Talk:Effects of climate change

Agreement to convert to long ref style?
Do we have agreement to make this article consistently into using the long ref style? I had done some of that work in the past but stopped short of some remaining refs (see under "sources") because I thought those older IPCC reports will probably be replaced with the newer AR 6 report anyhow? Thus it would save us time for doing the ref conversions. I noticed it again today because I transcribed part of the lead to effects of climate change on human health and this gave me problems as there were some "short ref style" refs in the lead. (I don't have time at the moment to change them all into long refs myself) EMsmile (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what you mean by ‘long ref style’. I always prefer using ‘automatic’ on the Visual Editor cite. It works reasonably for most stuff except pdfs where I generally cite the webpage above the pdf or use ‘manual’ on the Visual Editor.
 * The advantage of this is that it should be easier for new editors in future I think Chidgk1 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as we're not putting all authors and editors of big papers/reports in, I'm happy. Super long refs make the wikitext difficult to handle. In general, it's not necessary to ask to make refs conform to majority style. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1: The short ref style is the one used by climate change, and the long ref style is used by most of the other smaller sub-articles in our climate change topic group of articles. You can tell if an article uses short ref style when there is a section called "sources" that is below the section called "references". An article with a long ref style doesn't require that section called "sources". See also further explanation here: WP:SFN. And also here for a previous discussion that I had with Femke.
 * @Femke: Thanks. Would you say that for a GA article, the ref style should be consistent, or is having this current mixture still OK? For me personally, at least the lead should consistently use the long ref style so that there are no issues with transcribing the lead. Some editors prefer to have a mixture of styles (due to the page number issue) which is was I learnt at carbon accounting, see here. I would have preferred consistency but can also live with a mixture, provide the lead is consistent. Noted about the long author listing, and agree with you. Will shorten it now for this publication at effects of climate change on human health... EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria do not require consistent formatting fortunately, the main reason the GA process is superior to FA :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. As far as I know the Visual Editor cannot automatically generate short ref style, therefore I don’t prefer that style. But not worth the bother of changing over - the “sources” will probably get outdated and naturally deleted over time. Also it is slightly annoying that the Visual Editor cannot reuse a cite with a different page number. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I get around to it, I'll convert the remaining ones to long ref style as I would prefer consistency (but good to know it's not mandatory for GA). But I agree with Chidgk1 that several of those refs that are currently in "sources" will probably get dropped as they refer to older IPCC reports. @Chidgk1 for page numbers I recommend using for page 6 if you want to cite the same report several times but with different page numbers. EMsmile (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've converted a few more of the refs to long ref style, namely those that were to the IPCC SROCC report and the IPCC SR15 report. I did those now today because it's more elegant for the excerpts that I have just added from this article to the cryosphere article. I'd like to also convert the remaining short refs to long refs but I am finding it quite time consuming. I do each one manually one by one, perhaps there is a more automated way of doing this (?). EMsmile (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of the lead
I find the first sentence of the lead rather weak (it also has a low reading ease score). It currently is: Climate change affects the physical environment, ecosystems and human societies.. I am proposing to change it to The effects of climate change are becoming more and more obvious for the natural environment, ecosystems and human societies. We could also omit "ecosystems" here as this is part of the natural environment, right? I find natural environment clearer than physical environment. Pinging User:Efbrazil as they also like working on leads. The rest of the lead looks alright from a readability point of view. I notice quite a few sentence starting with "they include". I am going to see if I can vary that a bit. EMsmile (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think I prefer the existing text. The text you are proposing adds "becoming more and more obvious", which I think breaks neutrality and isn't helpful. The article is already well over the top in terms of being alarming, we don't need to layer more on. Also, I don't like changing "physical environment" to "natural environment", as ecosystems and natural environment have too much overlap. We already wikilink physical environment to natural environment, maybe that should be removed. The point of saying physical environment is that means everything aside from nature (temperatures, ocean acidification, ice, precipitation, etc) and that's how the IPCC breaks it down. Efbrazil (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a suggested rewrite of the first paragraph. Overall word count is essentially unchanged:

The changes: Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) First sentence begins "The effects of climate change" as EMsmile suggested, since that's the article topic. Also, first sentence now puts the physical environment first, separate from ecosystems and humans (which are downstream). I think it reads a bit less jargony.
 * 2) Added "changes to precipitation patterns" as a key physical effect in the second sentence, as that is driving issues like rainforest collapse, desertification, and so on.
 * 3) Third sentence replaced "human settlements and societies" with "agriculture and settlements", as that's more specific, and agriculture should really be called out as a primary impact point.
 * 4) Removed sentence saying impacts are broad and far reaching. The sentence is too vague to be useful- I would rather we use the room to state what impacts are rather than engaging in vague alarmism.
 * 5) Replaced climate action sentence with one that is more specific about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change mitigation.
 * 6) Replaced the sentence on "climate crises", which is just branding, with a sentence on tipping points and effects overwhelming the ability to adapt.


 * Great work! Comments for the firs para below:


 * 1) First sentence: For me the term "physical environment" is still confusing / ill defined (since you mentioned IPCC: I also checked the glossaries of the AR 6 WG I and II reports but they don't include this term in their glossary). Maybe it's because I am not native English speaking. I asked Chat-GPT to explain it to me and it offered this "The "physical environment" refers to the natural surroundings or conditions in a particular area, including elements such as landforms, water bodies, air quality, climate, and other physical factors that make up the natural world." In Wikipedia, "physical environment" redirects to "natural environment" which is explained as "The natural environment or natural world encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally, meaning in this case not artificial. ".
 * 2) So I would prefer if we could move away from the term "physical environment" as it's not totally clear what this is? Can we say instead "natural environment" and Wikilink to natural environment?
 * 3) Also regarding the first sentence: "extend from... to" is a bit vague. Perhaps "are visible in " or "are observed for ..."?
 * 4) Second sentence I would add a "for example" as there will be more.
 * 5) Third sentence: great.
 * 6) Fourth sentence digresses a little into climate change mitigation but OK, I can live with this (similar discussion at greenhouse gas...). It does put things into context nicely.
 * 7) Last sentence: Great idea about mentioning tipping points as this is also in the main text. The wording "can have their ability to adapt overwhelmed" is perhaps elegant but difficult to understand for non-native speakers. I suggest: "If certain tipping points are reached, humans may no longer be able to adapt their societies to climate change." I think ecosystems and biomes don't really "care" and will continue to exist in one way or another. But for humans it could become very uncomfortable compared to now.
 * 8) By the way, I don't think I agree with your sentiment of "The article is already well over the top in terms of being alarming". Where do you find this article to be too alarming? I think it's rather well balanced and neutral?
 * 9) For inspiration purposes, I looked at the German Wikipedia article on this topic, and had Google Translate give me the English translation (I speak German but Google Translate is so good). It says there (probably with a low reading ease score): "The consequences of global warming describe numerous changes affecting humanity and the earth due to a worldwide increase in temperature. Global warming is the observed and predicted trend towards a higher global average temperature compared to pre-industrial values, with consequences such as rising sea levels, melting of glaciers , shifting climate zones , vegetation zones and habitats, stronger or more frequent forest fires , changing occurrence of precipitation , stronger or more frequent weather extremes such as floods , storms and droughts , spread of parasites and tropical diseases and more environmental refugees . The predicted and observed negative impacts of climate change are sometimes referred to as a “ climate catastrophe ”."
 * 10) Wondering if the last sentence was copied from the English version or vice versa. I agree with you that the mention about climate crisis is superfluous. Climate crisis could be mentioned under "See also". EMsmile (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

At the moment I prefer the current version. Regarding the proposed version:
 * I agree that "physical environment" is ambiguous. Yes, some scholars use the term to mean "non-living things", but I know of others who disagree. We have to follow the definitions of the respective Wikipedia articles, otherwise our readers won't be able to make sense of it.
 * We really have to mention, in the first or second sentence, that the article is about the current, human-caused climate change, not climate changes in general/in the past.
 * The effects of climate change extend – bit awkward and convoluted wording; the current version is clearer.
 * These changes in turn impact nature and wildlife, as well as agriculture and settlements – I think "societies" should stay in there. "Agriculture" is too specific (many other crucial things, such as water availability, is affected as well).
 * The severity of changes will increase until greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control. – This is not accurate. The severity of at least some of these changes will increase for decades or even much longer after emissions are brought under control – think about sea level rise, which comes with great delay.
 * At certain tipping points ecosystems and human societies can have their ability to adapt overwhelmed. – I don't think this is the point of the tipping points. They refer to tipping points of the climate system – e.g. the desiccation of the Amazon rainforest, which will cause many further, irreversible climate consequences. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, great feedback EMsmile and Jens Lallensack. I rewrote the section above in response (See proposed version V2 at top). In detail, going sentence by sentence: Efbrazil (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) I think "physical environment" was meant to refer to the AR6 physical science basis report, in other words talking about all the impacts that aren't on living systems (ice sheets, ocean currents, etc). I'm fine cutting that wording though. As for the issue of scoping to human-caused climate change, we decided on the climate change talk page that "climate change" said without context refers to modern, human caused climate change. To help with making the timing issue clear I made sure the phrasing is contemporaneous (eg "are the changes happening"). Hopefully sufficient?
 * 2) In terms of enumerated effects and the german version, it is fair that we need to go further. Also, sea level rise is not the climate system, which is how things are currently worded. To resolve things I split the sentence in two. First it talks about climate changes, then environmental changes (adding in forest fires and melting ice sheets), and finally impacts on living systems. This helps to define the cascade of issues as the IPCC defines them without bringing in the word "physical environment". Hopefully a good compromise?
 * 3) I am OK just saying societies and leaving out settlements and agriculture. We have enough going on in this paragraph that I don't think it is necessary to break down parts of society that are impacted. Almost all societies are settled, and whether they are settled or not really doesn't impact their vulnerability to climate change, so "settlements" was really besides the point.
 * 4) I combined the tipping points issue into the sentence on living systems and slimmed it down, but I would like it mentioned and do think it is relevant here. Certainly the example raised, the collapse of the Amazon, is an ecosystem collapse. Tipping points are strongly linked with ecosystems and human societies, as they refer to the end of viability for life to continue as it has in a place- an ice sheet melting, a low lying area flooding, an area transitioning from agricultural land to desert, etc. I don't want to limit adaptation to people- Nature is resilient and will adapt as well, but it has limits just as people do.
 * 5) Good point on severity not stopping as emissions are stopped, particularly as it relates to sea level rise. I added that in as a for instance. Temperatures will, on the whole, stop rising however, so I think it is important to call that out so as to not be all gloom and doom here.
 * I generally like proposal V2 a lot, but I still have a couple of important comments to make.


 * 1) As the climate changes it impacts the natural environment with effects such as more intense forest fires, melting ice sheets, and rising sea levels. - Melting ice sheets and rising sea levels are two sides of the same coin. I would rather phrase this sentence as more intense forest fires, thawing permafrost and rising sea levels.


 * 1) While temperatures will stabilize when greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control, certain impacts such as sea level rise will continue growing well past that point. - "certain impacts such as" is too vague. Arguably misleading as well, since in general, it is only the cryosphere and the oceans which really have such an enormous inertia, and nearly all the other impacts have a much shorter response time. I would instead suggest While temperatures will stabilize when greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control, the melting of ice sheets and glaciers and the acidification and deoxygenation of the oceans will continue long past that point.


 * Ideally, I would add something about the rate of those processes still slowing down substantially in that circumstance (outside of scenarios like West Antarctica reaching the instability threshold before the temperatures stabilize, in which case the rate of SLR will remain well above the present), but then the sentence would definitely have to be split in two somehow. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great improvements and suggestions! Just one small thing to add: when running the readability tool over the proposed paragraph, all sentences look good except for this one which is being flagged in red: "These changes impact natural ecosystems and human societies, particularly when tipping points are passed". I doesn't seem overly complicated but still, can we think of ways to make it easier? Maybe: These changes have impacts on ecosystems and societies already but the impacts could be much stronger if certain climate tipping points are reached. (passes as a "yellow sentence" in the readability tool and is also clearer, I think)
 * If we have "natural environments" in the first sentence (wouldn't singular be better than plural), then we'd wikilink to natural environment, right? I think it's better than "physical environment". I guess "natural environment" sets it apart from the "built environment". We should also wikilink to climate change in the first para somewhere, particularly if you're saying that "climate change" is implicit for the current human-made climate change (referring to Jen's concern and Efbrazil's response). EMsmile (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the tipping point sentence in particular: my preferred wording would be These changes profoundly impact ecosystems and societies, and certain impacts become effectively irreversible once climate tipping points are crossed. Generally speaking, the definition is not really about "strength" as much as it is about irreversibility - about passing from one self-reinforcing hysteresis state to another. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Great suggestions, thank you! V3 up above incorporates what I thought made sense with some wordsmithing to contain overall word count. In specific:
 * re: more intense forest fires, thawing permafrost and rising sea levels: I personally like the existing pairing of melting ice sheets with rising sea levels as it paints an obvious connection for people. Having said that, we do mention ice sheets later, so I can live with the swap to permafrost here
 * re: While temperatures will stabilize when greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control, the melting of ice sheets and glaciers and the acidification and deoxygenation of the oceans will continue long past that point.: This is good but I don't think we need to mention glaciers, they are pretty obvious once we mention ice sheets I think.
 * re: These changes profoundly impact ecosystems and societies, and certain impacts become effectively irreversible once climate tipping points are crossed.: Thanks, this is much better, I went with it after a bit of word smithing.

I feel like we are close enough that I'm going live with V3. Also, I'll be offline for the next couple days. Efbrazil (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am still unhappy with the first six words of the first sentence; the original wording of the article was better imo. And we definitely have to link to "climate change" there. Why not: Climate change affects the Earth's natural environments and human societies. Rest looks good to me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am experimenting with wording, and have just changed the first sentence to this: Effects of climate change are already noticeable in Earth's natural environment and human societies.. Reasoning:
 * Took out "the" at the start of the sentence.
 * changed "happen" to "are already noticeable".
 * made natural environment singular and added wikilink.
 * I don't like to use the word "affect" when the title of the article is "effect". Another option would be to use "impacts" I guess. But they are all a bit difficult to grasp for lay persons, and the distinction between effect, affect, impact is confusing. Hence I chose the verb "to be".
 * For comparison: yesterday's first sentence was: The effects of climate change happen in Earth's natural environments and human societies.. And last week's first sentence was: Climate change affects the physical environment, ecosystems and human societies. EMsmile (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am fine with Efbrazil's last changes to the first paragraph, except for this sentence that shows up in red in the readability tool: While temperatures will stabilize when greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control, changes such as the melting of ice sheets, ocean deoxygenation, and ocean acidification will continue long past that point. In addition, I am not sure if ocean deoxygenation and ocean acidification do have the same inertia as the rising sea level. I think we would need a ref for this statement - are we sure about it? I can't remember seeing this explained in the main text in that way. I think we can only be certain about the sea level rise inertia. Could use wording and refs from the lead of sea level rise. - We would be trying to pack too much into one sentence. EMsmile (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to the live version to address this concern. Note also that the second para does pick up info about oceans, so we don't need too much on oceans in the first para. However sea level rise is such an obvious one that it's OK to be in the first AND second para, I think.
 * Note also I changed this wording: "While temperatures will stabilize when greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control, ... " to "Temperatures can stabilize if greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control." That means I broke a long sentence in two and made it less definitive. It sounded too easy like "hey, we just bring emissions under control and then temperatures will stabilise". It's so much harder in reality... EMsmile (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if ocean deoxygenation and ocean acidification do have the same inertia as the rising sea level. I think we would need a ref for this statement - are we sure about it?
 * Well, AR6 WG2 describes all three - sea level rise, acidification and deoxygenation - as irreversible for centuries to millennia (see Table 4.10) With deoxygenation in particular, there is a paper which very explicitly describes its inertia. I am less sure about acidification. Looking closely at a graphic from this paper shows that while surface pH (f) would recover slightly between 2100 and 2400 under RCP 2.6, before staying the same (better than now, worse than in the preindustrial) for the remaining millennium, ocean pH (g) would still curve downwards even under RCP 2.6, albeit very subtly. The difference is small enough that it might be reasonable to exclude acidification from the lead, but certainly not deoxygenation.
 * I would also change "can stabilize" to "would stabilize". I think changing "when" to "if" already does enough to convey the difficulty/uncertainty in that sentence. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I love learning new things when editing these climate change articles collaboratively. For the first para of the lead, it might be enough to mention that sea level rise will continue for a long time (like we currently have it), rather than trying to expand that statement to also include deoxygenation and acidification, right? We could either include them later in the lead or just ensure that it's well explained in the main text in the "tipping points" section (?).
 * Regarding can and would, I've pulled out my highschool English grammar rules and for if/then statements it would have to be either: "Temperatures would stabilize if greenhouse gas emissions were brought under control." or "Temperatures will stabilize if greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control." I prefer the would & were combination as it's highly uncertain that this would actually happen in our lifetime... But I can also live other options. I previously had this which would also be grammatically correct: "Temperatures can stabilize if greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control." EMsmile (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a couple edits to the lead. First sentence change is obvious as per my edit comment. The second change was to collapse the last 3 sentences to one. Going into more detail here on that change:
 * Never start a sentence with "but". I went with "despite this".
 * The paragraph was overlong and, as mentioned above, we already cover oceans later in the lead so we shouldn't go on about them too much in the first paragraph.
 * The last sentence was confusing. It could be read as framing a reality where sea level rise accelerates because of warming that has already happened, and that's not true. It's the combination of future warming in that time plus warming that has already happened. I think it is better to save this for the second paragraph, which we should tackle next.
 * Sea level rise is also a result of thermal expansion so we shouldn't just say that it is a result of ice sheets melting. Ocean temperatures will continue to rise long after surface temperatures stabilize. Again, better for the second paragraph.
 * Efbrazil (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also just went through the second paragraph, I think the edit comment explains things. Mostly I wanted to be clear that it's not just location where effects differ, its also time. Artic amplification is happening now, but sea level rise / ocean heating is something that is more about the future than it is right now. I really wanted to use integrals and differential equations to explain things, but figured that wasn't the most accessible way. Efbrazil (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all this! I do like the first sentence of the lead a lot now. I says: Effects of climate change are well documented and growing for Earth's natural environment and human societies. EMsmile (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made further tweaks to the lead after checking for sentences that were still difficult to read (and happened to show up in dark red in the readability script). These were:
 * Old: The effects of ocean warming also include deoxygenation from marine heatwaves, ocean stratification, and changes to ocean currents --> this was also wrong because the marine heatwaves are not the main driver for oxygen loss. Changed to: Another effect of climate change on oceans is loss of dissolved oxygen (deoxygenation) due to more pronounced ocean stratification. There has also been a weakening of the ocean current called Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Marine heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense.. It's longer but clearer.
 * Old: Economic impacts include changes to agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism. --> Changed to Climate change also impacts the economy in various ways, for example the sectors agriculture, fisheries and forestry.. I don't think tourism needed to be mentioned here; the list could get very long otherwise. Three example sectors is sufficient.
 * Word count is now 480 words for the lead which I think is fine. EMsmile (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to split the difference on recent edits. Some were backed out. Reasoning is in the edit comments. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Efbrazil (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't agree with all of your edits and think some of them are a step backward (but then I would say that as you undid my edits...). I don't know what you mean with "I tried to split the difference on recent edits". In general, I think sentences that contain enumerations with 4 items or more is usually too many items and make it hard for readers to follow. I prefer to restrict it to two or three.
 * So for example in the sentence where the effects on oceans are listed (The effects of ocean warming also include marine heatwaves, ocean stratification, deoxygenation, and changes to ocean currents.), I would prefer two sentences instead of one (like I had it). I think we have enough space for that.
 * I also don't think that the impacts on tourism are so critical that they ought to be mentioned in the lead (other parts of the world, like Siberia, could actually become more interesting for tourism...).
 * Also this new sentence that you added is very unclear Outdoor labor may not be possible many more days out of the year due to heat stress. - "many more" than what? Why not rather "may only be possible on fewer days of the year than currently". But I don't know if this statement can be globally applicable as it differs so much from one country to another. E.g. Gulf countries much more affected by this than European countries? Temperatures that workers would find too hot in some countries might already be the norm and accepted in other countries. So not sure if this really needs to be in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening a discussion on this.
 * Ocean heating: Whether the list of ocean heating effects is 2 or 10 items shouldn't decide how many sentences it is. The time to break up a sentence is if it is logically multiple thoughts or if the sentence is a run on. Ocean acidification is separate from ocean heating, which is why it belongs in a separate sentence.
 * We could change the ocean heating sentence to two thoughts by having the first sentence be about surface heating, stratification, and marine heatwaves, then have a second sentence that covers how stratificiation causes deoxygenation and changing currents. However, that adds a lot of words and complexity, and I think it is better to be succinct in this case. There are wiki links to all the effects and the body of the article covers them as well.
 * Regarding tourism, I don't feel strongly but it is prominently mentioned in the body of the article as a major issue. So long as the body of the article dwells on the issue the lead should as well.
 * Regarding outdoor labor wording, I see what you mean by "more than what". I was using wording from the IPCC, which talks about the issue already being a problem in places like India, with a risk of it becoming a much bigger problem very quickly. It is one of the leading issues that will push cities and agricultural areas out of the habital zone and I think it needs to be in the lead. Siberia has very few people, but very populous places are being crippled by the issue. I also want to keep a link to heat stress, as that's where to learn more. Maybe this wording?
 * Higher temperatures will increasingly prevent outdoor labor due to heat stress. Efbrazil (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Tourism does not get much weight in the main body (rightly so). I see it only mentioned twice in the main body: It also affects the tourism and energy sectors. [...] If global warming goes over 1.5 °C, there may be limits to how much tourism and outdoor work can adapt.. So I think there is no need to specifically mention it in the lead, given how little space it gets in the main body.
 * Regarding your proposed sentence on outdoor working, I think it's still too cryptic like this as it is so different for different countries: It would be decades before it gets too hot in the higher latitude countries to work outside, but the issue is very real for e.g. India, Gulf countries etc. already now. Compare with the wording used in the article effects of climate change on human health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_human_health#Reduced_labour_capacity
 * And I think your proposal about ocean warming is good and we would have enough space for it: "We could change the ocean heating sentence to two thoughts by having the first sentence be about surface heating, stratification, and marine heatwaves, then have a second sentence that covers how stratificiation causes deoxygenation and changing currents." EMsmile (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I cut tourism. We didn't have a wikilink for it either, unlike the other major impacts.
 * For outdoor work I went ahead with the changed wording and added "in tropical latitudes" to address your concern there, although the problem also exists in the sub tropics (to a lesser extent). The on page content also talks tropics so I figure that's safest. I considered just "tropics" or "tropical climates" or "tropical areas", but I think mentioning "tropical latitudes" is best, as it also applies to savannah locations and deserts and so forth.
 * For ocean warming, I prefer the existing sentence as it is succinct and clear. We are enumerating effects, not how they interconnect, and I think the lead is already plenty long enough. If you want to suggest some specific other wording let me know. Efbrazil (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is good, thanks! EMsmile (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Effects of climate change
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Effects of climate change's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ArmstrongMcKay2022": From Sea level rise:  From Climate change:  From Climate change in Antarctica:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this now. Thanks to this bot or whoever programmed it for highlighting this problem. EMsmile (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

PwC graphic does not have enough context
I have undone the addition of, created by @RCraig09, because of numerous issues with the choice and representation of the data.


 * 1) Firstly, the PwC report, like other similar reports, is not a peer-reviewed source. This may not be a deal-breaker, but I'll note this regardless.
 * 2) This graphic gives the impression that the risk, as defined by PwC, goes up from 0% to values shown within 25 years, which is completely incorrect. Same report notes that >30% of the current iron ore production, nearly 50% of bauxite production, etc. are already "at risk" of heat stress. Drought risk actually does increase from 0% in many instances, and this point is lost here.
 * 3) As the above shows, their definition of "heat stress risk" does not actually stop production. What they call "significant" heat stress risk is a ~25% loss of labour capacity during 10+ days per year. High is the loss of ~50% during 10+ days per year and only "Extreme" involves temperatures which may be lethal to outdoor workers for 1+ day annually. That "Extreme" level of risk barely occurs anywhere in the mineral production by 2050, only in a fraction of agricultural production. Drought risk is defined as a given area being in severe drought 20%, 40% and 80% of the next two decades. Needless to say, none of this is apparent from the graphic.
 * 4) A minor point, but it's inconsistent to use the ore name (bauxite) in one instance, and metal name everywhere else. "Alumin(i)um" would clearly be preferred.

Thus, I am strongly opposed to including the graphic until and unless these issues are addressed. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * InformationToKnowledge: Version 2 of chart is uploaded. Re your Item 1, I've added an explanation to the footer to note it's PWC research, to place in context. Re Item 2, the title says "... in 2050" which does not imply or suggest a growth from "0" values as you infer. Re Item 3, I've changed the title to recite "Commodity production at risk in 2050", to further emphasize it's a production risk  and not a forecast of total or % loss as you seem to subjectively infer. The graphic clearly communicates climate's different impacts on these commodities; practically every chart on Wikipedia has details that aren't fully explained and here the small-font footer has explained more of the details. Item 4: "bauxite" is changed to "aluminum". . . . . Generally, it's best to rely on what the chart objectively shows, rather than subjective inferences. . . . I hope these changes overcome your objections. Everyone: things tend to progress more efficiently if people would make concrete suggestions for changes that overcome critiques, rather than critiques alone. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, but I find it too busy and text heavy.
 * First, I think you have a mistake calling lithium, cobalt, and copper minerals. I assume you meant to say metals?
 * Second, the main change I'd make is to focus the chart on primary risk factors. Showing two circles for each item is just confusing and requires that complicated text on the right hand side. Fortunately, for each threesome of items one risk factor is primary. That lets you go down to just showing the 9 most important risk factors.
 * The left most column would be "Crops at risk from heat stress", "Metals at risk from drought" and "Metals at risk from heat stress". As an added bonus that means you don't have to say "Vital" and "Critical" as ways to separate the metals (again assuming the mistake in calling one set minerals).
 * The right side text would get cut entirely. The pie charts I would change to feature the red slice beginning at 12:00 and going clockwise, since the red is what you are describing. If you do that, I don't think you need a key at all. Efbrazil (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think this complicated/busy graphic is not suitable for this high level article that already has a lot of images. It might be more suitable for a sub-article, perhaps for economic analysis of climate change. EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Efbrazil Strictly speaking, "vital metals" and "critical minerals" is how the original document chose to phrase it. The logic was apparently that the latter are critical to the energy transition, and the former are just vital? If there's a better way to phrase it, I am not yet sure about it.
 * @RCraig09 Generally, it's best to rely on what the chart objectively shows, rather than subjective inferences - the problem is that all of our readers would be forced to make inferences from what they see. Considering how many lectures I have heard about needing to consider the average reading level of Wikipedia visitors and what not, it's remarkable that you seem to think the difference between "a production risk" and a "production loss" would be readily understood by all readers - and in the way you meant it.
 * Everyone: things tend to progress more efficiently if people would make concrete suggestions for changes that overcome critiques, rather than critiques alone. - Right, so here is an example of how I think the graphic could be made better. PwC_edit.png It adds some of the key details I mentioned above, and should incorporate some of Efbrazil's feedback as well. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ● 2050 Production risk of commodities due to climate change.svg is clear and highly organized sets of two-color circles; it is not "busy". ● Agree re starting ~red at 12:00, though the simple English legends at right side are concise as they are. ● ITK is right re source labels re metals, minerals—no need to flyspeck here. ● Since "risk" is recited eight (8) times in chart text, and production "loss" is not mentioned in chart at all (only in our discussion re your personal inference), lay readers will not be "forced to" infer the difference. ● The new PwC_edit.png graphic is clever, but it introduces two new variables—time and severity—and thus ~triples or quadruples the complexity of the circles and of the legends. The thrust of the original graphic 2050 Production risk of commodities due to climate change.svg is to graphically show the variability of two different risks to each commodity—no puzzling over 2x4=8 levels of risk and circles with up to five colors. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My point was that different readers can understand the meaning of "risk" differently. Then again, this issue was arguably even more acute in my first proposal, because it introduced levels of severity without further context. I have now updated the graphic again.
 * PwC_edit_2.png - Compared to the first proposal, this version a) quickly explains how PwC defines HS/drought risk; b) immediately identifies potentially lethal HS risk, which is likely everyone's greatest concern; c) avoids the subtler distinctions in HS/drought risk, as those percentages are unlikely to be very meaningful to lay reader; d) unlike the original proposal, it manages to fit the impacts of high-emission scenario as well. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Chart version 3 starts ~red wedges at 12:00, and changes legends to "''At risk...".
 * Even after reading your 18:18 description, as an engineer I still have trouble understanding how PwC_edit.png explains/identifies some of those things at all, much less quickly or immediately. Lay readers will not decipher microscopic-distinction (2x5-category) pie charts, especially when there are 18 of 'em. Like the PWC source, the original chart focuses on one single category: commodities facing at least "significant risk". That's the purpose of the graphic. The few readers (researchers, actually) who want more subtle detail will go to the source rather than rely on Wikipedia. Aside: "fitting in the high emissions scenario" (yet another variable) is contrary to the title of the PwC_edit chart. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was commenting in a hurry and linked the wrong graphic. I know it's frowned upon, but I took the liberty of updating the image link both in my comment and in your side-by-side comparison.InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Made another change to the graphic just now. "Food crops" -> "Staple crops" + "No risk" - "Production capacity unaffected", as well as repositioning that green square. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is way, way too busy and text heavy to work as a graphic. I can't make sense of it even after staring at it for a while. I hold to my suggestion up above for simplifying it. If you don't want to simplify, then I suggest trying out a table format, as the graphic is mostly text at this point anyhow. Efbrazil (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed: the multiple variables shown in PwC_edit_2.png are busy, and far beyond intuitive recognition or analytical ability of lay readers.
 * Conversely, the original's simple, non-techy English legends simply do not make it "text heavy" or "mostly text"; the red wedges immediately dominate what humans immediately intuit: risk to various commodities. Lay readers will probably not read, much less intuit, a table filled with (abstract) numerals. The original graphic, which presents the info at the same level of detail as the source's chart, is a good middle ground to avoid opposite extremes of oversimplification and over-busy-ness. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Craig- I think maybe you missed my suggestion up above for collapsing the 18 pie charts to 9, which also allows you to eliminate text on the right hand side entirely since labels on the left can be fully descriptive. That will make the whole thing vastly simpler to understand, and is much more valuable than showing the lesser risk factors for each item along with the complicating text required. Efbrazil (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * — Efbrazil, I did read your 23:11 post, but the data doesn't neatly match your matching of pairs of commodities vs stressors. One stressor doesn't dominate, for any particular commodities, which brings up the issue of cherry-picking. Maybe if you were more explicit, maybe the suggestion would be clearer. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the data is correct in the "original" graphic, then vital metals are all most at risk from heat stress, critical minerals are most at risk from drought, and food crops are most at risk from heat stress. What am I missing?" Efbrazil (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. (light bulb emoji) It was the inconsistencies in your two 23:11 "metals" recitations that confused me. I've got to think through whether choosing only the worst risks involves editors' synthesis, but I can live with a simpler graphic as you suggest. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Voilà. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At first I was uneasy about the possible issue of cherry-picking (displaying only the worse stressor of two), but I think the footer's new explanation takes care of it adequately. The source's graphic examines only two stressors and so must have ignored/excluded other stressors, so our choosing one of the two source stressors seems ok. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice! I like on the level of being easy to understand and visually appealing. The validity of the data I'll defer to later discussion and the opinions of Femke / InformationToKnowledge. Efbrazil (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Other options re Commodities stressors

 * I have given this further thought, and decided upon the following:


 * 1) There is no real reason to push information on both heat stress and drought into a single graphic in the first place. In fact, it would be easier to use this data across multiple articles if it is separated: i.e. effects of climate change on the water cycle would only need the drought part, while any articles focusing on heat stress would only need that part of the graphic.
 * 2) We don't need to adopt the subheadings from the report ("Vital metals", "Critical minerals") in the first place. Instead, my idea is that we'll have a pictogram representing each commodity in the intentionally empty space to the right of each pie chart - i.e. a bushel next to corn chart, bread loaf next to wheat, an I-beam next to iron, etc. This should be much more effective at grabbing readers' attention.
 * Lastly, I have hopefully made the key easier to understand. And since there is leftover space beneath the key in each chart now, I used it to write some extra context. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * — ITK, halving the data does simplify each graphic, but doubles the number of graphics. Even in the 9-pie graphics, practically no lay reader will seek or appreciate different entities when they're described by different-category terms relating to different emissions levels and different risk levels that don't directly interrelate in the minds of viewers.
 * — More importantly: classically, pie charts are used to compare mutually exclusive shares of a whole. They are not properly used to show "stacked" data, as your complex (multiple-category) pie charts imply, or suggest they imply.
 * — Sorry, when I suggested you make specific suggestions for change, I didn't mean to make additional sets of drawings. But all your charts are difficult, even for us to interpret. Plus, I don't even know where in the source you've even arrived at conclusions re plural emissions levels, and WP:SYNTHesized(?) them into your graphic(s). Bottom line: Lay readers will not be able to arrive at a readily graspable "takeaway". — RCraig09 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ....Every column chart in the original report, starting from page 14, has a column labelled "high emissions". What exactly is unclear about them?
 * practically no lay reader will seek or appreciate different entities when they're described by different-category terms relating to different emissions levels and different risk levels that don't directly interrelate in the minds of viewers. Care to elaborate on this?
 * classically, pie charts are used to compare mutually exclusive shares of a whole. They are not properly used to show "stacked" data Fair. It was your choice to do this as a pie chart, so I found it easier to procede from there. I'll consider a different form of chart. However, I maintain that the conclusions of the report are too complex to be reduced to the binary representation of your proposal.
 * Bottom line: Lay readers will not be able to arrive at a readily graspable "takeaway". Well...you might find my reading a bit cynical, but to me, the takeaway of the original report was "You can adapt to this if you pay us (PwC) well for our services." That was the message the entire back half of the report is devoted to effectively. Further, that message was the reason for paragraphs like this:
 * Already today, over 75% of rice is grown in conditions of significant or greater heat risk, showing that it is not just the level of risk that matters, but rather how well prepared producers are to adapt. However, we shouldn’t be too quick to assume that today’s adaptation measures will be sufficient. The percentage of rice produced under high heat stress risk will more than triple by 2050 under a high emissions scenario, and around a quarter of rice will face extreme heat stress risk (up from zero today) driven by rising heat levels across Southeast Asia.
 * Today’s methods of rice farming in hot conditions may well be sufficient for the hotter days ahead, but the case of rice underlines a key point of this report: we must prepare for what’s coming
 * Are lay readers going to extract this specific takeaway from your proposed chart, which omits any depiction of the present risks entirely? If not, then it clearly needs to be reconsidered, does it not? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Like the source's graphic, this original graphic's intent is not to let laymen "extract" present-day data etc. etc. As I discussed repeatedly above, your chart(s) involve too many categories/variables/concepts to intuitively cram into a one or even two charts. Per my new 03:37 post above to Efbrazil, the trend of discussion here has been to simplify and crystallize for lay readers to intuitively grasp a useful "takeaway", rather than present as much data as possible selected from a 64-page source. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, I think that the only data we should be presenting from that graphic are the map-style graphics. Essentially, take the data from page 7 - about which country produces the most of which commodity - and overlay it with the map data on heat stress/drought risk on pages 10-13 in one way or another. This is probably the only way to present data from there without being misleading to casual reader.
 * On the contrary, the title of your original graphic - "Commodity production at risk in 2050" - is misleading because it implies the graphic is an accurate representation of 2050 commodity production. Instead, it simply applies 2050 climate trends to current commodity production, so the only way it can be considered accurate is if we assume no new mines are opened and crops are not planted in any new areas over the next 25 years, which is clearly an inaccurate assumption (and likely a big reason why this was not in a peer-reviewed paper.)
 * Since we cannot really clarify any graphic which presents aggregate data from there without a massive caption of some kind, it's best to omit it entirely in favour of graphics which present specific locations affected. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Any. graphic. what.so.ever.—including the ones you have proposed—will have some information missing, and can be (mis)interpreted numerous ways. The new (May 6) graphic ([[File:2050 Production risk of commodities due to climate change - single stressor version.svg|25px]] that Efbrazil suggested, conveys commodity risks intuitively, with details in the footer and sourcing. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is "can", and then there is "almost certainly will". The latest proposal looks better, but it does not change the underlying issue: the fact that we are presenting data which was originally selected by a transnational for-profit entity in order to hawk their services to global bidders in a way that seems bound to be construed by >90% of the readers as foretelling massive and effectively inevitable drops in commodity production that are not identified in any peer-reviewed literature.
 * I am hoping another editor like @Femke can weigh in on this soon, as it seems like we are at a real impasse. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seen the ping, will try to answer on Wednesday. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The 6 May chart, [[File:2050 Production risk of commodities due to climate change - single stressor version.svg|25px]], recites "risk" five times in large text and three more times in small text. These recitations ensure that readers will not interpret "massive and effectively inevitable drops in commodity production". If you're aware of a better source for commodity production riskI'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't seem to focus on it I'd be interested. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My point is: in what other way do you think our readers would interpet "risk" if they are not given further context? Since this is apparently necessary, let's look at the OED definition of risk:
 * Exposure to) the possibility of loss, injury, or other adverse or unwelcome circumstance; a chance or situation involving such a possibility.
 * Other definitions from that page include: source of harm, chance of harm, likelihood and severity of events and even statistically expected loss. Put it together, and I don't see how you can argue that a graphic which, say, shades most of rice production in red does not imply the possibility of massive, >50% losses for this crop - the possibility which simply does not exist in the scientific literature.
 * As for a better source....well, Chapter 16 of AR6 WG2 is titled Key Risks across Sectors and Regions, but it does not actually discuss commodities much (nor does the rest of the report, really.) For crops, there are the several papers I have already cited in effects of climate change on agriculture - in particular, see the three graphics in that section and another one in the "Labour and economic effects" afterwards.
 * There isn't as much attention paid to mining in the peer-reviewed literature. Luckily, very recent paper provides a much more helpful representation of how heat stress would affect both mining and the other sectors. Based on its Figure 3, I would say the PwC graphic is fairly misleading. For mining and drought risk, the only other references I found so far are an earlier for-profit agency report from McKinsey, and this interview. Neither convinces me we have to present the PwC data - at least not in the way originally suggested. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The key words I see in your 21:30 post: "possibility of loss" .... "chance or situation" .... "chance of harm" ... "likelihood" ... "possibility".
 * Arguably, every literate layman understands that "risk" does not mean certainty—especially 28 years out. Further context is provided by [[File:2050 Production risk of commodities due to climate change - single stressor version.svg|25px]]'s footer and source. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My point is that the readers are not going to think of it as "If it's a risk, there probably won't be anything happening." They would most likely think "If the full red part is the worst that can happen, then a fraction of it is what will likely happen."
 * When people see some 40%, 60% or perhaps 80% of the circle shaded in red, then "splitting the difference" and deciding that, say, 20% is practically certain would seem to be a reasonable response. Yet, in all these cases, such an assumption would be practically as wrong as just assuming the entire red part would be lost.
 * Not to mention that the graphic says it merely shows the low-emission scenario (without saying anything about the high-emission one), which a lot of people will think/know isn't happening, so that's going to make them dial up their assumptions of future impacts further. All of this would be purely due to the information you chose to leave out. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see your point that red is the wrong color. How about modifying this graphic: [[File:2050 Production risk of commodities due to climate change - single stressor version.svg|thumb|center]]
 * By going to a Red / Orange / Yellow / Green color scheme, then changing the header and subheader to be the key, like this:
 * Commodity production at risk
 * [red] Currently [orange] 2050 if low emissions [yellow] 2050 if high emissions Efbrazil (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * — Actually, ITK, the pie charts show at least "significant risk" under a low emissions scenario. It's reasonable to infer that a "fraction of it" (as you state) is likely to happen! Fifty people may make fifty different inferences from "risk"; we can't, and shouldn't, try to prevent that based on your speculation of what they would infer.
 * — Efbrazil, I'm not seeing how we can multi-color-code pie charts as you seem to suggest, since pie charts are properly used for mutually exclusive categoriesat-risk vs. not-at-risk and not "stacked" or "overlapping" quantities. Multi-level colors would also complicate the chart, which is what we were supposedly trying to avoid above. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume each category is larger than the previous. So 2050 high emissions > 2050 low emissions > current risk. I think it would be intuitively obvious that 2050 high risk includes both 2050 low risk and current risk. If we want we could wordsmith that though. For instance:
 * Commodity production at risk by 2050
 * [red] Currently [orange] Add for low emissions [yellow] Add for high emissions
 * The complexity increase would be manageable I think as we're not adding any text, just changing the sub heading. Efbrazil (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ? I thought your proposal involves making the pies themselves multi-colored, which multiplies each pie's complexity. And for good reason, pie charts—showing "different shares of the same pie—affirmatively suggest mutually exclusive quantities, which is wrong in this case. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I changed the key above to say "Add for ..." on the orange and yellow items. Red stands alone, Orange includes red, and yellow includes orange and red.
 * On the most basic traffic signal level I think the chart would be intuitive. It would be clear from the color coding what the risk level was- red is high risk, orange is medium risk, yellow is low risk, green is no risk. Efbrazil (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (continued in following section)

Multiple-radius pie chart

 * (continued from previous section)

— Alrighty then. If there is a strong consensus, now, to accept more complex pies and longer textual legends, I can do the following:
 * I could take the existing nine pies, and add for each one, add smaller-diameter wedges to overcome the customary understanding that the categories are mutually exclusive. That is: (A) the high emissions wedge has the smallest radius and shortest circumferential extent. (B) The low emissions wedge would have the second-smallest radius and circumferential extent. (C) A milder scenario wedge (specify?) would have the third-smallest radius and circumferential extent. Wedge A would be containd within Wedge B, which would be contained within Wedge C.

— I won't spend time on this time-consuming graphic unless there is a clearly expressed consensus to proceed with the added graphical complication and text additions that have previously been argued against. Please specify exactly which chart/table in the reference you think I should rely on. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Smaller diameter wedges are weird I think, because if you're going by area of the pie that's filled then they are not accurate. They only work if you are thinking about how many radians of the pie are covered. If somebody offered me 25% of a pie and then cut a little quarter shaped bit out of the middle of the pie I think I'd take offense at that. So I think I vote no on that as it's not intuitive, at least to me.
 * Maybe a good compromise is to show just 3 levels instead of 4. After all "current risk" is kind of nonsense, right? It's a scenario that doesn't exist. That would allow us to improve the wedge display to this:
 * Commodity production at risk by 2050
 * [red] At risk if low emissions [yellow] Additional risk if high emissions
 * Each pie would then be red clockwise from 12:00, followed by yellow, followed by green. Does saying "Additional risk" alleviate your concerns here? Efbrazil (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The difference in radii would be small (just enough to show a slightly surrounding "outer ring" like a portion of this: 2023 Annual Eclipse.jpg), so the information conveyed would be radians (not area) in conformance with conventional reading of pie charts. "Accumulating risk" is a better description for more than two entities. The issues of increased pie complexity (regardless of detail), and increased-verbiage legends, have not reached consensus. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, if 3 colors so the outer ring is just yellow around red, then that works for me! Also, I do think this effort is worthwhile, and thanks for continuing with it. The chart has the potential to do a good job of featuring areas to be concerned about at a glance, at least as it relates to people. Now we just need an ecosystem version... Efbrazil (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there would be three wedges, with A inside B inside C. I'm not sure exactly which three quantities you'd include. Be specific, pointing to a specific chart in the source. + We're still waiting on User:Femke, and from any further input from User:InformationToKnowledge, on this latest idea. — RCraig09 (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Efbrazil Now we just need an ecosystem version... Warren_2018_biodiversity_areas.png - has been out for the past six years, although I only uploaded it here last year. Granted, it's quite difficult to read, but when it is so comprehensive that effectively goes with the territory. Probably no way to deal with it without either cutting "less important" ecosystems (inherently subjective) or unless you split it into multiple graphics (by continent, I guess?)
 * You can find this and other graphics you might find interesting over at Extinction risk from climate change. For all that I have seen you comment that you believe our articles over-emphasize human risks vs. ecological ones, I am surprised that I have not really seen you contribute to/discuss that article.
 * For that matter, there is also Effects of climate change on biomes, which I started last year (before that, we had a catch-all and deeply obsolete article that tried and largely failed to discuss ecosystems, with a lot of its content more species-level and so reused in the extinction risk article) but then set aside to focus more on the cryosphere-related articles this year.
 * That, and I would dearly appreciate help with my efforts to create a "Decline in" article for every kingdom of life: we have already had articles on insects and amphibians, I made a start on the wild mammal article last year, and I am still hoping to make a reptile article from scratch and convert climate change and birds + Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity into "Decline of" articles this year.) If truly consider this the most important area, there's a lot you can potentially do to help deal with the blank spots in our coverage. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the main point I want to make.
 * Maybe a good compromise is to show just 3 levels instead of 4. After all "current risk" is kind of nonsense, right?
 * @Efbrazil If that is your opinion, then we would have to describe the entire dataset as "nonsense" - at least in relation to heat stress. The core of my objections is that PwC literally describe present-day conditions as a "risk" when they obviously don't interrupt production all that much - there is no way we would have had anything resembling a stable rice supply when ~70% of its production is already "at heat stress risk" according to PwC (refer to PwC_edit_HS.png again or better yet, to the original PDF).
 * Of course, the whole reason for that stems from the way PwC definition of "significant" risk starts at just 10 days a year being hot enough to curtail working conditions. Yes, it is a risk to workers, but we are presenting this graphic as if it describes production risk. Since there are 365 days in a year, the impact on output is relatively limited. Since apparently neither you nor Craig looked at any of the links I sent before, in response to Craig's request for a better source for commodity production risk I am linking this figure again. According to an actually peer-reviewed Nature study, the 2050 economic impacts from heat stress on commodity sectors are all in single-digit percentages even under SSP5-8.5, and not whatever the proposed graphic would have our readers believe.
 * So, my opinion now is that the heat stress "data" from there is practically useless. We should either use the Nature graphic directly (it's CC-BY, after all) or else adapt it in some way. The drought circles in relation to crops are even more useless. They do not describe anything besides a minor fraction of the same estimates which have been going into dedicated crop models for decades now, and we have more than enough studies with projections based on those full crop models (again, refer to effects of climate change on agriculture).
 * Thus, the only data which may warrant inclusion is about metal extraction and drought. It helps that their definition of drought risk actually does refer to conditions not currently encountered at those production sites (copper is the only exception of the six), so we wouldn't need to have a "current" circle. Even so, there are still two major caveats:
 * It only describes the conditions at the current production sites in 2050. I know that predicting future mining sites can be a matter of geopolitics and what not, but even so, the assumption that no new mines for any of those metals will open over the next 25 years is untenable. Either we clearly clarify this, or we switch to map-style representation.
 * I could not find any peer-reviewed paper which considers metal extraction at risk of drought, and it may be for good reason. I'll quote a scientist from this interview I found earlier:
 * Mining, typically, is a drop in the ocean compared to agriculture, which gets about 90% of available water. The water that the mines do have access to, however, is often from high security allocations, and these are usually the last to be impacted in cases of drought...
 * Most mines have developed a detailed water balance model. If a mine is at risk of drought, it would be captured by the water balance assessment and the mine would have put in place mitigation strategies. If mines have done their forecasting correctly, they should not be impacted. One issue that tends to happen with mining is that there is still a culture of not allocating resources to manage long term risks. It is a very short-term focused industry. The response to water scarcity is less about new technology being identified and deployed, and more about planning properly...
 * Would you be surprised to see operations closing due to water scarcity? ...Yes. But if they close, there could be several reasons: the historical climate data that was used in water balance assessment was not adequate, the forecasting and planning exercise was not done at all or, and in my view this is the most likely explanation, all the technical work was done adequately but they haven’t been able to secure the resources to implement a mitigation plan. ...With water (and environment in general), you must make the decision for the long term based on years of data. You can’t decide today you need to do something about water scarcity and have it come into effect in a month, it doesn’t work that way. ...For example, it takes a minimum of 18 months to install a desalination plant on a mine site. You would need to make the decision two to three years before the problem arises. The issue with the industry is they struggle with decisions for the long term. It’s driven by the market, it’s driven by commodity prices, and they fail to apply long term thinking.
 * If we want to make a difference to water use in mining, we need to focus on tailings. We wouldn’t have had tailings dam failures with dry tailings. Disposing of wet tailings is cheaper, until we have a dam failure. A large scale move to drier tailings would make a big difference.
 * So, it might be that no peer-reviewed study to date made any of these projections because the mining industry already has a lot of adaptive capacity that they just don't bother using. If that's the case, this graphic is basically industry inside baseball - something that the mining CEOs need to be worrying about, not the lay readers. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all very well said InformationToKnowledge. To be clear, as I said above, I am only looking at the visuals, and trusting you to challenge the source, which you are doing a great job of. My main critique of what you have contributed is that the visuals you have offered have been way too complex to be useful.
 * A pie chart showing 25% of production "at risk" certainly implies that 25% of production may be lost. If "risk" here really means instead that some tiny fraction of that 25% may be impacted in some way then I agree with you that the information may not be useful to a lay audience. I at least can't figure out how to word things to make it useful.
 * Interesting to hear Craig's thoughts on the matter. Efbrazil (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * — The reliability of the source is a valid topic for discussion, though I maintain that specifically reciting the source in the graphic's footer places it in proper context.
 * — I see zero problem with the term risk, which starts with the common understanding of the word and, also, is further explained in the footer. I object to the presumption that readers will adopt tortured interpretations, along the lines of everything-risked-will-definitely-be-lost.
 * — The Nature chart is a jaw-droppingly complex data collection that will make readers' eyes glaze over and leave with no useful "takeaway". The suggestion to "map" that data is not only vague as to which specific data should be mapped or how it should be mapped, but doesn't resolve the perceived ambiguity about the term, risk.
 * — The Mining Technology passage is one source serving as a basis for a Wikipedia editor critiquing another source. In such cases, in the absence of an awesomely amazingly perfectly totally excellent graphic, it's more appropriate to include both sources in some way, rather than include neither. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not read through all the text here. If we choose one of the graphs, I would choose the May 6 one. It's the most clear and simple one. It took me a while to understand the May 2 ones, and the later ones are too busy. The article is quite heavily imaged already, so there may be an argument that this graph is too detailed anyway. Is there an other article that works? Environmental effects of mining doesn't quite. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Femke Sorry, I know that we shouldn't expect you to read the entire discussion, but can you please at least focus on the last three comments immediately above yours? Starting about from Maybe a good compromise is...
 * The thing is that I am extremely skeptical of the validity/appropriateness of the non-peer-reviewed data used for the graphic. I attempted to address this by adding more caveats (hence those complex proposals), but I now think it's best to not use any of it in the first place. Efbrazil is now open to this argument as well. Please try to comment on this aspect. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

First sentence (narrow discussion)
I realize there has already been related discussion, but the opening sentence in this quite high-level article continues to make me cringe:
 * Current:

Critique:
 * "" (esp. when used in a lead) raises the question of promotional editorial bias, and suggests defensiveness.
 * The phrase "" is incongruous (unmatched concepts).
 * "" just ends up being puzzling.

I propose re-structuring:
 * Proposal A:

It's neutral, concise, unambiguous, and non-clumsy. (It doesn't bother me that, like the Climate change article, the lead doesn't start out with the title of the article.) Let's keep discussion concise and narrowly focused. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd be open to revisiting this first sentence. Your Proposal A could work although its reading ease score is lower and it's using passive voice. It could be changed to active voice as follows: Proposal B: Climate change is impacting Earth's environment and human societies.. or Proposal C: Climate change is affecting Earth's environment and human societies.. It means we would no longer have the article's title in the lead sentence but that's OK.
 * I think I like the current version a little bit more, because it's "stronger" (you say it might be "editorial"). I think we could theoretically add a ref to "prove" that it's indeed "well documented". But I can also understand your point of view and concern. And I agree that "growing" is a bit odd here.
 * Here's another proposed alternative: Proposal D: The effects of climate change encompass a wide range of impacts on Earth's natural environment and human societies. (this one has a better reading ease score) EMsmile (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Humans, not machines, should interpret "readability" in context. A is not in passive voice. It's best to retain literal title (a point against B and C though they're basically OK as statements). D is wordy for humans even if a machine prefers it. Definitely against adding a cite to since, as the only cite in the entire paragraph, it would add to the perception of editorial bias and defensiveness. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * True, proposal A is not passive voice, I got that wrong. But the most important part of the sentence is at the very back which makes it awkward in my ears. I don't feel very strongly about the different options though, so am looking forward to reading how this discussion develops.
 * The readability score (from the readability script) is useful because it's objective, not subjective, but it's only one factor of many. Let's always keep our target audience in mind (which includes lay persons, people without a university degree and non-native speakers). Those tools are certainly not perfect and can only be a very rough guide, if at all. EMsmile (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Geological
Write about causes, effects and solutions of Climate change Also add the impact of Wildfire on the ecosystem. 2409:40E4:49:C05B:C5BE:3DCE:847B:7424 (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See Causes of climate change, Effects of climate change, Climate change mitigation and Climate change adaptation. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)