-cream at the beach does not cause drowning, as people tend to both eat ice cream and go swimming when it gets warmer. Similarly, the proponents of the carbon dioxide causes global warming theory do need to pay attention to water vapor, and warm ocean water, and so far, the omission is glaring. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have several sub-articles that go into great depth on the topic of climate change and oceans. See ocean acidification which I've recently done a major revision on. Also effects of climate change on oceans is a good article (which needs further work). There's also ocean heat content. I do agree with you that a bit more content about oceans would be good for this main article as well. Currently it's only mentioned in the context of long-term changes. But to be successful with this proposal, we'd have to suggest some specific sentences in specific places of the article and get buy-in / consensus from the other editors. EMsmile (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I don't know how, or where to begin. The absorption spectrum for heat for carbon dioxide just doesn't seem to make that much of a difference compared to water. See for yourself, carbon dioxide: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC Water: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
 * Putting them together with actual absorption of sunlight in the atmosphere, and notice that there is only one small blip for CO2, and lots more for H2O at least on the plot in here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/728286-smoky-day-solar-observing/ That is, there is physical reasoning that agrees with increased CO2 levels being a symptom of global warming, but I can't think of any reason that reducing CO2 by twice would reduce global warming beyond say 10%, if that much. Can anyone give a physical reason why it should do that, as in, am I missing something? All guesses welcome, if they come attached with some physical argument. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the things that oceans do is to liberate water vapor and CO2 when they warm up, in fact, it is a major effect. This impacts on cloud coverage, and global warming, but there is too little information on this for the brief time period in question to contribute much to the discussion. In specific, there is no good evidence for desertification on a global scale, if anything, and despite the assumptions here, increased cloud coverage lowers daytime temperatures and increases night time temperatures leading to less violent weather (which is what the data shows), not more violent weather. High humidity and CO2 would reduce desert size, which again is shown only weakly in the data, because the time period under discussion is very short, for example, an ice-core sample has a maximally short resolution of about 90 years. Summing it up, although we have significant data for a short period of climate change for temperature and CO2, we don't have much else. Example, desertification of the Sahara 5000 years ago has a different origin (less sunlight and moisture due to Earth's precession) than desertification globally today, and those ideas are jumbled up as if they were the same thing in the text. To quote, "After the Earth's tilt changed, the monsoons decreased and the vegetation began to disappear. When there were no plants to retain water and release it back into the atmosphere, the rain progressively decreased. The resulting feedback loop between plant life and climate eventually created the current desert conditions." https://www.space.com/10527-earth-orbit-shaped-sahara.html 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Burning wood and climate change
I am surprised that this article Climate change does not contain the word "wood" (nor does Attribution of recent climate change; I haven't checked other subarticles). As a reader, I have some questions about wood and climate change that the article doesn't answer: Here are some recent sources about climate change and wood that I've read, though these are mostly "pop" sources, not hard science: NRDC, Guardian, Chatham House, New Yorker. Anyway, I'm not familiar with either the science, or the history of the development of this article. Is there a reason wood isn't mentioned in the article? Should it be? Has this been discussed before, am I unknowingly beating a dead horse? Thanks, Levivich (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Does burning wood contribute to climate change, and if so, is it a significant contributor?
 * With respect to climate change, is there a difference between: individuals in developing countries burning wood for heat and fuel out of necessity; individuals in developed countries burning wood for recreation (e.g., campfires, the fireplaces in rich people's homes that that aren't actually used to heat the house); other uses of wood burning?
 * Is switching from fossil fuels to burning wood better?
 * What about burning wood and deforestation? (Presumably, switching from fossil fuels to burning wood would increase deforestation?)
 * Alternatively, is "burning wood causes climate change" disinformation from the fossil fuel industry?


 * Not an expert but as far as I know your fourth bullet point - about burning wood and deforestation - is the important one so that is why “forest” and related words are mentioned a lot in the article.
 * Your point about burning fossil fuel versus wood is also an interesting one. This may be relevant in some of the “Climate change in country X” articles where poor rural people are being given gas stoves https://www.ifp.co.in/manipur/160-bpl-families-get-lpg-cylinders-stoves-consumer-cards-under-pmuy If you can find an academic study for a particular country you could consider editing one of those articles. My guess is that it would not make much difference one way or the other to climate change (but would be very good for health) - but maybe you can prove me wrong by finding a study which says that it has (or would) saved a lot of forest. Climate change in Madagascar?
 * Also if you can improve the Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage article that would be great. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Deforestation and climate change is also in need of good editors like yourself Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I just realized that you yourself may be the "individual in a developed country". Your burning wood is insignificant for climate change - but consider your health, neighbours etc. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists did a special issue this year aptly titled, "Special issue: Replacing fossil fuel with wood—a burning question". Some excerpts from the Chatham House study I linked above : Here's a 2015 paper from Ecological Economics, titled , abstract:  There appears to be some scholarly debate here, and I was surprised it's not covered at all in our top-level article on climate change. I guess I'll keep reading and see if I can put together something about it. Levivich (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I am not sure if this content needs to be included in this high-level article (maybe) but very likely it needs to find its way somehow into the greenhouse gas emissions article. Perhaps there is already something at carbon neutrality and sustainable energy about it, too. Another one could be climate change mitigation. My experience is that nearly any topic is covered somewhere in Wikipedia already but often not in the articles where I first search for it. If we identify the main place where it would fit we could then expand & update it there and then briefly link to it from other climate change articles. EMsmile (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct: Biomass :-) That section could probably be spun out into its own article. And I think the first paragraph of that section summarizes it well, and could be a guide for updating the paragraph about bioenergy in the climate change mitigation article. And a condensed version of that paragraph, like a sentence or two, might be added somewhere to this article. Levivich (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

AI Tool to Help Create Text
Experimenting with ChatGBT (https://chat.openai.com/chat), and asked it “What is climate change?” It gave this response: “Climate change is the long-term alteration of temperature and weather patterns in the Earth's atmosphere. It is primarily caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, into the atmosphere, which trap heat and cause global temperatures to rise. This can lead to a variety of impacts, such as more extreme weather events, sea level rise, and changes in the distribution of species.” I thought this was a pretty good response. Seems like a useful tool to check if you are trying to say something in plain English. You can repeat the question, and it will usually give you a slightly different response - just to get a feel for different ways of expressing a concept. Dtetta (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Well I'm really impressed. That may be a good tool to get the level of a language further down :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Mention inequity between polluters and pollutees in the lead
I was reading this today:

...and then I read our article about climate change and was surprised that this point wasn't in the lead, and is instead mentioned further down in the body:

I think the inequity between those causing climate change and those suffering from it is an important-enough aspect of the topic to be in the first paragraph of the lead, or at least somewhere in the lead. What do others think? Levivich (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally agree: I think it's a good idea to add a sentence to what's now the second paragraph, which focuses on effects of climate change. The sentence could include an explicit reference or internal link to climate justice, given the theme of COP27. — RCraig09 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this suggestion. I anyway think that the lead is on the short side (currently 447 words). My personal preference would be for a slightly longer lead, up to 600 words is my gut feeling. The issues of "per capita emissions", and links between emissions and wealth/overconsumption are important. (does anyone want to head over to the climate change mitigation article which is in dire need of improvement and where we are grappling with similar issues? See the chapter on "demand"). EMsmile (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead, not just its first paragraph, is about 500 words. Many discussions here have focused on keeping its length in check. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree The second paragraph is too long already (139 words, whereas an easy-to-understand paragraph is roughly 50–100 words), but the third paragraph has space left and already talks about the geopolitics (Paris agreement), so is the more logical space. Putting it in the first paragraph would require a restructuring of the lead, which I'm not that keen on, but I'm not against it in principle. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditionally agree based on editing the third paragraph, but I want to see the text proposed here on the talk page before the edit happens. That paragraph should also be updated to talk about Cop 27 (and maybe less about Paris) so it appears more up to date. I'd also want the edits to explain the issue in plain language and avoid off putting ideological buzz words like climate justice, reparations, people of color, disproportionality, and so on. Efbrazil (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think COP27 will really survive the 10-year test; I don't see evidence of lasting importance from the current news cycles. What about copying the existing text to the lead? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with copying the existing body sentence, "Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change have typically been responsible for a small share of global emissions", to the lead. The body text links "vulnerable to climate change" to Climate change vulnerability. I think it'd be great if we could also work in a link to Climate justice. Maybe like this: ? Levivich (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The current third paragraph reads like it was authored in 2015 and then never updated. Shouldn't we have a way to talk about the latest commitments? I don't care if we say Cop27 or just link to it, but it seems like we should say something like "as of 2022, blah blah blah". Efbrazil (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I've added a local-edit quote box per Efbrazil's suggestion. I'm still thinking that despite its length the second paragraph is a better destination for equity-related content, but it's not a strong opinion. I agree with Efbrazil to avoid preachiness, though an internal link to Climate justice is OK. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't understand the numbered approach, so I just removed the numbers from the box. Feel free to add that back with an explanation.
 * Regarding the text, I think we need to explain the basis for vulnerability. It's not a geographic quirk or an example of white liberals feeling guilty, it's about whether a country has sufficient wealth to adapt. I understand there are island nations that are particularly screwed due to geography, but that's really a separate issue. For instance, Miami beach is similarly screwed, but we don't seek justice for the people that live there. Similarly, with water access we aren't worried about the plight of oil rich countries with desalination plants.
 * We mention adaptation in the fourth paragraph now, so that's awkward. We really need to mention adaptation before we mention how countries have differing abilities to adapt.
 * To resolve all that, I restructured the intro to add a paragraph for humans, which seems major, but it's really just moving sentences around. Hopefully everyone loves the idea and I didn't just open a can of worms :) Efbrazil (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On first read and without having done a side by side comparison, I think this new lead rearrangement is an improvement over the current lead--thanks. (Btw in case anyone might find it useful: textdiff.) Levivich (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto, Levivich's 23:29 first sentence. As I understand it, Efbrazil's proposed changes look large but appear to involve adding one single sentence while re-arranging existing content, an idea I agree with. I like the separation of physical versus human effects along the lines in this graphic. (I had inserted numbers 1.___ 2.___ 3.___ anticipating alternative individual sentences, but that seems unnecessary now.) — RCraig09 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good (I want to lodge another protest against this sandboxing, I find it difficult to follow what's changed).
 * A risk of a 5-paragraph lead is that it expands beyond 500 words in the future. Let's all ensure that this does not happen. We've done too much to improve readability to throw that away by increasing text length. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is the textdiff of the current and proposed lead. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that helps Levivich! I think the sandboxing thing Craig started was good for what he did (one entirely new sentence). I shouldn't have stuffed my proposal into the sandbox, because it was a much larger edit, and this difftext template helps make it a lot more clear.
 * I think the comment box can be good for driving consensus sometimes. It removes the ownership aspect over text, helps make the proposal stand out to new visitors, and means minor edits like typo fixes can be made without a huge bloat to the comment thread. I agree I misused it here, but it's good sometimes.
 * I agree on limiting text growth going forward. I think we have sufficient consensus here so I'll go ahead with the edit. Efbrazil (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the new organization is an improvement, as for years it seems we've been perfecting the trees but neglecting the forest. :-) That is why the large-sandbox use was not a misuse in this case. I favor sandbox edits on Talk Pages since several editors can see the most recent "clean" version; I think edit histories are less important in these preliminary discussions and can obscure what's important. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * + Of course, I agree in principle with restricting lead lengths. However, I think most lay readers won't go much beyond the lead (except for "looking at the pictures" perhaps), so it's important to be more ~complete in the lead about what's possibly the most important article on Wikipedia. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not even a bad thing, that readers only read leads or that editors should spend a ton of time on perfecting leads. An accurate, up-to-date summary of "climate change" (or any important topic) that can be read in 5-10 minutes and is easily accessible by everyone in the world, is extremely useful, and far more-so than the version that takes 30-60 minutes to read. We are mortal and life is short, so leads matter. Levivich (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Has this discussion been resolved and resulted in the expected changes in the article's lead or are there still any loose ends on this? And I agree with you, Levivich, that the leads are super important and should be a "low hanging" fruit for many Wikipedia editors. Sadly, they are often only tackled as an afterthought (not for this article but for many other climate change related articles that I've seen). EMsmile (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's resolved--thanks, everyone! Levivich (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not happy with these changes, and made a new section in talk page below. Bogazicili (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Overcitation
@Crescent77: Can you fix the WP:overcitation of the sentences that attribute global dimming and double check that they're all about this episode? You added one source about the more recent slowdown of global warming. This isn't really controversial, so should not have more than two citations. I'm not going to check all of them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This does seem to be controversial, since folks are reverting changes I attempted to make for clarity, back to a version that most definitely had uncited and innacurate information.


 * Read the last one, it has a good summation. Crescent77 (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but I would also be remiss not to mention that it is not solely your job to check all references. It is extemely inappropriate to remove material simply because you do not have the time to do so. As discussed before, let's not get caught up in issues of ownership.


 * And I would also mention that if you have issues with the description of the causes of Global Dimming, you should look at that page, and the associate references. It is linked in the passage and provides a very different set of wording from the one you're holding on to. Crescent77 (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason we should not have any overcitation in an FA is that others can't verify the text within reasonable time. It doesn't matter whether it's me or others who does the verifying, but ideally somebody should do this for each edit made on this controversial FA.
 * I don't really care what the text says, as long as it is supported by one or two high-quality citations. The last citation says that volcanic aerosols are underdiscussed in the attribution of global dimming, not that they are a plausible cause. Do you have a better source? Preferably a recent peer-reviewed review? Note that featured articles should have high-quality reliable sources, which typically means those complying with WP:SCIRS for science articles. A scientistwarning post falls below that imo.
 * Why did you put back the source about the early-21st century global warming slowdown? It's about a different period altogether. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I replaced the source in error. My focus was on the wording of the passage, and as you had indicated that you removed it without fully checking the sources, I figured a straight revert was in order. Again, my apologies if I was in error. I do agree with thinning references, I would just like to better understand your point of contention before we do so.


 * First of all, I do agree with WP:SCIRS in general, but in this case I don't see this article as purely a science article, this is a general news article. It's not like particle physics or astronomy, where someone with some level of personal interest is looking for info, this a topic that has some level of interest to all of humanity, including some folks whose interest is the sole result of governmental "intrusions" on their personal life and personal economy, and we need to present the information in a way that all can understand. I do think you generally agree with that (perhaps from a much different perspective?) but you're putting us in a Catch-22. You want clear concise common language summaries, but you want rather technical references, and a very minimum number of such. That's very hard to reconcile on such a broad topic. Continuing... Crescent77 (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The specific sentence I modified referenced global dimming in general, so I made the change with the belief we should be giving the reader a general understanding of the causes of global dimming (the "phenomenon", though much reduced, did not end in '90). "...biofuels" is not it; that's the wording (and related soucing) that caught my eye and provoked my change. I'm not saying I provided a brilliant alternative, but I do believe it was an improvement. Continuing ... Crescent77 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My main point of contention is source quality and quantity.
 * WP:SCIRS allows you to side a lay source as a supplementary for a high quality source (and note that some high quality sources are written accessibly). This part of the article falls squarely within the remit of WP:SCIRS, I don't think there's any avoiding of it. Ideally, the lay sources should be about decent quality to: a recent explanation on the NASA website is preferred over a press release, which may exaggerate the novelty of new work.
 * I based the text on this quote The most plausible explanation for global dimming is increased atmospheric aerosol loading derived from anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and biomass, from, the second cited source. Many of the newly cited sources do not make any claim about attribution, at least within the categories of pollution. For instance, the 2021 press release only states that aerosols (likely human) rather than natural cloud cover was the cause, but does not delve into the source of these results. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much improved.

Just to revent my general point of frustration on the work on these pages, please stop protecting crap passages. The previous version you insisted on returning to multiple times was innaccurate with poor sourcing. Based on my interactions with you which seem to indicate you are very proficient editor who generally ensures high quality material, it thouroughly befuddled me that you would do so. It really comes across as a knee jersey reaction against progress.

Are you using WP:SCIRS as your justification to do so? WP:SCIRS is an opinion essay. For you to suggest that you "don't think there's any avoiding of it" speaks to the issues with the methodology that produced much of the readability issues on these climate change pages. I did intend to finish my last comment with one more general discussion related to this and how we're handling these pages, but I got pulled into other activities. I will try to do so as I have time, likely on your talk page.

Anyways, as to the specific passage, I might even go simpler : "Global Dimming is generally attributed to the burning of fossil fuels and biomass." For the time being, until someone has more time to review the literature. There's more to the story here, I would suggest you take a closer look, if for nothing more than your own personal understanding.

Crescent77 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason we use that essay is because it is the de facto definition of high quality reliable source from the featured article criteria. A mostly unwritten rule unfortunately. Only when an article reaches featured status, are the sourcing requirements this stringent.
 * I still don't understand what was wrong with the initial wording and sourcing, apart from the fact the sentence was too long (sorry if I'm being dense). The second source, the one I quoted above, is peer-reviewed in a good journal, and seems to support the old text well. The old text was: "typically attributed to aerosols from biofuel and fossil fuel burning". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , are you adding volcanic eruption thing solely from solely from the Scientific American article, which is kinda like a newspaper article? . In a very brief glance, adding everything together like that seems like WP:SYNTHESIS. If latest studies talk about the impact of volcanic eruption, that could be presented in a new sentence. And in general, secondary sources are preferred, rather than primary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "some impacts are unavoidable"?
Again, was absent for some time and not happy with the changes to the lead last month

Previous version:

Current version:

This is what the source says:

The current wording could be a misrepresentation of the source. At best it's super vague. What impacts are unavoidable? There is no reference to mitigation in that paragraph (reducing emissions is only mentioned later).

The current wording sounds like what interest groups that lobby against action to mitigate climate change might say (oh it's unavoidable anyway, why bother).

The lead is already short, it wouldn't hurt to add few more words and explain the issue clearly: mitigation is needed; without mitigation, adaptation cannot avert "severe, widespread, irreversible" impacts. Bogazicili (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's my suggestion for that sentence:


 * {| style="background:silver; color: black"

Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but risk of widespread, severe, and permanent global impacts are unavoidable without reducing emissions.
 * }Bogazicili (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing this. We do not want to add words unless it is essential, and this new sentence is too long for readability, plus I don't see the value in all those extra words. By the time this sentence comes up we have just spent 2 paragraphs enumerating all the impacts, so saying they are widespread, severe, and permanent is redundant. It's also redundant to say "without reducing emissions", because that's clear from the context- we are talking about impacts from climate change, and have just said climate change is caused by emissions. Efbrazil (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'm not surprised at your answer given your past comments with pro-fossil fuel bias (also edit war in Sustainable energy).
 * I disagree the sentence is too long for readability. Maybe you can deduce certain stuff from the context, since you've been editing this article for years, but Wikipedia is directed towards the general public. Some could be first time readers of the article.
 * "without reducing emissions" is needed, since we already have "Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries" in a previous paragraph. So the current wording is misleading, as it ignores mitigation and it ignores the fact that a lot of impacts are indeed avoidable. That paragraph also makes it sound adaptation is the only option, and seems to downplay the effects of adaptation without mitigation Bogazicili (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bogazicili: a reminder to WP:Focus on content, not on the contributor. I don't think it's helpful to bring up an old edit war —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, I suggest we use AR6 as a source for this, not AR5 (might as well update the ref while we are at it). As an aside, I added today similar content to the article on climate change mitigation in a section on co-benefits with climate change adaptation. In addition, I am currently involved with improving the article on climate change adaptation together with content expert User:Richarit - and we'd love for more editors to join us there, it's a bit lonely there so far. Just saying in case someone has time and interest in adaptation aspects. EMsmile (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

, we can switch to AR6. Updating the source would be an added benefit to changing the wording. Also the lead needs a link to climate change mitigation. Here are relevant quotes from AR6:

WG 2, p. 43:

WG 2, p. 2504:

WG 2, p. 63:

WG 2 p: 1108

So here's the updated suggestion, with link to climate change mitigation:

"Communities may adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning, but severe impacts may be unavoidable without limiting warning (WG 2, p. 2504; p. 63; p. 1108; p. 43)." Bogazicili (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those sources, that is good to work off of. I'd like to avoid "may" wherever possible though. Saying "may be unavoidable" is the same as "could be unavoidable", which is so weak as to be meaningless (anything *could* happen). It is best to be declarative and precise if possible.

I looked at wording things in a more precise way, but then there is a run on sentence. I think reorganizing the paragraph is for the best. This is what I came up with:

Rationale: Efbrazil (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Adds "partly" to the adaptation sentence, to clarify adaptation can't be total
 * Tightened up poorer countries sentence to read better and use less words
 * Adds precise wording "If mitigation targets are passed human and natural systems will increasingly break down" to match up with the AR6 text that says "The maintenance and recovery of natural and human systems will require the achievement of mitigation targets."
 * Reorders things to end with human migration and conflict, which naturally follows from the explanation that poorer countries are disproportionately impacted and that human and natural systems break down
 * I don't have specific comments on the changes mentioned above but looking at this paragraph again, I have the following observations:


 * I'm finding it a bit odd that these particular two examples are chosen as examples for adaptation efforts: "through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning". Is access to air conditioning really a good example for the big range of adaptation options? If we need to pick two examples, let's pick two that also have mitigation benefits, not one that'll make GHG emissions worse? Actually, it might be better to not pick any particular examples as this makes adaptation seem too simplistic. In the climate change adaptation article's lead we wrote "Adaptation actions can be grouped into four categories: Infrastructural and technological options, institutional, behavioural and cultural; and nature-based options." Could we use something from that wording?
 * Regarding this sentence: "Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity" again I am finding this too simplistic. Food insecurity and water scarcity are caused by so many factors. Mainly overpopulation, mismanagement and lack of foresight. When you add climate change to the mix it makes things worse but CC is not the prime cause of the problem. So I think we should say "CC contributes to food insecurity and regional water scarcity" or "makes them worse" but not "threaten with". Also, it might be better to link to water security, not to water scarcity as it's the broader issue. - For more background on a tendency of putting too much emphasis on the role of CC on food prices, see also this talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022%E2%80%932023_food_crises#Balance_of_content_on_%22Causes%22 EMsmile (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the suggestion. My comments in response to that and to 's comments are below:
 * 1) There is no good logical order in Efbrazil's suggestion. If mitigation targets are passed, yes human and natural systems will increasingly break down. But migration and conflict are not the only consequences of those. It'll also make food and water scarcity, flooding, heatwaves etc worse. So I don't like that migration and conflict part is moved down and is separate from the first sentence.
 * 2) Unlike previous versions of the lead, we haven't defined the word mitigation in the lead. And I think people thought it was too technical.
 * 3) I like the word "partly" added to adaptation.
 * 4) "if mitigation targets are passed" sounds awkward
 * 5) "Poorer countries" sounds awkward
 * 6) No source for poorer countries "have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change"
 * 7) Not all communities may adapt, including rich ones
 * WG2, p 2250
 * {| style="background:silver; color: black"

There is low confidence that the Mediterranean region can adapt to rapid sea level rise for the case of rapid Antarctic ice-sheets collapse, even in regions with high capabilities to adapt, such as the northwest Mediterranean (Poumadère et al., 2008).
 * }
 * 8) EMsmile's comments also make sense.


 * Given the source:


 * Wg2 p 19


 * {| style="background:silver; color: black"

If global warming transiently exceeds 1.5°C in the coming decades or later (overshoot)37, then many human and natural systems will face additional severe risks, compared to remaining below 1.5°C (high confidence). Depending on the magnitude and duration of overshoot, some impacts will cause release of additional greenhouse gases (medium confidence) and some will be irreversible, even if global warming is reduced (high confidence). (Box SPM.1, Figure SPM.3) {2.5, 3.4, 12.3, 16.6, CCB DEEP, CCB SLR}
 * }


 * So here's my suggestion:


 * {| style="background:yellow; color: black"

Climate change threatens people with increased food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Some communities may partly adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning [there might be better examples here], but some impacts are unavoidable natural and human systems will experience severe risks without limiting warming [Wg2 p 19]. Poorer Lower-income countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change [needs source].
 * }


 * Or, fixing the run on sentence:


 * {| style="background:yellow; color: black"

Climate change threatens people with increased food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result.[sources] The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[sources] Natural and human systems will experience severe risks without limiting warming [Wg2 p 19], but some communities may partly adapt to climate change through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning [there might be better examples here]. but some impacts are unavoidable. Poorer Lower-income countries are responsible for a small share of global emissions, yet they have the least ability to adapt and are most vulnerable to climate change [needs source].
 * } Bogazicili (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Second version works for me! The need for sourcing the lede is iffy, we started by just sourcing the controversial statements. The last statement can be sourced if you think it is necessary, although I wouldn't require that for going live with the text. Efbrazil (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad we could come to an agreement quickly! Bogazicili (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Adaptation images (cnt from above)
(I copied EMsmile's message from above, as it pertains to two separate topics) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would find "farm water management" too unclear and niche but the paragraph that you pointed out is very interesting, putting the emphasis on water-related risks. It would be good to included something short on that somehow. And I have now copied here in the talk page the 4-image collage that we used for the lead in the climate change adaptation article. This is quite well balanced, I think (took us a long time to agree on). Is there a possibility to integrate these images, or some of them, into the climate change article in the section on adaptation? Currently the article does not have a single image on adaptation. Maybe they could be added like those image galleries that we have for "impacts on the environment" and "impacts on people"? EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the top left pic of reforestation would be best as it shows people more obviously Chidgk1 (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My proposal would be to add all 4 in a horizontal picture gallery like we have it in the section on "impacts on the environment", in order to show that adaptation can be about all sorts of things. But if that's regarded as too much then at least one out of those four images would be good (but makes it hard which one to choose to be somewhat "representative" of adaptation efforts). EMsmile (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be great to have images of adaptation in the section. The article in general has too many images, so wouldn't support four, but I am happy with one or two. The horizontal picture gallery to me looks highly unprofessional and breaks up the article, so I would be strongly opposed exacerbating that problem. They have a proposal about which images to cut to improve the balance between text and figures?
 * I think the sea wall and green roofs examples are good (that is, without the complication in the caption of a different climatic effect). The green roofs one feels a bit of a priviliged solution possibly, can we show shade from trees in a normal street instead, possibly somewhere in Asia or South America?
 * Having fewer images also allow others to have a few extra words per image on why it is adaptation. To me it is not clear directly why reforestation is a form of adaptation. I think the selective breeding image may not actually be about selective breeding (it seems to be against cross pollination), and it is unclear what is shown, so that should not feature in the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * “reforestation” in the caption could be changed to “mangrove planting” to make it clearer Chidgk1 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, you are both right I think - mangroves also work as a buffer against storms and provide nurseries for fish and I think the final one is not actually about selective breeding. Maybe the top two images would be sufficient (?) Richarit (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback on these photos! I checked in the talk page archive of climate change adaptation, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_adaptation/Archive_1#Is_the_image_in_the_lead_really_ideal? We had a looong discussion about these four images in May 2021. I think now is a good time to revisit that and to optimise it:

I've boldly added 3 images to the article now (in the conventional format, i.e. below each other on the right handside): mangrove planting, sea wall and green roofs. It happens to fit nicely with the new skin layout, at least on my screen. But perhaps 3 are too many, do we need to take one out?EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The third image was meant to show selective breeding of drought resistant crops. Although the image caption in Commons doesn't say this exactly. It says: "Pearl millet seed production plots at ICRISAT (Patancheru, Hyderabad (AP), India), the panicles covered in parchment paper bags to ensure self-pollination in this normally mainly cross-pollinating crop (February 2013)." So perhaps this image is not great as it takes too much explaining?
 * The first image with the mangroves has as its original caption: "USAID is backing a mangrove planting activity as part of a climate change Adaptation Strategy in the Philippines municipalities of Quilitisan, Calatagan and Batangas. Photo credit: Jessie F. Delos Reyes". So I've replaced reforestation with mangrove planting now.
 * For the green roofs we could change the caption to "green roofs to provide cooling in cities"? It's true that green roofs might still be a bit niche, but perhaps it's nice to show something innovative. Just showing a street lined with trees would look very "normal" (e.g. Brisbane has a lot urban trees from way back but they were not planted for adaptation - they are just coming in handy now) EMsmile (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy with 3 images too. I think the green roof one can be croppoed to be horizontal and fit nicely still. drought-resistant crops :: are better explained in text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments on the adaptation content in the lead

 * Some further comments on this section (I was referred here by User:EMsmile):
 * "Human migration and conflict can also be a result." I think that is more of an argument/topic of research still, rather than a documented result, and it would be difficult to find sources, especially for conflict but also for migration (depending what is meant by migration, ie. displacement and forced migration). I think the evidence is probably not clear enough for it to sit in this para ?
 * "The capacity and potential for humans to adapt.." uses a very old source and does not cite any source showing AC is increasing. This needs further investigation (could we look at ND-GAIN)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richarit (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Natural and human systems will experience severe risks without limiting warming" I think it is important to get the message across that that adaptation is the main way of tackling climate risks, both for current risks as well as for the next 20 years (with strong emission cuts, only after 20 years we could clearly see the effect on global temperature). So I think in this section it indeed needs to be stated that communities are adapting and the main things that they are doing...
 * 'Adaptation to sea level rise ..' leading paragraph two looks a bit odd. Adapting to shifting rainfall patterns/seasonal cycles and drought conditions has been much more widespread (and probably more important to mention here). The next most documented hazards that people are responding to are heat and flooding (ch17 AR6) SLR is lower down the list.
 * It is correct and not controversial to say that 'some impacts are unavoidable' This comes into the discussion of adaptation limits in AR6. Richarit (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , this paragraph talks about both near or long term. Migration and conflict is in AR WG2, p. 15:
 * {| style="background:lightgray; color: black"

In the mid- to long-term, displacement will increase with intensification of heavy precipitation and associated flooding, tropical cyclones, drought and, increasingly, sea level rise (high confidence). At progressive levels of warming, involuntary migration from regions with high exposure and low adaptive capacity would occur (medium confidence). Compared to other socioeconomic factors the influence of climate on conflict is assessed as relatively weak (high confidence). Along long-term socioeconomic pathways that reduce non-climatic drivers, risk of violent conflict would decline (medium confidence). At higher global warming levels, impacts of weather and climate extremes, particularly drought, by increasing vulnerability will increasingly affect violent intrastate conflict (medium confidence). {TS B.7.4, 7.3, 16.5, CCB MIGRATE }
 * }
 * The fact that severe impacts will happen without limiting warming needs to come across in this paragraph. We can amend the sentence about adaptation for its importance in the short term. Bogazicili (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Bogazicili. I see. But I didn't get that you were taking about modelling results in this passage. I think that could be made clearer (because there is not strong observed evidence).
 * I think it would be better to say "Displacement and migration can be a result" or "Disasters and displacement can be triggered as a result" and leave out conflict because the evidence is still weak and we should probably still be sceptical of the long-term scenarios (?)
 * [near term (2021–2040), mid-term (2041–2060), and long term (2081–2100) out to the year 2300]
 * Migration is an example of a 'cross-border risk' that also includes trade links, transboundary natural resources, etc. I don't know if that could be mentioned.
 * "Severe impacts will happen without limiting warming .. " agree but can we write this more understandably? Howabout this:
 * "More severe impacts in future can be expected if climate change mitigation actions (cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or enhanced removal of these gases through carbon sinks) are not deep enough or fast enough. The needs for climate change adaptation, which is the main way of responding to climate impact risks, will be also be greater." BTW I would not qualify this statement to say adaptation will be important 'only' in the short term, because changes are expected to continue to happen in the long term (eg. SLR) as warming continues. Richarit (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , this paragraph is in the lead, so we have space and word count limitations. This is not in the body of the article. The word "mitigation" has not been introduced yet, and the previous discussions were that it was too technical for the lead I believe.
 * "will increasingly affect violent intrastate conflict (medium confidence)" in AR6 doesn't sound weak evidence to me? Again, this paragraph talks about future impacts of climate change with varying levels of warming.
 * Another WG2 quote, p. 53:
 * {| style="background:lightgray; color: black"

TS.B.7.4 Climate variability and extremes are associated with more prolonged conflict through food price spikes, food and water insecurity, loss of income and loss of livelihoods (high confidence), with more consistent evidence for low intensity organised violence within countries than for major or international armed conflict (medium confidence). .... There is insufficient evidence at present to attribute armed conflict to human-induced climate change.
 * }
 * Currently, we are saying "Human migration and conflict can also be a result". I think this seems to be accurate, we aren't saying armed conflict between states.
 * As for the other sentence and adaptation being the "main way of responding to climate impact risks", you will need a source. How about:
 * {| style="background:yellow; color: black"

Societies and ecosystems will experience more severe risks in the future without without limiting warming.[Wg2 p 19] Adapting to climate change through efforts like [example 1] or [example 2] reduces climate change risks, although this may not be possible with increasing warming.[WG 2, p.21-26; p.2504]
 * } Bogazicili (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Could it be modified to say "Societies and ecosystems will experience more severe risks in the future without action to limit warming." so we can avoid saying mitigation but make it easier to understand that human action is needed? I like the rest of the suggested passage.
 * Re: "main way of responding to climate impact risks" I don't have a source for it now but we have a section on the CCA page about 'reducing risk factors' (which is based on Ar6 WGII ch 1). I recently proposed to rewrite the Purposes section to link it to the 3 elements of the Global Goal on adaptation - 'reduce vulnerability to climate change' that might work here because vulnerability is also already mentioned in the lead.
 * "Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss." Perhaps consider listing the climate-related hazards first (flooding, extreme heat) and then the impacts afterwards (food and water scarcity, more disease) as more logical ordering ? Richarit (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Horizontal picture galleries
Coming back to Femke's comment above: "The horizontal picture gallery to me looks highly unprofessional and breaks up the article" I think they are actually quite OK but if others also dislike them then perhaps now is a good time to change that (rather than adding a third horizontal picture gallery for adaptation images). What do you think of the layout where 2-3 images are put side by side, on the right handside? I've seen this from time to time, see e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Causes. If its just single images on the right side of the article, one below the other, it's a little bit hard to make sure they are seen as belonging together. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I favor including horizontal picture galleries where appropriate, for example to prevent graphics from overflowing into following sections. I don't think they're unprofessional if they're coordinated and relevant to the specific section. Especially in a general-audience encyclopedia: A picture is worth a thousand words, so galleries are actually efficient uses of space! :-) — RCraig09 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mind them (the two "Climate change impacts..." galleries) per se, and support RCraig09's post in general, and would be fine with a third gallery, but I do mind that they are set at 100% of the width—which for me is about three times the width of the images themselves in of my (admittedly very wide) browser window. I'd like to get a consensus to change them to just width of the images, please. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The main reason I find it unprofessional is how it looks in the new vector and how it looks on small screens. The images are spread over two lines, which means there is barely any text visible, so that's easy to loose the orientation of where you are in the article.
 * I still believe the gallery falls afoul of WP:GALLERY.
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean by changing them to do with of the images. Feel free to boldly try it out, and will see if anybody objects then. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I also have the new skin (was turned on for me automatically yesterday), I checked how the horizontal picture gallery looks. On my screen, the 5 horizontal images look fine. Maybe with other screen settings they don't? Either way, what about my suggestion to use thelayout where 2-3 images are put side by side, on the right handside? I've seen this from time to time, see e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Causes . EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3 images side-by-side poses clear accessibility issues (the line lenght becomes too small on smaller monitors). I've fixed it in the retreat of glaciers article. 2 images do to a lesser extent. I think it's fine to have them vertically; this is usually best in terms of accessibility, as multimage uses a fixed pixel size, which goes against WP:ACCIM.
 * You've not addressed the issue yet of describing why mangroves are adaptation in the article. Can you do that? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mangroves managed Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Femke, have the recent small edits in the article addressed your concern? I worded is as "reduced coastal flooding" in the caption, whereas Chidgk1 had called it "buffers storms". I am not sure if both wordings are correct. Perhaps User:Richarit can advise. Not sure if laypersons would understand what buffering of storms is meant to mean. EMsmile (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. May be good to get a cite for the caption too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * they can dampen storm energy ? Richarit (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the exact wording you would propose in the caption and in the text then (I'd say just go ahead and make the change in the article). I still wonder if it's clear for a layperson what "dampen storm energy" would mean - could we say it in other words still or give an example perhaps? EMsmile (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Models are software, they are not reality; and they guess at, rather than define, the future
The current text in the Modelling section of the article says things like:

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

I tried to fix this to:

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

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

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

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


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

Examples for adaptation options (lead and main text)

 * I suggest we either delete "through efforts like coastline protection or expanding access to air conditioning" or we come up with better wording. Using those particular two examples to explain what climate change adaptation is all about seems wrong to me (like I explained above). I think we can just stop here: "some communities may partly adapt to climate change". Or otherwise: "some communities may partly adapt to climate change through Infrastructural, institutional, behavioural or nature-based options." (or a shortened version of that). - Regarding sources in the lead, I think they are good to have (more and more), especially for leads that might be transcribed in future through the excerpt tool. EMsmile (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer giving examples, given that climate change adaptation is something people may not understand. The phrasing " Infrastructural, institutional, behavioural or nature-based options." is much too abstract for our audience (jargon) and too difficult (reading level). Note that leads in particular need to be understandable per WP:EXPLAINLEAD. I have similar quibbles with "natural and human systems". Maybe we can say "societies and ecosystems" instead? Second version is good otherwise. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair points but I think if we do give examples we have to select them very carefully to be at least somewhat representative globally. Access to aircon is something that is more achievable for wealthy people but not so much for the masses, who often don't even have access to electricity in rural areas of developing countries. How about instead of talking about aircon we talk about measures to reduce the urban heat island effects? And regarding sea level rise the wording “coastline protection” is also not that clear. Maybe we could say instead “construction of dams, dikes and by improving natural defenses” (I’ve taken this from the adaptation section of sea level rise). Overall the sentence could be: “through efforts like coastal management (for example construction of dams and dikes), or planting more urban trees and building green roofs to reduce the urban heat island effect.” Or if that’s too long make it: “through efforts like building dams or encouraging more urban trees and green roofs in urban areas.” EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Air conditioning is expected to grow to 5.6 billion units in 2050, making it quite a global solution. I'm okay to compromise though, and add information about increasing shade in cities. This can only be added to the lead after it has been added to the article. I must sound like a broken record, but terms like "urban heat island" and "coastal management" are jargon and do not belong in the lead. Furthermore, the urban heat island effect is a separate fact from global climate change, so not quite on topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The current wording of "coastline protection" is equally jargony as coastal management... Building dams and dykes is less jargon, I'd say. Yes, aircon is growing of course but it won't be accessible for a huge chunk of the world population (those without money and access to electricity, see energy poverty). Climate change contributes to hotter cities so measures that help with cooling would be adaptation measures. Interesting that air conditioning is mentioned 3 times in the article but methods for cooling cities are not yet mentioned (as far as I can see). Urban heat island is mentioned once in the article. It seems to me perhaps an over-emphasis on the role of air conditioning and not enough on green roofs etc. I might suggest to User:Richarit - who is currently improving the climate change adaptation article - to also take a little look at the section on "Adapting to a changing climate" in this article if that is OK (knowing that it's a highly optimised article already). EMsmile (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd hesitate to give air conditioning as an example for CCA. I think the picture gallery as below might be a good option to show readers what this could mean. Richarit (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is what WG2 says, p. 21 so maybe we can say "through efforts like additional flood control measures or farm water management". For the earlier sentence, I'm good with "societies and ecosystems" btw. Bogazicili (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would find "farm water management" too unclear and niche but the paragraph that you pointed out is very interesting, putting the emphasis on water-related risks. It would be good to included something short on that somehow. And I have now copied here in the talk page the 4-image collage that we used for the lead in the climate change adaptation article. This is quite well balanced, I think (took us a long time to agree on). Is there a possibility to integrate these images, or some of them, into the climate change article in the section on adaptation? Currently the article does not have a single image on adaptation. Maybe they could be added like those image galleries that we have for "impacts on the environment" and "impacts on people"? EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Richarit for joining the conversation! It seems there is consensus to remove air-conditioning from the lead, and to rephrase coastal protection as flood control. I agree with EMsmile that farmed water management is a vague word (management in general is a vague word). I'm okay with adding the word irrigation, after a statement on it is integrated into the main text (see WP:LEAD: significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article). We could use Bogazicili's source to add that. Adaptation is the only section that can still be expanded, so no need to remove anything else when adding info about irrigation. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm good with any example here, but I'd prefer to keep it short, because I'd also like to add something short about co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation in the 4th paragraph. I think the preference is for the lead to be less than 500 words. Co-benefits are in WG3. We can discuss this later though. Bogazicili (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Air conditioning is critical for adaptation in countries like India and Pakistan that have not traditionally had it, but for which future survival will increasingly demand it. The fact that AC runs counter to mitigation is a key reason to leave it in- to point out that we are creating a problem that demands even more energy to cope with in the future. Here is a good article on it Efbrazil (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. maybe aircon it is more prevalent than I thought as also mentioned quite a bit in AR6 WGII(ch7 p 1108). I would still worry that readers would not see the drawbacks and how it would be helpful to leave it in Richarit (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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


 * I like this suggestion. I would just suggest a couple of minor things
 * increased flooding, extreme heat, increased food and water scarcity, more disease and economic loss (logical to list the hazards before the impacts)
 * "without action to limit warning" is clearer
 * "Vulnerability differs within communities and across societies, regions and countries, and can change over time. (source: IPCC WG2 TS)" (it is not that relevant to mention historical emissions again in the last sentence)
 * Richarit (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


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


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

Sentence on "affecting oceans, ice, and weather"?
I was looking for a good summary sentence on the effects of climate change (to be used in the lead of effects of climate change). I then came across this sentence in our article which I find odd: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice, and weather.. I'm assuming that "ice" was added there instead of "cryosphere" but still the sentence is odd. At the very least, it should be introduced with "for example". When you look at the IPCC AR 6 WG I report chapters, I see there: Therefore, a better summary sentence could be The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting the water cycle, oceans, sea and land ice, sea level, weather and climate extreme events. EMsmile (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * CHAPTER 8: Water Cycle Changes
 * CHAPTER 9: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change
 * CHAPTER 11: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate


 * I'm not quite sure how to convert that into professional prose (without the very long enumeration). Maybe something like: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice on land and sea, and weather. Your proposal is a bit duplicative (both water cycle and weather/oceans, both weather and climate extreme events). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I like "ice on land and sea" better than just "ice", thanks. Why is a long-ish enumeration problematic, or let's ask this way: how many items in an enumeration are still acceptable? I am assuming that if the IPCC report has a dedicated chapter on "water cycle changes" (chapter 8) then this is sufficiently distinct from "weather changes" (chapter 11)? Similarly, if they say "weather and climate extreme events" then there must be a reason and they are not duplicating the same thing, or are they? Honest questions, I am a lay person on all this. EMsmile (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find a style guide, but I've always been taught that more than three items in a enumeration starts to become boring, and people skip over it. I think the reason is that Ch11 is about "weather extreme events" and "climate extreme events". Not sure, and climate extreme events is too ambiguous to be put in a Wikipedia article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Yes, of course I agree with #2. This is why Wikipedia is a tree of information where a high-level article (such as climate change) just touches on things, and then you have sub-articles, like effects of climate change for more detail. - Anyhow, coming back to the specific sentence. The sentence was The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice, and weather. My proposal is to change it to this which I think is actually clearer for lay persons: I am not a fan of gerunds in general (in this case: "affecting") as they are difficult to understand for non native English speakers.: The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle. This, in turn, affects other aspects of the climate system, for example the frequency of extreme weather events. I think my proposal is also more accurate while only being a little bit longer. If we are only allowed to have 3 items in a listing, then I think the three that I chose make the most sense: oceans, ice and water cycle. The other things (weather extremes) stem from that. EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with your Point #1 (I think; more or less). When I said "translate", I meant this to say "summarise in my own words" - more or less. Although not every statement/paragraph/chapter can easily be summarised; often they are already summaries of a lot of sources. Also, why challenge me to this - why don't we work on this as a collaborate effort rather? I have the feeling that overall you don't think the IPCC reports are all that suitable for our work here. I disagree with that. But I think we could just agree to disagree and move on. EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I do think the IPCC reports are suitable for our work here. My issue is that there seems to be a tendency to sole source the IPCC reports, specifically related to the use of their nuanced language in alot of the passages here, without appropriate context.
 * Anyways, as far as disagreement, you failed to address the point twice made related to the specific turn of phrase. "Extreme" can be an ambiguous term, better to avoid it in such sweeping statements.
 * As a side note, although we may have our disagreements, I do appreciate your work here. Crescent77 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's kind of you to say that! And I can say: likewise. :-) (would you like to add something to your user profile page? It puzzles me a bit why it's still in red) . Regarding extreme weather, well I would just add the wiklink to extreme weather so it's less ambiguous, isn't it? Our own Wikipedia article explains it like this "Extreme weather or extreme climate events includes unexpected, unusual, severe, or unseasonal weather; weather at the extremes of the historical distribution—the range that has been seen in the past." (interstingly, they are saying that extreme weather is the same as extreme climate events; as an aside, the Wikipedia article on extreme weather likely also needs some TLC (tender, love and care)... ). - Would it be OK to have the sentence like this then (without the third sentence that mentions extreme weather?): The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching. They affect oceans, ice on land and sea and the water cycle.. EMsmile (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Oppose. It has too much of an appearance of advocacy for the main climate change page, but I do think it would be appropriate for some of the sub pages. Crescent77 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point and agree Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * With wistful sadness, oppose for now. I'm the main editor of the Warming stripes article, and in ~2019 tried to give the diagrams some prominence here. Though stripe graphics have a definite place in science communication to public audiences, consensus was generally against featuring them prominently in this high level article where article space is at a premium. The reasoning, at least in part, was that they were "new"—non-"standard" and therefore requiring some explanation with each presentation—and by design don't portray quantitative data in the way many conventional line charts do. See, e.g., Talk:Climate change/Archive 77. Stripe graphics are in the IPCC's AR6 publication (see this figure and archive), so maybe their time will come here, as they are increasingly common in the literature. PS: they're not "advocacy" any more than any other graphic. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * hashtag showyourstripes : "Infiltrating popular culture is a means of triggering a change of attitude that will lead to mass action." Crescent77 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: stripe graphics are not inherently more "advocacy" than any other graphic—just perhaps more effective for portraying data to non-techies. The motives/goals of the people/organizations that use a graphic (stripes or line charts or bar charts ...) are distinct from the graphic itself. Line charts can just as easily be seen as alarmist. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Oppose. Climate stripes tell you absolutely nothing about how much warmer things have gotten or where, they are just designed to elicit alarmism. They don't belong in any scientific or educational materials. Efbrazil (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, they in fact do portray how much warmer things have gotten—they're just not indexed numerically (and purposely so: a public audience has little conception of what numerical indications like "+1.5 °C" would imply anyway). The stripes are presented alongside some context that explains location, time period, etc. The IPCC apparently finds them acceptable for use in prominent publications. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I trust the IPCC on the science, but not on graphic design. The best graphics work for everyone- they can be interpreted visually by newbies and have interesting data for people that know more. The IPCC regularly misses on both counts. Warming stripes would look exactly the same if the Earth was 50 degrees warmer or 0.5 degrees warmer. They are simplified to the point of being stupid (imho). Efbrazil (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * — Aw, c'mon, don't be a Graphics Grinch! The graphical distinction between stripe graphics and line charts etc., is that stripe graphics have less granularity in the dependent variable: ranges of the dependent variable are assigned to discrete colors. For global warming, warming stripes convey accelerated change the same way as the slope of a line chart. Stripe graphics are arguably a simple case of heat maps (consider File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg as being "alarmist").
 * — Separately, I don't understand the relevance of saying warming stripes would look exactly the same for 50° vs. 0.5°: the assignment of temperature ranges to stripe colors would be different, in the same way that the vertical axes of line charts would be more squished for 50° than for 0.5°... but the shape of the line chart itself would be exactly the same (if I understand your scenario). — RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bah, humbug, graphics grinch I am. I grant you that a chart with an unlabeled vertical axis would also be stupid, similarly stupid to warming stripes. Both get a clear failing grade. The only way to make warming stripes clear is with a run on sentence for a title or a separate key, both of which are ugly and awkward. Without that, 0.5 degrees and 50 degrees of warming are the same thing.
 * As a rule color should be the last information dimension to go in when designing an informative graphic. It doesn't work for the color blind and is imprecise in interpretation. Colored heat maps or colored geographical maps make sense because they're falling back on color as the least worst option for displaying a third dimension of data. Warming stripes, on the other hand, are an abomination that should only be used as a case study in bad graphic design. Efbrazil (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye, multicolor warming stripes don't help the colorblind any more than multi-color heat maps (though multitone graphics do work for the colorblind). A main advantage of stripe graphics is for audiences for whom precise quantitative indexing is counter-productive—which is a substantial portion of the population, the portion whose eyes glaze over at the sight of this. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If the 2020 is removed, and possibly the word year, it becomes slightly less glazeworthy. Agree that warming stripes have a mild activist association which make them unsuitable for the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed "Year" as it really isn't necessary, like you say. I think 2020 is important to show so I left that in for now. When refreshing the chart with new data (which is blocked because there's no new estimates data) I can revisit the X axis labels. Efbrazil (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023
I want to add one new reference to the following sentence: "Arctic amplification is also melting permafrost, which releases methane and CO2 into the atmosphere."

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

Galera, L. A., Eckhardt, T., Beer, C., Pfeiffer, E.-M., & Knoblauch, C. (2023). Ratio of in situ CO2 to CH4 production and its environmental controls in polygonal tundra soils of Samoylov Island, Northeastern Siberia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 128, e2022JG006956. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG006956 A345678B (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No explanation of what this adds. CMD (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I propose changing this to:
 * Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Thoughts? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As used here, the word "sink" is jargon. At Dictionary.com, it's the last of eight definitions of the noun. If it's used at all, it should only be used if it's immediately explained in text. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine removing "sinks", but I don't like "removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" because it conjures up the idea of giant machines doing the task. Maybe this wording instead? It's also more accurate since it's carbon dioxide specific.
 * Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by increasing the rate that the land and ocean absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
 * Efbrazil (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see the challenge of making the statement inclusive of both the giant machines and the more nature-based methods. Mitigation encompasses both of these categories. In the literature on carbon dioxide removal, the term "land" tends to have a specific meaning. "Absorbing carbon dioxide on land" tends to refer to vegetation and soils, and not to subsurface geologic storage. I like the idea of making the wording carbon dioxide specific. How about:
 * Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and by increasing the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
 * Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * May I suggest wording that presents emissions and removal as opposites? This wording provides (somewhat of) a foundation for the unifying concept of a carbon budget. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there was consensus to specifically say carbon dioxide removal, not greenhouse gas removal. So the wording would be this, which I'm fine with:
 * Climate change can be mitigated by reducing the rate at which greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, and by increasing the rate at which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Efbrazil (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to say GHG in the first phrase but CO2 in the second phrase? I'm OK with either if used consistently, but it seems odd to have the two phrases be slightly inconsistent—they're not mirror images of each other any more. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the wording is intentional. Emissions reduction involves reducing all greenhouse gases, including methane in particular. When it comes to reducing gases already in the atmosphere, only CO2 is the focus, as other gases are short lived. The wording is correct. Let us know if you want further changes or not. Efbrazil (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nyeah, iz good. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks everyone! Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 02:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the fact of how Earth absorbs radiation from the sun and how it redistributes it back to the atmosphere and ocean, and re-radiated into space because it is a key concept that plays that helps explain how climate change is produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5700:5D:75D8:D5F5:334B:4484 (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Further points that I think need thinking about: Pinging User:Richarit. EMsmile (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I suggest to delete this sentence which to me seems outdated and simplistic - as if we had to choose between adaptation and mitigation. It makes it sound like mitigation is always better. But we need both (sadly): "Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits." And I don't think the ref used is particularly strong (primary source?). At the adaptation article it's worded like this "Strategies to limit climate change are complementary to efforts to adapt to it. "
 * 2) Also I think we should perhaps change it around so that we first talk about synergies (of which there are many), then about trade-offs (which are perhaps not as numerous? Or?). - This is the order used at the adaptation article, see here.
 * 3) Regarding examples for synergies I find the sentence about "increased food productivity" not particularly clear. This sound to me like "we need more intensive agriculture". We should either improve it or use a better example for synergies such as public transport, nature-based solutions and urban trees. Compare with the content at the climate change adaptation article here.
 * I also think we can delete that sentence "Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits" I don't fully agree with it - I think this is only in terms of reducing risks. There are other immediate benefits from mitigation projects in renewable energy generation for instance in improving energy access and generating income for the supplier. The sentence seems to be based on this paragraph, which casts some doubt on the temporal trade-offs:
 * "Differences in temporal scale for adaptation and mitigation were also found, although mitigation actions often led to long-term benefits, and adaptation to near-term benefits (Dessai and Hulme 2007).[ ... ] These findings show that, in addition to potential match in terms of spatial scale, the temporal scale of mitigation and adaptation measures also can be similar. Past literature has often emphasised the temporal and spatial mismatch of scales as posing a barrier to the integration of mitigation and adaptation, and the successful evaluation of trade-offs (Tol 2005; Howden et al. 2007). Results from this review, however, suggest that there are many cases in which the scales are comparable, thus providing support for arguments to change this perceived barrier and to integrate adaptation and mitigation (e.g. Preston et al. 2013)." Richarit (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Richarit. OK, so in the absence of further reactions since 20 April, I have been bold now and have made the following changes:
 * Deleted the sentence "Adaptation often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits" as per justification above.
 * Swapped order: first the example on synergy then the examples on trade offs. Also made some wording changes to make it easier to understand for laypersons.
 * I still don't like the example that we are giving for synergy, as I had pointed out above. I copy what I had said above on 15 March: I find the sentence about "increased food productivity" not particularly clear. This sound to me like "we need more intensive agriculture". We should either improve it or use a better example for synergies such as public transport, nature-based solutions and urban trees. Compare with the content at the climate change adaptation article here.
 * Would anyone object if I replaced the synergy example with this text that is copied from climate change adaptation, or a much shortened version of it (just the first sentence? Would it be clear on its own?)? Synergies include the benefits of public transport for both mitigation and adaptation. Public transport has lower greenhouse gas emissions per kilometer travelled than cars. A good public transport network also increases resilience in case of disasters: evacuation and emergency access becomes easier. Reduced air pollution from public transport improves health, which in turn may lead to improved economic resilience, as healthy workers perform better. EMsmile (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I think it's undue weight if we give only one sentence example for synergy but then a multiple sentence example for trade-offs. Or is that really how the literature portrays it? Is it really easier to find trade-off examples than to find synergy examples? EMsmile (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the literature is starting to show more examples where synergies are stronger than trade-offs in many areas. See Chapter 18, Figure Cross-Chapter Box FEASIB.3 and 4. p2785-6.
 * For another example of synergy we could pick climate smart agriculture. According to TS p128: The use of climate-smart agriculture technologies that strengthen synergies among productivity and mitigation is growing as an important adaptation strategy (high confidence).
 * or:
 * For example, within energy system transitions, the three adaptation options (power infrastructure resilience, reliability of power systems, efficient water use management) have strong synergies with mitigation. P2688
 * For trade offs:
 * Under land and other ecosystems system transitions, the main trade-off is the competition for land use between potential alternative uses, for example, sustainable agriculture, afforestation/reforestation, purposegrown biomass for energy. . P2689 Richarit (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Department of Defense
The Department of Defense has developed the DOD Climate Assessment Tool. DCAT, as it's called, is a web-based tool informed by volumes of data from global climate models, historical observations, and flood modeling that can help the department prepare for climate hazards at over 2,300 DOD locations around the world. In 2023, the department expanded DCAT to include over 400 locations outside the United States. But also, the department has been developing a separate capability, the Climate Assessment Tool, or CAT, that will be provided to several partner nations to give those countries access to an assessment tool similar to DCAT to enable their own climate change exposure analyses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mengmengz (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved this down here because that is where new contributions belong.
 * Are you suggesting that what you wrote be added to the article? If yes, it should at least start with "The U.S. Department", because, well, there are other countries in the world. But I cannot see why it is relevant enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not worthy of a mention in this article, but could be integrated into the Climate model article (with sources of course). Efbrazil (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Five years for 1.5
The announcement in the news today might have a place in this article. We've made reference to the temperature targets so this is relevant I think. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602293 Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Is a NOAA Chief Scientist considered an expert
, in your recent revert of my changes, you stated in the edit summary that "a tweet is not a RS". WP:TWITTER does say that tweets are not reliable. However, exceptions are normally made for established experts in their related fields/topics. In this case, Ryan Maue, the author of the tweet, served as the NOAA chief scientist and was hand-picked for the position by the US President. Multiple of his tweets are used throughout Wikipedia as he is considered an established expert in the field of atmospheric science and climate related things. I do agree that it is US Specific, but some level of inclusion of his tweet would probably be best since a NOAA Chief Scientist said something fairly significant in regards to climate change/global warming. I just wanted to make you aware of that. After you comment here, I will figure out a different way of wording the sentence since it is based on the US. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, saying it's not a HQRS would have been better. I wouldn't object to inclusion in climate change in the United States, but ideally with the underlying report. Femke (alt) (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Maue and Legates are involved in Trump administration, er, personnel adjustments. The Legates write-up says "As reported at The Washington Post and The New York Times, David Legates and Ryan Maue were both reassigned from their positions at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) following their role in producing and publishing a series of debunked climate change reports without White House approval.[104][105][106] — RCraig09 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And? Some who holds the role as "Chief Scientist of NOAA" should be (and based on current Wikipedia standards, is) considered an expert in the field of atmospheric science as well as climatology. Multiple articles use information from Ryan Maue as a source for information (i.e. Extratropical cyclone has two references by Ryan Maue with one from an American Meteorological Society Conference). At this point in time, there isn't any reason to automatically discount what Maue says. If you disagree, maybe a WP:RSN should be started. To be honest though, Maue published AMS academically peer-reviewed articles including Historical Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls (published in the scientifically peer-reviewed Journal of Climate) & he got a PhD from Florida, which is the top tropical-meteorology university in the U.S. I think some solid evidence would have to be provided in order to say a PhD, AMS peer-reviewed, NOAA chief scientist cannot be a reliable source for information. Like I said, if you disagree, feel free to open a discussion at WP:RSN. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That desmog link about Maue does show examples of misinformation, for instance about global temperatures. The tweet also contradicts the IPCC in terms of predictions. WP:SCIRS says we should prefer reviews like the IPCC over single scientists. I misjudged, this should not be included in other articles as is. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But saying "On May 26, 2023, Ryan Maue, the former chief scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that the frequency or strength of tropical cyclones impacting the United States has not increased or decreased as a result of an increase in global warming saying, "There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, although by some measures, U.S. landfalling tropical cyclone activity for 2004-2010 was the strongest in the records since the late 1800s. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity." in the paragraph on tropical cyclones in Climate change in the United States should be fine. "a comprehensive 2006 article in Geophysical Research Letters found "no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity" during past decades... is mentioned in the article as well. Maue basically just confirms that statement. I see no issues with the inclusion of the quote since it specifically says (1) when it was said, (2) by whom, and (3) the exact quote itself. Wouldn't not including it be more along the lines of bias since it just somewhat restates an earlier thing mentioned in the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your re-insertion of Maue material at Climate change in the United States does not follow WP:BRD and invites an edit war. Definitely, any underlying scientific or technical article should be used (if one exists), not a tweet from Maue. Since this is, at best, a controversial issue, the source that is the most recent (not 2006) and reliable (not Maue) should be used. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to get into technicalities, but wouldn't your revert technically not be following WP:BRD since at the time of your revert, there was a discussion about the topic, which at the time had two editors in agreement & was linked in the edit summary of it's first addition to the article? You reverted it with a very biased edit summary before you even decided to check out the discussion which, again, had two editors in agreement at the time. You reverted it knowing there was a discussion that had two-editor consensus & reverted prior to participating or commenting in the discussion. So, no, I did not violate WP:BRD and honestly, I could care less about that. The consensus now says to not include it, so it isn't being included. Weird that you tried to do a subtle PA after having the consensus behind you, but whatever. Fun discussion and cheers y'all! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can also cite the frequency thing to a recent review article or assessment report, that's accepted knowledge. The major hurricanes or proportion of major hurricanes thing is not generally accepted, and contradicts the IPCC (who believe there is a likely increase in at least the proportion). Describing Maue as a chief scientists feels like me as a bias by omission, as Maue is not, to say it mildly, as well-regarded as a chief scientists would be expected to be, at least on this topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023
Please change sentence "In the 1820s, Joseph Fourier proposed the greenhouse effect to explain why Earth's temperature was higher than the sun's energy alone could explain." to add reference at the end of the sentence to the original work where this was discussed, available freely online in La Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) Gallica online library at

URL https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65708960

Title of work: "Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires."

Author: M. Fourier

Date: 1st of January 1824 Nsphy (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to or other interested parties here to make a final determination, but personally I'm not sure it's necessary to include a primary source (which is less favoured) when we already have a secondary source covering the point in question.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, it's probably best to keep the secondary source. Cocobb8 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per above - see WP:PSTS: All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Tollens (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023
This Article contains misleading information about climate change that may have come as a result of international government propaganda. The trusted sources to show this is https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-why-climate-change-is-real/a-62482188 and the book “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. Bob Jefferson jr (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ this request is far too vague, and contains no specific changes for us to consider. Furthermore, the article has been written with high-quality sources and approved as such through the WP:FA process, so I wouldn't agree it's misleading or a misrepresentation of the sources. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "high-quality sources" are funded mostly by private organizations and partially by governments.  Therefore it is not a truly, unbiased source. Why else would this article be protected if there is not nefarious ideals happening here? 97.118.99.132 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have asked that WEF shill User:Amakuru to explain himself on his page but seeing how it's empty of any criticism "xe" is probably pretty thin skinned and is doing xer best to nuke any cristicism. 46.114.246.194 (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sentence in lead about fossil fuel use
Hi, I have a question about the term fossil fuel use in an important sentence in the first paragraph of the lead: Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane. A reviewer that I am working with on the carbon footprint article (to where I had copied this sentence) pointed out to me: "I find this quite imprecise (fossil fuel use is too unspecific, it is almost always about burning or, in industry, about material use, which, however, is often also associated with oxidation)." petrochem Mind you, the sentence just before does talk about burning of fossil fuels: The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.

Shouldn't the second sentence therefore include an "also", to indicate that the two sentences belong together?: Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices also increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.

So why do we include fossil fuel use just after burning of fossil fuel? Which kind of non-burning fossil fuel uses do we have in mind that would emit so much GHGE that it's mentioned so prominently here, even before deforestation and GHGE from agriculture? It it e.g. the conversion of natural gas to fertiliser? Wouldn't that rather be included in "industrial practices" (which wikilinks only to concrete production (Environmental impact of concrete); why only that one)?

The reviewer also said by the way "Refrigerants should also be mentioned (like the CFCs often used in the past)."

My proposal:
 * Add also to the second sentence.
 * Omit "fossil fuel use" from the second sentence, or at least don't have it as the first example.
 * Make it clearer what we mean by GHGE from industrial practices (perhaps by giving two examples of concrete production and fertiliser production?).
 * Add "use of refrigerants" to the list (although I am not sure how significant their contributions to the greenhouse effect is nowadays; maybe not so significant that it needs to be included here?). EMsmile (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "Fuel" implies burning, doesn't it? If use it for something else, you don't call it "fuel", you call it "raw material" or something. Just my two monetary units. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily: "Fossil fuel" is oil, gas and coal. Oil can be used as a raw material to make plastics. Natural gas is used as a raw material in fertiliser production. So the term "fossil fuel use" is not necessarily for burning. Also it is confusing here as the first sentence ends with fossil fuel burning, and then the next sentence continues with fossil fuel use. This makes me think that the author carefully chose the words to say it's not the same thing. Otherwise the second sentence should start with "This fossil fuel burning, deforestation, and xxx all increase GHGE" etc. Were the authors of these two sentences thinking of potential non-burning uses of fossil fuel, or was the word use not picked deliberately? EMsmile (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of fossil fuel use consists of burning. Other uses are also a problem though, as once fossil fuels are extracted they are likely to release their carbon.
 * To cover the examples raised, single use plastics significantly contribute to climate change in waste-to-energy power plants. Additionally, natural gas extraction releases methane and petrochemicals release greenhouse gases.
 * I would keep the existing wording, mostly because it reads well, unlike a sentence beginning with something ugly like "this fossil fuel burning". It is possible to be too pedantic about these things. For instance, it is possible to burn fossil fuels in a power plant with carbon capture and not contribute to GGE, so should we be adding qualifications like that to the lead? Similarly, you could point to some case like a reusable plastic cup that's formed using renewable energy and buried in landfill when it breaks, but the lead is generally not the place to add exceptions to the rule. Efbrazil (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just relaying back the observation of an external reviewer who wondered why we first use "fossil fuel burning" at the end of the one sentence, directly followed by "Fossil fuel use" in the sentence that follows. Perhaps it's also an English language thing where burning and using is almost the same in English, but not in other languages. I still think it's not clear and not elegant to say: "... caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, ..." and could easily be improved if we wanted to.
 * Also, regarding your statement of "The vast majority of fossil fuel use consists of burning.": does every Wikipedia reader know that? Can we be sure that they know exactly what we mean with "use" and that we mainly mean burning here?
 * What about my other concern: why does "industrial practices" wikilink only to concrete production (Environmental impact of concrete)? I think it should either wikilink to a suitable location that explains all industrial practices, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions#Industrial_processes or not wikilink to anything. Just wikilinking to the concrete production is too narrow.

Is this deliberately omitted because their contribution is too small to warrant a mention here? I just want to make sure it was a deliberate choice, not an oversight. EMsmile (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (edit: don't want to waste people's time, contributions much smaller)
 * I am thinking this could be a more elegant way of explaining this (and have used this wording and wikilinks at carbon footprint for now:
 * The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans who are burning fossil fuels. Additional contributions to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere include deforestation as well as agricultural and industrial practices, for example cement production. The two most notable greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane.
 * Rather than the existing wording which is The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.
 * But I won't press this further as I know this first paragraph has undergone many many iterations and editors are probably somewhat annoyed/frustrated if someone now comes along and wants to change this again... I understand that. EMsmile (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are adding many words here, and the lead and first paragraph are already too long. Any proposed change should really reduce the word count rather than adding to it. You are also making several changes here, like adding "who are" (which seems unnecessary) and specifying "in the atmosphere" (which is already specified at the end of the paragraph). As you say, this has already been extensively word smithed. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'm opposed to anything that reduces readability by adding length or complicating sentence structures. Efbrazil (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One option short of rewording stuff would be to add a footnote after "fossil fuel use" like so . I'm not sure it's necessary, but that would be the easiest way to go about addressing the issue. Efbrazil (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. I'll rethink how my concern could be addressed without adding any extra work and with minimal changes.
 * How about like this, which is a minimal change (in bold), and simpler, shorter sentences: The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes. It is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This, together with deforestation, agricultural and industrial practices and other activities increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane. (I've left off wikilinks for easier reading for now; but the wikilink behind "industrial practices" ought to go to here in my opinion, do you agree?: industrial practices).
 * I am proposing to have "and other activities" to indicate to people there is more to it than this, e.g. the Fluorinated gases, permafrost melting and alike (should it be "and other activities and processes"?). But if you think that adds too many words / too much complexity then OK. It's just that this sentence might be one of the most important sentences in the entire article... What is causing the mess that we have found ourselves to be in... EMsmile (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fluorinated gases come from industry, so no need to add vague words to that extend. Permafrost melting is a feedback and doesn't belong here. Neutral on chopping up the sentence. Femke (alt) (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * RCraig09 recently corrected me for beginning sentences with unclear qualifiers like "it is" or "this". I don't like "and other activities" as per what Femke said. I'm also opposed to vaguely ending lists with a catch all like that. So, in general, I'm opposed to these changes. I think the concern that started this discussion would be best addressed with footnotes, such as a source with a quote from the source. Efbrazil (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Briefly: I, also, much prefer the existing wording, which is the result of extensive discussion. The multiple suggested changes since 28 June raise more issues than they solve. — RCraig09 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pity that I haven't been able to garner any support for my proposal. OK, I am overruled then. Just for the record, I find the way this sentence ends and how the next one starts very inelegant and even confusing because of the burning versus using wording: caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, Perhaps someone will come along later to bring a better solution to the table for this. Anyhow, time for me to move on. EMsmile (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The earlier sentence is specific (burning FFs primary cause of GW), whereas the following sentence is broader (using FFs contributing to GHG increase). The difference in wording is not inelegant; it seems intentional, and is accurate at the most general level (appropriate for the lead). — RCraig09 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what Craig says. The first sentence is pointing to the single, primary cause. The second sentence is a catch all. Efbrazil (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had another idea which I think is pretty good: It only adds one single word but it would resolve the problem that I see that the two sentences are not well connected. My proposal is: caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This fossil fuel use, deforestation,, so just adding the word "This". (And it's not true that sentences cannot commence with "this". It's OK if the antecedent is clearly defined, like it would be in this case.) Sorry for being annoying / harping on about this. I do think this could be a nice little tweak that would add value. But if I am the only one who thinks that then I'll shut up. EMsmile (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it reads worse that way and is also inaccurate. The principal cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels, but other fossil fuel uses also contribute to climate change, as noted in my comments above. Efbrazil (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Efbrazil that "This fossil fuel use" makes the description less accurate. Again, there's a distinction between the single biggest cause of GW (first sentence) and multiple causes of GHGs (second sentence). — RCraig09 (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bearing with me on this one and not (yet) telling me to go away. ;-) Just for my own understanding: which parts of the fossil fuel that is not burning, contributes so much to GHGE that it would warrant a mentioning in first spot of the sentence, even before deforestation? Please point me to the relevant graphic. I look e.g. at on GHGE. If I understand it correctly, then the non-burning fossil fuel use is in the segment on industrial processes which is only 5.7% (or is this not the right graph to look at as it's all about burning fossil fuel in this graph?). You said above "The vast majority of fossil fuel use consists of burning. Other uses are also a problem though, as once fossil fuels are extracted they are likely to release their carbon." So how much do the non-burning FF uses contribute to GHGE? I think I am missing something. EMsmile (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reference for the second sentence, https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector, seems a good place to look. Starting the second sentence "Fossil fuel use..." is a good semantic and logical transition from the first sentence which ends "... burning fossil fuels". The second sentence is about causes of GHGs, and the broad description "Fossil fuel use"—which includes burning—should be named first. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So looking at that graph I see that GHGE from non-burning fossil fuel use is only 2.2%, right?: "Chemicals & petrochemicals (2.2%): greenhouse gases can be produced as a byproduct from chemical processes – for example, CO2 can be emitted during the production of ammonia, which is used for purifying water supplies, cleaning products, and as a refrigerant, and used in the production of many materials, including plastic, fertilizers, pesticides, and textiles. Chemical and petrochemical manufacturing also produces emissions from energy inputs – these related emissions are included in ‘Energy Use in Industry’." Quite negligible compared to the GHGE from fossil fuel burning, so I still think we are leading our readers up the wrong path, and confusing them, if we are telling them they should distinguish FF burning from FF use. The main problem with fossil fuels is when they are burned, not the non-burn uses. The non-burning usage is tiny compared to that. I still liked my proposal of caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This fossil fuel use, deforestation,. But OK, I promise to keep quiet now and really move on! :-) EMsmile (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)