Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Climate change/archive1

Article stats

FAC Nominator User:La goutte de pluie

Authorship stats

1. Femkemilene 35.9%
2. J. Johnson 12.2%
3. Dtetta 9.3%

Top editor stats

1. Femkemilene · 1,476 (23.6%)
2. William M. Connolley · 1,200 (19.2%)
3. UBeR · 700 (11.2%)

Stats excerpted as of 6 December, 2021, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

FASA nominations

Please set up separate sections for each nomination.

FASA nomination Femkemilene

I nominate Femkemilene for a Featured Article Save Award for Climate change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion Femkemilene

• Support. This was a 2006 FA, last reviewed in 2007, that needed a lot of work to bring it back to Featured status. Femkemilene was not the original nominator. Femke worked tirelessly to update and restore the article before bringing it to FAR for a new review, and then continued working to respond to reviewer comments. Femke is now the leading editor of the article, and responsible for over a third of its content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  And a WP:MILLION award: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Femkemilene has been wrangling a number of different perspectives and tweaks as we update the science and connect it to other parts of the wiki! Seems like a well deserved nomination, Sadads (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Femke is a valued subject matter expert who has overseen the accuracy and neutrality of the substantive content, as well as adhering to Wikipedia's many internal standards. As a result of her expertise and leadership in recent years, the quality of this article will likely endure for years to come. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Hell yes. An improvement of this magnitude at an article with the kinds of challenges that Climate change does is rare, because it takes someone with both deep talent and enormous dedication to pull it all together. We're very lucky to have her. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Also for great diplomatic skills Chidgk1 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, keeping in mind wider work into the topic elsewhere in addition. CMD (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Moved from main FAR page, all resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have run the scripts to standardize dates and dashes (you can install them to keep the article in shape: User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates, User:GregU/dashes.js)
• There is a considerable amount of duplicate links (some of which may be called for); please check them with User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
• There are centigrade temperatures without farenheit converts throughout.
• See MOS:SANDWICH: The first image of a section should be placed below the hatnote templates. ... I have corrected.
• Sporadic inconsistent citations ... Brown, Oli, MRS No. 31 – Migration and Climate Change, International Organization for Migration, retrieved 8 October 2020 while the rest are Retrieved ... check throughout
  • I think that is the only citation using WP:CS2; I have fixed it. There are other instances of {{Citation}} but they have |mode=cs1. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Harvref error: Nat Commun, 22 November 2018 Harv error: link from CITEREFNat_Commun,_22_November2018 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Fixed Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• When you do this in a citation: IPCC AR4 WG3 Ch1 2007, Executive summary (all blue linked), it is difficult to distinguish the actual citation from the page/location stored in loc=. You can solve that by adding the word "sec." before the loc, where only the loc is linked (blue) and the sec. is unlinked. IPCC AR4 WG3 Ch1 2007, sec. Executive summary. See Immune_system#References (search on sec.)
  • Modified current footnote 270 to refer to the specific page referenced in the text.Dtetta (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Harvref errors throughout, for example, Non-technical sources. Install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors to locate all of them, and see resolving errors.
• On packed galleries, see this sample at Russulaceae and this sample at Mayfly for a technique to better keep them all together at different screen widths.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Graham87 and RexxS: this article has been considerably reworked since it was promoted over a decade ago and there are interesting image innovations. Could you give it an ACESSIBILITY check? Much obliged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've checked the weird image syntax, and it seems fine. Graham87 02:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've solved all the issues are easy to do with my accessibility software. Not entirely sure whether the scripts for dates and dashes have installed correctly; I can't see them in tools. Dtetta, would you have time to go over the remaining inconsistent citations? RCraig09, could you have a look at the galleries? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I will review/correct the inconsistent citations noted above. Dtetta (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

RCraig09, Femkemilene: I made the recommended gallery format change. Efbrazil (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• This statement could benefit from a better source: it is now using a Forbes contributor (not staff, see WP:FORBES), and surely the statement is easily sourced elsewhere: ... and the European Commission presented its European Green Deal with the goal of making the EU carbon-neutral by 2050.[289] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Replaced with Politico. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Why is this italicized ? WP:ITALICS MOS:BADITALICS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  by changing how much of the sunlight gets reflected back into space (albedo)

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK, do common words known to most English speaking words need linking here ? Samples like aluminum, glass, plastic ... review throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like most of mine so far have been addressed, but I have been pressed for time to go back and check. I will look some more once I catch up; meanwhile, Femkemilene you should notify all WikiProjects listed on talk (unless they're defunct). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

done, I think, but bedtime. I wanted to avoid spamming all of them. Will list them on this page tomorrow evening. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

• The citation in the lead "Climate Change: Global Temperature". does not match the formatting of the rest of the references.

  Fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• May be worth rewriting specific jargon in places like captions such as "Radiative forcing", "Ship tracks", "RCPs", and "CMIP5".

Are ship tracks jargon? I've removed RCP and CMIP5, and still thinking about how to replace radiative forcing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The specific meaning is quite jargony, I very much doubt most people have heard of it. CMD (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to find, just now, that ship tracks are a type of cloud. You're completely right. I will change this. I have removed mention of radiative forcing from the figure, and contextualised that the better in the text. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the picture altogether. There had been another comment on talk ages ago that it was unclear, it was ugly to have two white pictures next to each other, and the article has a bit too many pictures anyway. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: When working on the article for Climate_sensitivity -- we decided that you can't avoid radiative forcing, but that it should be explained clearly in the article, Sadads (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

climate sensitivity is defined in terms of radiative forcing, so that's quite a different case. I think here we might be able to avoid it by saying contributions, and linking that word to radiative forcing. People clicking on the image can get further description there (not checked if it can be found there) Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I understand the lead probably includes citations here due to the controversy this topic attracts, but a few quotes used don't match the sentences they are sourcing, which feels like it hinders the purpose.
  • "resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns" is not in the "IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers 2013, p. 4" quote.

I suggest we use NASA Climate Kids as the reference for the current footnote 1, as includes easy to understand, general facts, which seems to be the objective of the first sentence (to introduce the reader to the topic). I think that statement would also be ok without any reference at all. I also suggest we move the IPCC AR5 WGI Reference currently being used for current Footnote 1, and use it as the citation/reference for current Footnote 2; I think it does a better job of supporting the second sentence in the paragraph than the SR 15 Chapter 1 reference. It could either substitute or just be the first of two references for that Footnote.Dtetta (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that first sentence isn't controversial, so doesn't need a cite in the lede. I've merged footnote 1 and 2 at the end. Footnote 1 is less strong, because it's older, so footnote 2 is also needed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• • "Surface temperature rise is greatest in the Arctic", cited source quote (from IPCC Cryosphere p.16) does not support the Arctic alone but the cryosphere as a whole. (A.1.4 on the relevant page I think is a key part of the Arctic claim.)

We could use this National Snow and Ice Data Center reference for that statement instead.Dtetta (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That source is in line with IPCC, stating that the Arctic warmed over twice as fast as global average. It doesn't state surfrace temperature rise is greatest. We say twice in the body too. The problem of changing that here is one of prose: the previous sentence is about land warming twice as fast as ocean, and repeating that is boring prose. I think if we add the NSIDC source, rm the quote, cite IPCC SROCC p6 and p212 (like body), we're solid. Non-peer-reviewed sources shouldn't stand on their own, but should supplement peer-reivewed ones. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

the reworded text is in line with the source given. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• • The IPCC SRCCL 2019 quote doesn't mention infrastructure damage and only alludes to agriculture in mentioning food security. Needs A.2.8 on the next page for agriculture, and it doesn't cover infrastructure. Damaged infrastructure is also not mentioned anywhere in the article body.

I think pp 450-460 of SRCCL Ch5 SRCCL Ch5 and p6 of AR5 WGII SPM would a good combination of references for this statement. We should also have a short statement in the Humans subsection on the infrastructure impacts concept, and could reference relevant pages of the AR5 WGII SPM for that. Dtetta (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I've opted to refocus that sentence on the physical effect, using a cite from the article. Bogazicili has been adding many human impacts with appropriate cites, so have deleted poorly cited for balance. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• • The IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, p. 7 quote goes on for a bit longer than it needs to, and this weakens the point made.

I've removed it completely, as that sentence needs more elements from the page; it had multiple ellipses, and couldn't be shortened logically. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

These points are somehow more difficult to tackle than I though. Most of our HQRS are not dense, so getting a good citation for these summarized sentences is difficult. Damaged infrastructure used to be mentioned in body, will see whether I can reintroduce it. RCraig09 and Dtetta any ideas of better sourcing in lede/body? I'm noticing the Arctic warming statement is not in the same words in the body either, and relies on relatively old sources (AR5, instead of SROCC). Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I will work on addressing these, and put my suggestion immediately below each specific comment. Dtetta (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• "land surface changes are causing deserts", desertification is a land surface change itself.

Reverting to last week's version of this sentence. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• The mention SDG 13 seems undue, it's one part of the broad SDGs and has been superseded by more recent agreements and action. The cited source for SDG13 in the body is a facts page that does not support the idea of importance.

Removed from lede

Regarding the comment above: "The mention SDG 13 seems undue, it's one part of the broad SDGs and has been superseded by more recent agreements and action. The cited source for SDG13 in the body is a facts page that does not support the idea of importance.": I have now shortened this part and took out the term "importance". But I do think the SDG 13 does need to be mentioned in this article in one way or another. I think this option how it's currently done (added by me a little while ago) is one option but there could be other options how it could be referred to. I do think it's important to show climate change's relationship to the Sustainable Development Goals. EMsmile (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unspecific. I do not think it is out of place in the article as a whole, just that the presence as the final statement in the lead gives it undue prominence.

CMD (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, then I think it's OK now like this? I.e. not mentioned in the lead but mentioned in the article to point people to the relevant other article(s). EMsmile (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing could be improved, but I think the SDGs provide a good example of how climate change is interlinked with a host of other issues. CMD (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph is now back to having mainly legalistic quotes, and still no secondary source. I think this primary source cannot be used to show it's due so much space. I suspect that more than a sentence isn't due, but can be convinced to have a second one there if it's significance can be shown (preferably a recent source). Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I completely rewrote paragraph to address comment on GCF. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Putting "That human activity is causing climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing" so near the start feels reactionary, and undue compared to the relevance of the controversy.

Many US/Aussie sources still give a lot of prominence to it, whereas sources from other parts of the globe don't. An easy way to give it a bit less prominence is to put it in the middle of the paragraph, as the third sentence. Do you think that's still too much? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be an improvement, but I would have to think about what is too much. I suppose my general point is that it comes on as a very direct and combative statement, which is not what this encyclopaedia article should be for. It could be written more subtly. The current formulation would make more sense tonewise in Global warming controversy. See for example how Evolution covers its similar issue in the fourth paragraph of the lead, with the specific arguments dealt with in Objections to evolution. CMD (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "However, the observed rise in temperature" needs an adjective such as "current" or "modern" as the previous sentence is talking about prehistoric events.

Done

• "Climate proxy records" is another bit of jargon that could be rewritten with a quick explanation.

Done

• "near-surface atmospheric temperature" doesn't even have a wikilink to explain its meaning.

Rewrote the entire sentence to be closer to the source, leaving that word out.

• Suggest "natural fluctuations" be expanded to "natural fluctuations in climate patterns" or similar.

Changed to "can be attributed to a combination of natural temperature variability" ("Temperature" is more accurate than "climate patterns", and "variability" is used in the source). —RCraig09 (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest "Global warming refers to global averages" be altered to "Global warming is usually referred to using global averages" or similar, as the terms doesn't strictly refer to the single temperature increase. Either way, that sentence isn't supported by the source, which only mentions the term "Global warming" once.

It does refer to a single temperature increase. Now that the word climate change is the all-encompassing word, global warming has reverted back to its technical definition among climate scientists at least, referring to the temperature at 2 m high averaged over the year and over the globe. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It has reverted back in technical and scientific circles, but still retains its much broader sense. A slightly more detailed explanation of the technical meaning would be quite useful actually, if sourced. There's a couple of places where the words feel a bit loose if intended in the strict techincal sense, such as "aerosols...no longer mask global warming as much" where in the strict sense aerosols were a component of the specific temperature change of global warming and what was masked was other contributing factors, or "The size and speed of global warming is making abrupt changes in ecosystems more likely" where it is the local change rather than the overall change which is key (although I understand the point being made). CMD (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that the terminology section is located at the beginning of the article and deals with meaning more effectively, I suggest the first sentence be reworded to something along the lines of "The amount of (current?) warming varies between regions." CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the added value of adding that sentence (you mean adding it as the first line of terminology right?). We have multiple images showing this, a full subsection in the observed warming section, and it's rarely emphasised in different sources we have on global warming definitions. It would also break the logic of that paragraph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am referring to the first line in what was the "Regional variation" subsection, now the fourth paragraph of "Observed temperature rise". It's a bit of clunky wording that is now unnecessary. CMD (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

removed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• "not as synchronous across regions" is a bit jargony, I don't know if the average reader will understand what that means.

rewrote as did not occur at the same time across regions, which might be oversimplifying.

Slightly tweaked it a bit more, let me know if I added some error. CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The strength of both the land and ocean sinks increases as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise. In this respect they act as suppressing feedbacks in global warming." This doesn't make sense, as strengthening implies a relative intensification, while for many sinks they are likely taking more carbon in because there is more carbon out there to take. The source supports this assumption, noting "Both ocean and land CO2 sinks have increased roughly in line with the atmospheric increase". A linear relation is not a suppressing feedback (and the ocean sink may in fact shrink, as mentioned later in the article).

I'm ashamed that I led that slide. I've removed the second sentence and will think a bit further about the first one.

I remain unsure about the wording suggesting strength increases as CO2 levels rise. The source seems to be more about the limits of our knowledge of sinks, and where they exceeded expectations, but that isn't the same as their strength increasing. Strengh remains a bit ambiguous, because while they may take in more in absolute levels, this doesn't correlate with percentage levels. Is there a specific quote/section of the quite detailed source that is particularly pertinent for this text? CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We have a better discussion of this in the feedback subsection, so I've removed in effort to make this section shorter for adaptation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• For ocean acidification, I think it would be useful to have a brief summary of the mechanism by which acidiciation harms coral and shellfish, as a drop in calcium carbonate is quite a startling effect.

I've focussed the sentence here more on those chemical effects, so that it's less repetitive with the sentence in the Nature and wildlife subsection. Alright, or do you think it's better to completely put it in the latter section? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

To carefully divide the topic between the subsections, I think the first mention (Physical environment) could be reworded to describe ocean acidification (eg. causing the ocean to become more acidic) rather than just using the term which introduces it as a physical process and may read better. The term being used subsequently is quite understandable. The Calcification mention would enhance the nature section by providing a specific example, as the current sentence is quite generic and general. CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• The source for the "Models project different future temperature rises..." sentence is from 2002, could it be supplemented with a more recent source?

I've had a look, but modern sources go into so much detail, and this is something that will remain true for another 20 years.. Allow me to be lazy here. (belated response because I had minor COI with author, which I'm proud to say is now resolved :). may I present to you, dr. Femke Nijsse? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are used as input for climate models". Is this really true for every climate model? While here, the sentence source needs a page number.

I agree the sentence isn't great, but not sure how to fix it yet. I don't think the sentence necessarily implies that its true for every climate model. We are a bit in the middle (maybe towards the end?) of a switch between RCP and SSPs (those shared socio-economic pathways), so it's becoming less true every month. I was waiting for the SSP to be slightly more established before rewriting, as we will probably also need to find a new image. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

To me the sentence reads as universal in scope and in time, but I would be interested to know how others read it. CMD (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

done. Will properly update in July, when the new IPCC report is published. The terminology is shifting a bit too much still. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There is still a bit of an issue here with recentism, not in the sense that it's wrong to only include the more current (and theoretically therefore the most accurate) models, but in that it shouldn't read as that models have always been based on these items. This is especially true if the terminology keeps shifting. Is there some adjective that would best fit before "climate models"? "Current", "modern", "IPCC", or similar. From the source, which I think is pointing to page 8, it sounds like this is just IPCC models, so if so this should be clear. CMD (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've proposed a removal of the specific RCPs, because the jargon shift is quite subtle and difficult to exlain. The IPCC doesn't 'have' any models, they just assess all models worth talking about. It's mostly used for CMIP models (the most complex models), but also for models of lower complexity. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Attribution of recent climate change shows that the primary cause is greenhouse gases, and secondarily land-use changes, and aerosols and soot." This is an odd sentence as it gives 3 secondary drivers. I'm also not seeing how this sentence is drawn from the source pages provided. Its only mention of land use is as a factor reducing climate change.

I've condensed it to the basics: greenhouse gases and aerosols. Land-use mostly important locally. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Afterwards, the ocean's overturning circulation distributes it deep into the ocean's interior, where it accumulates over time as part of the carbon cycle (changing the ocean's chemistry)." The parenthetical mention of ocean acidification is misleading as placed, as it suggests that such acidification happens only deep in the ocean, despite it being a critical concern for shallow waters as well. Acidification is covered elsewhere, so this parenthetical is probably unnecessary.

Done

• Beef is not an agricultural product.

It is?

Absolutely. I got lost in the words. CMD (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "so it cannot be responsible for the current warming" again feels a bit reactive, I'm unsure if it adds to the preceding "There has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun's energy reaching the Earth", or to the second paragraph which explains that conclusion more comprehensively.

Removed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Present-day volcanic CO2 emissions during eruptions and during non-eruptive periods represent only about 1% of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions." Is that meant to be total CO2 emissions, not just anthropogenic, or 1% of what anthropogenic CO2 emissions are?

The latter. I think the word represent was a bit confusing here. Changed wording to "Present-day volcanic CO2 emissions are less than 1% of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions". Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• "(described below)" isn't needed, especially as it's referring to the very next paragraph.

Done

• "this further heats the climate" should be "this further heats the atmosphere".

Done: Revised to read: "As water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, this further heats the atmosphere." (heating of climate is indirect) —RCraig09 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "clouds can act more as an insulator", remove "more".

Has been done. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "feedbacks", "water-vapour feedback", and " ice-albedo feedback" may be more bad italics, and I'm not sure they're needed at all. For example, the water-vapour sentence works well if it ends where the colon currently is.

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "and in oceans" -> "and in the ocean"

In a technical article, "oceans" is more correct. "The ocean" is colloquial, and is vague (which ocean?) and technically incorrect. I think this passage should remain unchanged. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The ocean in question would be the world ocean. The source even uses "land plants and the ocean". Perhaps "in the oceans" would work, but "in oceans" does not. On the same sentence, having had a closer look, the source does not actually support the claim made, as it talks about the ocean sink as a whole combined with land plants, not just plants in both areas. CMD (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Good points. Sentence is now changed to be more like source: "Barely half of human-caused CO₂ emissions have been absorbed by land plants and by the oceans." —RCraig09 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "CO2 and an extended growing season have stimulated plant growth, making the land carbon cycle a balancing feedback. Climate change also increases droughts and heat waves that inhibit plant growth, which makes it uncertain that this balancing feedback will persist in the future." This feedback assessment is not in the source. The long term trend needs to cite page 144 not 133.

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Sea level rise since 1990 was underestimated in older models, but now agrees well with observations." This sentence needs rewriting/clarifying, as sea level rise is an observation.

This might be my foggy brain as a climate modeller, but to me to send this clear which makes it difficult to simplify. Sea level rise is a model output as well as an observation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that SLR is clear, but I just modified the language: "Sea level rise since 1990 was underestimated in older models, but more recent models agree well with observations." —RCraig09 (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That modification fixes the ambiguity for me. CMD (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Shared Socioeconomic Pathway" is another jargon phrase better represented through a pipelink.

done Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• "effecting oceans, ice, and weather", shouldn't this be "affecting"?

done Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Various mechanisms have been identified that might explain extreme weather in mid-latitudes from the rapidly warming Arctic" could be reworded to "Various mechanisms have been identified that might explain how extreme weather in mid-latitudes is linked to the rapidly warming Arctic" or similar.

Removed the whole sentence after reading https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00954-y. Evidence that this is important seems weak now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• The arctic sea ice source is from 2008, I assume there may be a more recent one that can be added as well. The following sentence similarly has 2009 and 2013 sources.

Updated 2009 source. 2013 source is fine now. Still thinking about replacing sentence with 2008 source, have asked my sea-ice expert friend for a new source for the 2008 sentence (or replacing it with more important fact) after failing a google scholar search. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• "the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems". Sentence needs tweaking. Is it reduced diversity in the number of ecosystems, or reduced diversity within various ecosystems?

Couldn't find support for second half of sentence in source, so removed it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• The "Poloczanska et al. 2013." source seems outdated for the impacts of temperature change on marine species, and the overall hesitancy about the impact seems out of date. My understanding is there is a consensus that marine species are being displaced much faster than terrestrial species. (I recall a nature paper I can't find, but there are papers such as [2][3][4], and likely too recent but I found interesting [5].)

done, interesting reads. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• The ocean acidification sentence here feels a bit redundant to the earlier section, and more general.

Split is now improved. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Surprised there's no explicit mention of coral bleaching outside of an image caption.

I've included coral bleaching with one of my first semicolons. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Adaptation and mitigation are not themselves responses, they're a categorisation system that takes into account the goals and effects of different responses. The Gordjin source calls them "approaches", which fits better, although this first sentence appears a paraphrase of that sentence.

I've always felt this responses is vague and might imply that they are somewhat exclusive. Never knew what to replace it with. Approaches is better, but I'm planning to propose a larger chance to address some of your comments below. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

In reading a few tertiary sources, I'm now convinced that responses is fine. I prefer splitting the section into adaptation and mitigation to completely avoid the word. I'm not entirely sure whether I have consensus for that change, with three in favour and two against using almost exactly the same arguments for either position. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• The second sentence in Responses feels like a very close paraphrase of the IPCC.

Rephrased

• Are there more sources that reflect this three-pronged definition of responses? I'm not sure climate engineering is due such prominence (and can imagine a strong argument that it counts as mitigation). Overall, I think the introduction paragraph does need to be expanded a bit more. Mitigation and adaptation are often discussed together, but they are fundamentally different (if theoretically complementary) approaches to the issue, and the current introduction doesn't feel sufficient in explaining their differing implications.

I've posted a proposal on the talk page to ask whether there are any objections to putting geo-engineering under mitigation (as a response to the small sections comment). While the literature is ambiguous geoengineering is mitigation, I think the undue attention to engineering is a worse problem. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Geoengineering seems to be relegated to a brief “Box” mention in the AR5 synthesis report (Box 3.3 p89), and appears to be considered a type of mitigation approach that is relatively quickly dismissed. I haven’t found other reports that depict 2050 scenarios in which geoengineering has any significant role as a mitigation approach, so it makes sense to me that the “three pronged” structuring of subsections with the Responses section has evolved the way it has; I think it works. The extent of coverage the article had been according climate engineering also seems appropriate; it is covered in the literature, and merits some mention, but I don’t think we have been giving it more emphasis than is due. The result is a relatively short subsection. Do you still think specific structural changes are needed? On a related topic, I think the mention of geoengineering techniques, specifically SRM, should be removed from the last lede paragraph. Dtetta (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that geo-engineering being given only a single box in the AR5 synthesis report gives further support for the idea it should not be put on the same footing structurally as mitigation and adaptation. Thanks for checking. It would be great to remove SRM from the lede :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the first Mitigation paragraph, there is an understandable focus on 1.5C, but it is undue to treat it as the main focus. 2C was the longstanding traditional goal, which is reflected by it being the upper limit established in the Paris Agreement (diplomatic vagueness aside). 1.5C is the ambition on top of that. While the five years since have seen increasing focus on 1.5, I don't think the situation has totally reversed to make 2 the addendum to 1.5.

Based on the citation, the emissions gap that was described was actually referring to a 2C standard, not 1.5...the text was revised to reflect this. Dtetta (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest switching around the 3rd (Renewable energy technologies...) and second (Fossil fuels accounted...) sentences of Changing sources of energy to reduce redundancy and improve flow.

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• "United Nations Environment Programme 2019, Table ES.3" may need a page number (XXIII), best to check with the MOS people.

Dtetta: I can't really verify this statement from the table. Do you think you could rewrite closer to the source, or rewrite this paragraph focussed on 2 as well as 1.5 degrees? I find good prose difficult with these two goals.. The 2020 emission gap report came out ten days ago. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I will work on that. There is also a newer UNEP report on this topic, so it may be better to include that as part of addressing this comment. Dtetta (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To address CMD’s comment, I modified the citation for current Footnote 238 to add the page number. Femke, are you referring to the text related to Footnote 238 (Table ES.3), or Footnote 213 (Table ES.1)? Your comment seems to indicate that you are referring to Footnote 213.Dtetta (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to Table ES.1 indeed, sorry. ES.1 is now footnote 220. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Revised the citation for Footnote 220, and modified the text to better reflect the statements on page XX of that UNEP report. The 2020 report did not seem to have any significant updated information on this estimate, so I left the citation for the 2019 report.Dtetta (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Soil management on croplands and grasslands is another effective mitigation technique." The source used seems to discuss soil and crop management in terms of adaptation, not CCS. Mitigation is occasionally mentioned, but is not called CCS. Is the source pointing to the wrong pages?

I found the IPCC source too technical and therefore difficult to summarize. I've found a new review source, which makes the tone of the paragraph consistent. (it seemed too positive about the effectiveness, whereas especially soil sequestration is still underresearched). Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• The focus on land-based natural CCS ignores blue carbon CCS, which is due at least some mention in the natural CCS context.

My new source also talks about this, added it. Had never heard of this before. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• There should be a mention of 'articial' CCS, as this is the usual meaning when CCS is discussed.

I think the confusion here came from me merging paragraph CCS with the paragraph on carbon sinks. I have split the paragraphs again, and put the information about geoengineering after the text about enhancing carbon sinks.

Is the paragraph about standard CCS clear now? The second paragraph might need some more tuning.

I think the split is clear. I agree the second paragraph is a bit out of balance, but the solution may lie in expandding the first paragraph, which could include a short description of techniques already being piloted. CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. I wouldn't say pilot projects are due here, and the techniques behind CCS are too technical? I've added a sentence about BECCS, which hadn't been explicitly mentioned in the artice. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean there should be a mention of some CCS which is already happening. While ongoing projects (artificial and natural) are quite limited, they actually exist, which makes them feel more due than potential and theoretical futures. There is a lot on potential and theoretical mitigation in the article, compared to actual current mitigation. The BECCS source is in this vein, modelling future scenarios, rather than anything actually happening. CMD (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you mean with having a lot of potential and theoretical mitigation in the article. I'm not sure about your proposed solution however. I've added that it is barely realised at scale, from the 2018 IPCC report. I'll include this on my list of things to update when the new IPCC report is out and keep an eye out for outer review-type HQRS. Mentioning it from a more positive angle (there are x pilot projects), feels like it would go against the grain of making the section less 'positive'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

What about something like "Although its current use is limited in scale and expensive" as a way of introducing the second sentence? It seems like that would address the concern that the paragraph should recognize that CCS is in fact currently being deployed. Dtetta (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• "make sure the Green Climate Fund becomes operational as soon as possible." The GCF is already operational (in its own way).

I have changed the wording on that one now to make it clearer that the "as soon as possible" is the quoted wording from SDG 13. If the Green Climate Fund is already operational then this should be stated in a follow-up sentence (or we expected people to click through to the sub-article to find out more about it?). EMsmile (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If the GCF is important enough to mention as a goal, it seems to follow that it is important to mention what has happened to the goal rather than leaving a misleading implication. Detail can be left to other articles though. CMD (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the entire paragraph about the sustainable development goal. The goal itself is now mentioned in another paragraph about sustainable development and its relation to climate change. The green climate fund is now mentioned as part of the discussion of the Copenhagen Accord, where it was initially proposed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• The two short paragraphs at the end of Policies and measures may fit better in the Society and culture section, although I can see the argument for its current placement.

CMD (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• The article lists American and Chinese as the least concerned peoples, but then adds detail only on the American public.

Done, this is a recurring problem. I've removed quite a few polls about the US already. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Echo chamber" should be appropriately wikilinked, and not given scare quotes.

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• The "litigation" section of the article seems quite short. It has had significant results in the Netherlands and the Philippines. (There's probably scope for a separate article on climate litigation, we don't seem to have one yet.)

I'm leaving that be for now; I think these lawsuits are on the verge of being important enough to be included, but other expansions have priority. I have linked the sentence to climate change litigation and updated Philippines case there. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• What is the reason for the positioning of the Discovery and Terminology sections at the end of the article? Both seem like useful introductory sections (Terminology especially), and are reasonably short and so feel like a useful introductory chapters.

I've moved terminology. I think discovery would get too much prominence if we put it earlier in the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• The first sentence of Discovery feels quite dense.

Rewrote; now takes up quite a lot of space, but I think it's an important contextualisation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Why does the second paragraph differentiate between "scientists" and "experts"?

No reason. Replaced experts with they. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence on layers does not explain its relevance to the topic at all.

Changed to: In the 1950s, Gilbert Plass used a detailed computer model that included different atmospheric layers and the infrared spectrum to find that adding CO2 would cause warming. It omits the technical bit which would require more space to explain. Clear, or remove? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• The "The two terms are often used interchangeably" feels like it could be added to to firm up the meaning of the distinction, for example "Despite these distinct meanings being used in scientific discourse, the two terms are often used interchangeably."

done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Currently there is one missing harv reference (The Independent, 5 November 2019), lost somewhere in the edits.

From the removal and reinsertion of 'warnings to humanity'. Fixed.

• I'm not seeing a pattern for when sources include quotes, but I don't think it's too big of an issue if there isn't one (outside of the lead).

We have different editor preferences for this. Never tried to get consensus, don't think it's worth it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)