View source for Talk:Climate change

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=yes}}
{{British English}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
|action1date=2006-02-28, 13:19:19
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Global warming/archive1
|action1oldid=41603101

|action2=FAC
|action2date=2006-05-17, 03:21:25
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Global warming
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=53624868

|action3=FAR
|action3date=08:35, 4 May 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Global warming/archive1
|action3result=kept
|action3oldid=127907108

|action4=PR
|action4date=26 March 2020
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Global warming/archive2
|action4results=reviewed
|action4oldid = 947380073

|action5 = FAR
|action5date = 2021-01-21
|action5link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Climate change/archive1
|action5result = kept
|action5oldid = 1001723859

|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=June 21, 2006
|maindate2=October 31, 2021
|itn1date=5 March 2004
|itn2date=11 October 2018
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Antarctica|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Arctic|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Effective Altruism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Geology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Globalization|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sanitation|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Weather|importance=Top|climate-task-force=y}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}
}}
{{Press
|author=Sarah McBroom
|title=Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right
|org=[[Scripps Howard News Service]]
|url=http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/20601
|date=March 27, 2007

|author2=Michael Booth 
|title2=Grading Wikipedia
|org2=[[The Denver Post]]
|url2=http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064
|date2=April 30, 2007

|title3=Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed
|org3=[[BBC News]]
|url3=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
|date3=July 18, 2013

|date4=August 15, 2015
|url4=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150814145711.htm
|title4=On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage
|org4=''[[Science Daily]]''
|author4=[[Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies]]
|collapsed=yes

|date5=November 11, 2020
|url5= https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-wikipedia/ 
|title5 = The guardians of Wikipedia's climate page: An intensely devoted core keeps a bastion of climate science honest
|org5 = [[Mashable]] 

|date6=November 18, 2021
|url6= https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59325128
|title6 = Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia
|org6=[[BBC]]

|author7=Marco Silva
|date7=December 24, 2021
|url7=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-59452614
|title7=Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia
|org7=[[BBC]]

|author8=Olivia Steiert
|date8=September 9, 2024
|url8=https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/09636625241268890open_in_newPublisher
|title8=Declaring crisis? Temporal constructions of climate change on Wikipedia
|org8=[[Public Understanding of Science]]

 |author9      = [[Margaret Talbot]]
 |title9       = Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia
 |date9        = March 4, 2025
 |org9         = [[The New Yorker]]
 |url9         = https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/elon-musk-also-has-a-problem-with-wikipedia
 |lang9        = 
 |quote9       = 
 |archiveurl9  = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. -->
 |archivedate9 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
 |accessdate9  = March 4, 2025


}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=cc|style=long}}

{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{tmbox
| image     = [[File:ref.svg|44px]] 
| text      = This page has [[Talk:Climate change/Citation standards|agreed on a consistent citation style]]. Please follow those standards when adding sources. Ask on the talk page if you need help or have questions.
}}
{{Old moves
|title1=Global warming|title2=Climate change
|list=
*RM, Global warming → Climate change, '''Not moved''', 11 June 2018, [[/Archive 74#Requested move 3 June 2018|discussion]]
*RM, Global warming → Climate change, '''Moved''', 21 August 2020, [[/Archive 83#Requested move 3 August 2020|discussion]]
}}
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2007 Top 50 Report|2007]] and [[Wikipedia:2008 Top 50 Report|2008]]}}
{{top 25 report|Oct 27 2013|until|Nov 17 2013|Apr 16 2023}}
{{external peer review|date=April 30, 2007|org=The Denver Post|comment="a great primer on the subject", "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen", pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.",  wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. Please [[Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post|examine the findings]].}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
}}

{{old move|date=3 August 2020|from=Global warming|destination=Climate change|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/974145018#Requested_move_3_August_2020}}
{{section sizes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Climate change/Archive index|mask=Talk:Climate change/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 96
|minthreadsleft = 8
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Climate change/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives 
|auto=short
|index=/Archive index
|bot=lowercase sigmabot III
|1=<div style="text-align:center">[[/Terminology section]] [[/General discussion]]</div>}}
{{Xreadership|days=60}}

== Proposed replacement of graphic in "Impacts" section ==

{{ multiple image |total_width=750
|image1= Soil moisture and climate change.svg |caption1= '''A. Existing graphic:''' Soil moisture.
|image2= 2024 Climate change increasing Atlantic hurricane peak wind speeds.svg |caption2= '''B. Proposed replacement:''' Extreme event attribution (intensified peak wind speeds of hurricanes).
|image3= 1980- Atlantic region category 4 and 5 hurricanes - NYTimes and NOAA.svg |caption3= '''C. Second proposed replacement:''' Times series of Category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes (no attribution)
|image4= 202505 Escalation of extreme heat - 247 countries - attribution to climate change.svg |caption4= '''D. Attribution of events on global scale'''  (uploaded 3 June 2025)
}}
I've long questioned the value of the "soil moisture" graphic in the short, crowded, under-emphasized "Impacts" section.

The existing graphic's content is not discussed in article text. Also, soil moisture's broader implication on the ''impacts'' affecting humans is speculative and indirect, perhaps even suggesting that things'll get better and better for sub-Saharan Africa. (Aside: I speak out against captions that merely repeat what's in the graphic's own legends/text.)

Meanwhile, the ''impacts'' on humans of progressively more intense hurricanes is immediately and intuitively evident (see also [[File:1980- Atlantic region category 4 and 5 hurricanes - NYTimes and NOAA.svg|50px]]). I realize Graphic B is not global and is only one year's hurricanes, but I think the graphic speaks to a more striking and immediate impact of climate change.

Please comment below, on your preference. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 23:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:While I'm open to replacing that graph, I'm not a fan of adding another US-focused one in its place. Is it possible to do something similar for tropical cyclones in general? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 08:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:: It's Atlantic focused, not "US" focused per se. I've searched for CC-intensified (Pacific) typhoons but references applying [[extreme event attribution]] to specific hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons are nearly non-existent. This chart was a rare discovery in how it makes CC's effects be concretely evident. If anyone finds similar references for the Pacific, let me know.. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 17:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:The soil moisture graph [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1040112358 was added by] [[User:Efbrazil]] three years ago. I think we could probably remove it (or move it?) but I am a bit concerned that we don't mention "soil moisture" content anywhere in the text (or is it mentioned under a different term?). I was going to suggest to move it to [[effects of climate change]] but I see it's already there. - I think my suggestion would be to remove it but to not replace it with another fairly complicated, wordy schematic (such as graph B.). Either remove it without replacement or replace it with something very visual (a photo?). In general, we do have a lot of graphs, schematics and images already in this article. Perhaps one less is actually a good thing. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 13:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Droughts are mentioned. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd rather have [[:File:1980- Atlantic region category 4 and 5 hurricanes - NYTimes and NOAA.svg|this image]] chosen for the replacement than the other file. I do not believe using an image for one season restricted in one basin would reflect climate change's general impact on tropical cyclones. I'm a bit cautious on replacing the existing image, but I want to see more people discussing before I issue my final verdict. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">[[User:Zzzs|<sub>Z</sub>Z<sup>Z</sup>]][[User talk:Zzzs|'S]]</span> 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Temperature, soil, precipitation are the 3 graphs in B. Future Climate Change, Risks, and Long-Term Responses in AR6 SYR SPM (page 14). We already have temperature in the article.  [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|RCraig09}}, I'd recommend here for image B: [[Effects_of_climate_change#Extreme_storms]] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Requesting input''' from more editors on this topic (superseding "soil moisture" graphic). —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 17:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
* I plan to replace the soil moisture graphic with Graphic '''B''' which introduces attribution in an intuitive example. In graphic '''B''' I have reduced the font size for hurricane names (EMSmile's objection), and I have not been able to find a statistical analysis of attribution for all tropical cyclones (Femke's preference). Graphic '''C''' (Zzzs's suggestion) is just "one more example" of worsening CC effects and doesn't introduce the increasingly important concept of attribution. Graphic [[File:2016 Confidence in attributing extreme events to global warming.svg|40px]], discussed below re attribution, is more abstract and difficult for our readers to understand than '''B.'''. Bottomline: I plan to replace the soil moisture graphic with graphic '''B.''' —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 15:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
:: Graphic '''B''' now replaces the soil moisture diagram. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As I mentioned above, I am against this change. See the source and reasoning above. The sources you have picked for your Atlantic hurricanes[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&diff=1290263522&oldid=1290135513] do not come from overview sources about climate change.
:::See [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:PROPORTION]], and [[MOS:IMGREL]].
:::Also, why would you change an image showing entire world with something that only shows impacts in Atlantic? I am already concerned about the [https://kola.opus.hbz-nrw.de/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2206/file/dissertation_Anna_Samoilenko.pdf Euro-centric] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-12-12/In_focus Western-centric bias] in English-language Wikipedia. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I understand your concerns, [[User:Bogazicili]]. But the "image of the entire world" is about a '''''topic'''''—soil moisture—that is not even specifically discussed in article text. Soil moisture '' per se'' is seldom mentioned in sources compared to storms, droughts, etc, and is thus ''less'' preferable under [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:PROPORTION]], and [[MOS:IMGREL]]. Highlighting the growing field of [[extreme event attribution]], graphic '''B''' concretely demonstrates how climate change affects cyclones. It is irrelevant that the example is "only" one (1) of the two (2) basins in the world to have cyclones; that's just wikipolitics. (If you have a source for generic cyclones in both Atlantic and Pacific, please link it and I will consider creating a graphic.) See discussion below "Underemphasis on extreme event attribution", a topic that deserves mention in this article. Other editors, please weigh in here. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Drought is mentioned. 
:::::Do you want us to specifically say "soil moisture" in the text and how soil moisture is connected to droughts? {{Tq|A projected reduction in mean soil moisture by one standard deviation corresponds to soil moisture conditions typical of droughts that occurred about once every six years during 1850-1900.}} from the source I added. Also see graph in IPCC AR6 SYR p.100
:::::And again, unless you can source your image to an overview source, such as IPCC AR6 SYR, it is [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::: ''Draughts'' are obviously what concern humans (including our readers), but dry soil is merely one draught ''characteristic'' that has not warranted mention in the almost 24-year existence of this article—so no, adding text wouldn't impart importance to the dry soil chart. Most references are not IPCC level overviews; that's too high a bar for every addition. In any event, [[WP:UNDUE]] concerns ''subject matter'' and not sourcing. Extreme event attribution clearly outweighs the draught sub-topic of dry soil. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] i would imagine that the main impact of soil moisture change would  be through agriculture, and that is obviously important. however, I agree that such an impact is not going to be top of most peoples' minds. [[User:DecFinney|DecFinney]] ([[User talk:DecFinney|talk]]) 21:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{replyto|RCraig09}} [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:Proportion]] etc are all based on what reliable source say. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: — [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:Proportion]] are (indirectly) "based on" what reliable sources say, but they are ''determined by content'' and not by source. And [[WP:RSCONTEXT]] clarifies that a source must be "reliable ''for the statement being made''", and the IPCC is not the only reliable source.
[[File:2024 Climate change increasing Atlantic hurricane peak wind speeds.svg|thumb|Graphic '''B''''s title was changed 15 May 2025 (refresh browser to see)]]

:::::::: — To clarify the value of the chart to this article, I changed the chart title to emphasize [[extreme event attribution]] while retaining references to climate change. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 17:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I am not sure what you are talking about at this point. Do you mean content in the source or content in this article?
:::::::::[[WP:Proportion]] for this article would be based on content in reliable '''overview''' secondary and tertiary sources about climate change. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: I am talking about ''content per se'', both in this article and in "[[WP:Proportion|the body of reliable, published material on the subject]]". Clearly, the growing prominence of extreme event attribution (EEA)<sup>(see decFinney's links, below at 21:03 of 14 May)</sup> shows it deserves more coverage here under [[WP:Proportion]] than a not-even-mentioned-after-20+-years sub-issue under droughts. Overview articles are often preferred (not required, or even followed in this article); as discussed at 17:35 below, EEA necessarily attributes ''specific'' events to causes, so that overview sources aren't even appropriate. EEA clearly has much greater [[WP:WEIGHT]] than soil moisture. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I disagree.
:::::::::::Soil moisture is in an overview source, IPCC AR6 SYR SPM 2023, p. 14. Your graph does not come from an overview source. [[WP:Weight]] is clear here.
:::::::::::If extreme event attribution is in an overview source, feel free to add it to the text. 
:::::::::::We already have an image that shows climate change increases frequency of extreme events: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20211109_Frequency_of_extreme_weather_for_different_degrees_of_global_warming_-_bar_chart_IPCC_AR6_WG1_SPM.svg]
:::::::::::Maybe this could be changed to something that shows climate change increases frequency and severity of extreme events? Or is that too complicated for a single image?
:::::::::::Or you can make another image, showing suggested {{tq|climate change intensified the ten deadliest extreme weather events}} below and add it in [[Climate_change#Humans]], under the frequency increase image. I think there is space there. (I also think usage of gallery is justified in that section.) [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 12:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}

:— Yes, soil moisture is "in" an overview source. But, yet again, the question re [[WP:WEIGHT]] is ''what fraction'' of that overview source? In fact: [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf IPCC AR6]'s Fig. SPM-2 shows soil moisture only as an intermediate chart, one of three charts in a single figure, with the text string "soil moisture" not even being mentioned elsewhere in the entire report except in a long list of ''adaptation options'' on p. 8! Soil moisture does simply does not deserve the weight that the growing field of extreme event attribution (EEA) does. Watching for climate change stories for the "[[2025 in climate change]] series of articles, I encounter an EEA story, linking to a peer-reviewed article or NOAA-level source, at least ~once a week; however in 4.5 years I don't remember a single article about soil moisture—which is consistent with why there has been ''zero'' prior mention of soil moisture in this >23-year-old wiki article. [https://archive.ph/ls4PT Friday's example]: "Houston set to have 4th day in a row of record heat. What role is climate change playing?" with description of [[Climate Central]]'s  Climate Shift Index. Or [https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/the-fingerprints-climate-change-leaves-behind/ this] article from Thursday: "arguably the most important development in climate science in many years: attribution science."
:—  You don't seem to realize that the thrust of this graphic is EEA, not hurricanes or winds or projections or worldwide generalizations. EEA is inherently directed to specific events, but the events themselves aren't the focus of the graphic.
:— Requiring graphics to be based on overview sources ''would remove most of the graphics in this article''!!! The "overview sources" argument is simply a false argument here—especially here, where extreme event attribution (EEA) is based on individual events that should not even make it into overview sources.
:— [[File:20211109 Frequency of extreme weather for different degrees of global warming - bar chart IPCC AR6 WG1 SPM.svg|75px]] shows projections of future trends; it does not even show EEA of prior events. And your suggestions essentially amount to summarizing the cumulative statistical results of EEA rather than illustrating to our lay readers ''what EEA does''. And educating lay readers is what this website is about.
[[File:202505 Escalation of extreme heat - 247 countries - attribution to climate change.svg |thumb |'''D. (attribution on a global scale)''' ''Suggested caption:''<br> In virtually all countries and territories around the world, scientists in the field of [[extreme event attribution]] have concluded that human-caused global warming has increased the number of days of extreme heat events over long-term norms.]]
<br><br>
:— '''Other editors: please post here''', to resolve this discussion once and for all. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 18:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:— Newly uploaded Graphic D shows on a global scale, an example of the increasingly important field of [[extreme event attribution]] (EEA).  Its content is clearly more notable, [[WP:WEIGHT]]y and informative than a soil moisture graphic that occupies a microscopic fraction of an IPCC publication. And to repeat: the graphic's notability is about EEA and not about particular hurricane seasons or heat waves. '''Other editors: please post here''', to resolve this discussion once and for all.  —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{replyto|RCraig09}} I really like this image. Maybe {{u|Femke}} can comment on accuracy and sourcing? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ...q @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] very nice figure. thanks! i hope it can be added 👌  i consider this a very good source (world weather attribution). a look at the report cited for the figure suggests the numbers shown in the figure here are clearly of similar order of magnitude to those presented in the report, so i assume it has been accurately produced. [[User:DecFinney|DecFinney]] ([[User talk:DecFinney|talk]]) 19:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)



{{clear}}
(separate thread started earlier:)
:::::@[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] i believe that figure is based on data for north atlantic hurricanes? in such a case, i feel just about justified to pedantically point out that it is 1 of 7 (not 1 of 2) [[tropical cyclone basins]]. "just about justifed" because it is relevant to the western-centric nature of the figure. [[User:DecFinney|DecFinney]] ([[User talk:DecFinney|talk]]) 19:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::: {{reply|DecFinney}} The distinctions seem to be administrative and formal, and not substantive. Again, if you are aware of an illustration-worth example of [[extreme event attribution]] that is global in scale, esp. re cyclones, please link it and I'll consider creating a chart. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]]  the basins are quite distinct from a scientific/meteorological perspective but we neednt get into it.
:::::::how about the chart at the beginning of this article. this article also makes the point that attribution studies are not geographically representative.
:::::::https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/attribution-studies/index.html 
:::::::fig1 of this is very effective i think...
:::::::https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/10-years-of-rapidly-disentangling-drivers-of-extreme-weather-disasters/
:::::::it just needs the conclusion added as a statement on the figure: "climate change intensified the ten deadliest extreme weather events" [[User:DecFinney|DecFinney]] ([[User talk:DecFinney|talk]]) 21:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: {{reply|DecFinney}}
:::::::: — Extreme event attribution is inherently tied to individual events (it works backward from effect to cause). I'm a bit worried about copyright issues with the Carbon Brief map: it would require re-thinking after analyzing the large amount data behind the bubbles as you click on them... multiple pie charts would be more appropriate than their bubble chart. But even then, Graphic '''B''' is much more intuitive to lay readers in concretely showing them ''how'' CC worsens disasters, rather than abstractly showing some scientists' conclusions. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: + I should have emphasized: extreme event attribution inherently considers causes ''of individual events'', such as individual hurricanes. Summaries of scientists' conclusions are less demonstrative to laymen than concrete examples that inspire "[[Eureka effect|Aha moments]]". —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 17:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: — WWA Fig. 1 is much less pertinent since it shows deadly events without specifically tying them to climate change. The sentence you quote would be more appropriate in narrative text, rather than as a chart. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

== Adding Context on Corporate Influence in Climate Science ==

Hey all, I’ve got a niggle about this article’s scope. It’s laser-focused on the scientific consensus (rightly so, it’s solid), but it’s dead silent on how corporate interests shape that science. Readers deserve the full picture, not just the polished bits.
Take Sareen and Haarstad’s 2023 paper in Energy Policy (DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113514)—it’s peer-reviewed, reputable, and digs into how fossil fuel and renewable energy firms funnel cash into climate research and policy agendas. They’re not saying it’s all a hoax, but they show lobbying sways what gets studied and published. Think ExxonMobil’s old funding tricks or green tech’s push for carbon credit hype. It’s not fringe; it’s cited in policy debates.
Why’s this missing? The article’s got room—sections like “Mitigation” or “Scientific Consensus” could handle a paragraph like:

“Research has highlighted corporate influence on climate science, with studies like Sareen and Haarstad (2023) noting that fossil fuel and renewable energy industries shape research priorities and policy narratives through funding and lobbying, raising questions about potential bias in the broader scientific discourse.”

It’s sourced and neutral. Thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/85.195.11.93|85.195.11.93]] ([[User talk:85.195.11.93|talk]]) 20:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:The existing § Society section seems largely sufficient; perhaps consider one of the relevant subarticles, like [[Politics of climate change]]? Though, if you do make contributions, please refrain from using an LLM to write them for you, like you seemingly did with this post. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
::Remsense, thanks for the pointer! Politics of climate change is a good shout, but I’m sticking here—‘Society’ already covers fossil fuel lobbying under ‘Denial and misinformation,’ so it’s a natural spot to tie in corporate influence on the science itself. Sareen and Haarstad (2023, Energy Policy, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113514) show fossil fuel and renewable energy firms channeling funds into climate research, shaping what gets prioritized—doubt from oil, carbon credit buzz from green tech. It’s peer-reviewed, reliable, and slots right in. How’s this for ‘Denial and misinformation’:
:: “Corporate influence extends beyond misinformation, with studies like Sareen and Haarstad (2023) showing fossil fuel and renewable energy industries funding research to steer scientific agendas.”
:: It’s concise, sourced, and neutral. On the LLM bit—yep, I used one to refine my thoughts. No rule against it in WP:RS or WP:OR, so let’s focus on the meat: does this stick the landing or need more juice? Ready to roll? [[Special:Contributions/85.195.11.93|85.195.11.93]] ([[User talk:85.195.11.93|talk]]) 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
:::WP:NOR. Consider that article in the context of the preference for secondary sources over primary sources. Report back.
:::Stop using LLM so much. It makes it seem like you have a creepy agenda. [[User:LarryAfner|LarryAfner]] ([[User talk:LarryAfner|talk]]) 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

== Use of ChatGPT/LLM on this article ==

Hello Wikipedians and editors,

I need your help! I am conducting research for my master's degree in environmental communication and '''I'm interested in the learning more about the use of LLMs during the editing/writing process of Wikipedia articles'''. In true Wikipedia fashion, I am entering this inquiry from a neutral standpoint - I neither support nor oppose the use of LLMs on Wikipedia articles. '''I am writing here in hopes of reading your anecdotes on how LLMs have been used or even encountered on Wikipedia articles within the WikiProject Environment'''.

You may see this topic a few times in your notifications, but please don't dismiss it as spam! I am posting the same topic on the WikiProject Environment talk page, as well as the Earth, Climate Change and Tesla Model S talk pages - because they are the only three Wikipedia articles that are both of FA quality and of Top importance according to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Assessment|WikiProject Environment Article Assessment table]]. I am open to hearing experiences with using or encountering LLMs in the editing process of other Wikipedia articles as well, but I do want to remain '''within the limits of articles under the WikiProject Environment umbrella'''.

It is understandable if you want to remain anonymous to other Wikipedians in this discussion. If so please feel free to reach out to me via the "Email this user" feature on my User page! Otherwise, I encourage a conversation to take place on this Talk page so that it may inspire others to contribute.

Finally, I am only in the design/digging around phase of this research. If anything that is said will be used in my actual research, all contributors will remain anonymous (unless requested otherwise). Consent forms can be made available at any time for anyone involved in further research that may be published to the public.

'''Some questions to inspire your storytelling:'''

'''- How have you encountered the use of LLMs on editing/writing Wikipedia articles within WikiProject environment?'''

'''- What impact has it had on article quality?'''

'''- Where do you stand on the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles dealing with environmental topics?'''

'''- What about the use of LLMs in editing/writing on other topics in Wikipedia articles?'''

'''- Do you have a community on Wikipedia that you communicate with about the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles? If so, please mention which one(s)!'''

All the best, 

[[User:Wikipistemologist|Wikipistemologist]] ([[User talk:Wikipistemologist|talk]]) 14:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{reply|Wikipistemologist}} I've never encountered a single use of LLMs in direct editing. One editor has said she uses an AI tool to suggest how certain sentences or paragraphs can be simplified grammatically, but she only takes that as a suggestion. My stance is that AI may be used to generate suggestions for content—in place of a human colleague—but that humans should apply human judgment in all final, substantive edits. As an aside: Wikipedia already uses various bots, probably not qualifying as AI, to automatically carry out low-level changes such as formatting. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
:Hi Wikipistemologist, article talk pages are not the right place to pose this sort of question, as they are intended to be focused on the improvement of their attached article. As for this particular page, it was developed long before llms became widely accessible. You can view relevant dates in the Article history template at the top of this page. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
:: Is [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change]] a more appropriate spot? I think it's a discussion worth having for the community. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 14:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
::Hi CMD and RCraig09, I have actually already posted this topic to the WikiProject Environment talk page incase some felt the discussion wasn't appropriate here. But I would like to at least say that I am quite interested in the thoughts, or experiences of those using or dealing LLMs in their editing or writing processes on this Wikipedia article specifically - which is my reasoning for posting the topic here as well. I wonder if the post can remain here, since it is arguably relevant to the improvement or transparency of how this article has been edited? ChatGPT was released to the public on November 30, 2022 and while that way long after the creation of this the Global warming/Climate change Wikipedia article, many many edits have been made since that day... presumably with the help of LLMs by both humans and Wikipedia bots. I adore the Wikipedia editing community, so I am not here to step on any toes. Just would like to learn more from my peers on the ever-growing topic in Wikipedia editing. [[User:Wikipistemologist|Wikipistemologist]] ([[User talk:Wikipistemologist|talk]]) 15:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
:::This article became a featured article so long ago that I very much doubt anyone used any LLM on it [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 14:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hej [[User:Wikipistemologist|Wikipistemologist]]! {{tq|What about the use of LLMs in editing/writing on other topics in Wikipedia articles?}} English is my third language, and I very often ask ChatGPT to correct or smoothen my English. Or, when addressing another editor, I can ask: "How to say this just a bit more friendly?" It is extremely helpful. {{small|(Written without help from ChatGPT)}} [[User:Lova Falk|Lova Falk]] ([[User talk:Lova Falk|talk]]) 15:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
::Hi there Lova! Thanks for your input. A few follow up questions to your response: When did you start using ChatGPT in the ways you explained above? Do you remember what made you decide to start using ChatGPT for these cases? Finally, can you think of/cite any specific examples of Wikipedia article text that ChatGPT helped you write? [[User:Wikipistemologist|Wikipistemologist]] ([[User talk:Wikipistemologist|talk]]) 16:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::*{{tq|When did you start using ChatGPT in the ways you explained above?}} I am a returning editor, and the moment I returned (Feb. 2025)
:::*{{tq|Do you remember what made you decide to start using ChatGPT for these cases?}} I already used ChatGPT a lot in my daily life. It just felt natural.

:::*{{tq| Finally, can you think of/cite any specific examples of Wikipedia article text that ChatGPT helped you write?}} [[Betwa River]], [[Child sexual abuse]]. Neither of them is environmental science though... [[User:Lova Falk|Lova Falk]] ([[User talk:Lova Falk|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @[[User:Wikipistemologist|Wikipistemologist]]
:I suppose you have already noticed there is a lot of info at [[Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence]] but not specifically about environmental topics.
:Why do you think LLMs would be any different for environmental topics, than any other articles on Wikipedia? Or is it just that you need to limit your research to a manageable scope?  [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 14:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::Correct, I'm limiting my research to environmental science topic editors and writers!  [[User:Wikipistemologist|Wikipistemologist]] ([[User talk:Wikipistemologist|talk]]) 14:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:I don't remember clearly but I think I've seen LLM use a couple times at most, and only because I went through [[:Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts]]. As for community, definitely [[WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup]]. I definitely don't think ChatGPT should be used whatsoever on Wikipedia, although I don't do much environmental editing (got here by a list of talk pages mentioning AI on the WikiProject Talk). [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 22:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

== Solar radiation modification ==

I propose to add a subsection on [[solar radiation modification]] (SRM), which is receiving increasing attention despite its limitations and controversy. There are currently only two outdated sentences. 

Where should this go? Those two sentences are under "Reducing and recapturing emissions", which is definitely not right. One option is under "Adaptation". Another is to create a new, short section of its own.  [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 08:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hello @[[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]]. Normally, when we discuss whether it's due to expand on a topic, we try to compare this to other overview sources. What percentage of space does the IPCC dedicate to SRM? Is that much more than we do? You're right it doesn't quite fit under the current heading, but I'm not sure it's sufficiently important to rename the section. I've never heard of it being considered part of adaptation. Which sources group it there? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for reply @[[User:Femke|Femke]]. It makes sense. SRM remains a minor topic within climate change. Looking at [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2025/03/Decision-8-Working-Group-Outlines.pdf IPCC AR7 outline bullets], the topic is around one per cent. This page here is around 11k words. This suggests around 100 to 125 words on SRM. There are currently 31. May I draft a few sentences? Should I put it in a sandbox first? I would draw from the lead of the SRM page.
::In terms of where, this is a perennial issue with SRM. Although it might fit within a creative interpretation of the IPCC's definition of adaptation ("the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities"), SRM has not been formally considered as such and that does seem like pushing a square peg into a round hole. In AR6, it was covered in WG1 in the chapter "Future Global Climate: Scenario-based Projections and Near-term Information" and in a cross-WG box. In AR6, it will largely be in WG1 in the chapter "Earth system responses under pathways towards temperature stabilization, including overshoot pathways." Following that logic, the case could be made for putting it here in Modelling.
::Other options are Reducing and recapturing emissions, Adaptation (as noted), and Policies and politics. None are admittedly a great fit. I don't have a particular preference. 
::In all cases, I propose that SRM has a subsection heading to distinguish it from the other text of whichever section. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 19:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think a sub-section heading for SRM is warranted for this high level article, as SRM is certainly not on par with the other sub-headings (with regards to importance at the present time). We already have a sentence on it which I think is fairly good and not outdated: {{tq|[[Solar radiation modification]] (SRM) is under discussion as a possible supplement to reductions in emissions. However, SRM raises significant ethical and [[global governance]] concerns, and its risks are not well understood.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SR15 Ch4|2018|pp=347–352}}</ref>}}. If you look at the archive of this talk page you can see the previous discussion about this sentence (December 2024): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_96#Mentioning_SRM_under_%22Reducing_and_recapturing_emissions%22 (pinging [[User:1HumbleB]] as she's the one who had started this discussion). - I do think it (more or less) fits under "mitigation" / "Reducing and recapturing emissions" because it is a "possible supplement to reductions in emissions"; not under "adaptation". [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 21:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
{{talkref}}
::::Thanks EMsmile for bringing the recent discussion to my attention. I should have searched the archive! Tagging @[[User:Rcraig09|Rcraig09]] who was part of that conversation.
::::I see four or five things wrong with the current SRM text:
::::# As noted, it is too short relative to the attention given to it by the IPCC. 
::::# It should at least be its own paragraph, not joined with CDR.
::::# It should define SRM and say a bit about what is known about its efficacy.
::::# The citation should be updated, preferably to AR6.
::::# I am not keen on "under discussion", which implies to my ears that it is being considered for use. Currently, it is "being researched."
::::I proposed to give it a sub-section heading ''not'' in order to increase its prominence but to create a visual and conceptual 'fence' between it and whichever highly imperfect section heading under which it is placed. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 07:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

In terms of what is due: this article is not 11k words, but 9k words. In the outline you shared, it's mentioned in 2 bullet points. With 20 chapters x 3 reports x ~5 bullet points per chapter, that would be around 1/150th of the overall reports. That would give us a rough proportion of 60 words. Our shortest subsection now is 130 words, which is a good argument not to put it as a separate subheading. Note that we use space to talk about history of climate change, which the IPCC does not do. I'm very happy to you to sketch a short paragraph here of around 50-70 words in the direction you sketched above. Given it's a controversial topic, might be good to get explicit consensus on talk for any new text, rather than boldly adding it. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 14:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Great. My draft text is (65 words) (''updated 2 April, now 84 words''):
:{{blockquote|Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method. Scientific studies have concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and many of its impacts, but imperfectly. It poses environmental risks as well as political, social, and ethical challenges. Significant uncertainties remain. SRM is controversial but is receiving increasing attention.}}
:Sources are AR6 WG1 Ch 4 and WG3 Ch 14. I welcome comments from @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] @[[User:Femke|Femke]] @[[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]]  [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 19:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
:: Can you put in the exact page you base each part of the paragraph on? It sounds relatively positive; is that the same tone as IPCC? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Can do. I detail here two aspects:
:::The definition [[Talk:Solar radiation modification/Archive 2#Changed short description|was discussed here]] by @[[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] and me based on reports from the IPCC, UNEP, and US National Academies. I shortened it for here, and changed "limit" to "reduce" because (following another exchange between EMsmile and me, we agreed that "limit" implies a specific cap while "reduce" more accurately suggests a continuum.
:::The single clearly positive phrase is "Scientific studies have concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and many of its impacts." This is based on these passages from the IPCC:
:::{{blockquote|Modelling studies have consistently shown that SRM has the potential to offset some effects of increasing GHGs on global and regional climate, including the melting of Arctic sea ice (Berdahl et al., 2014; Moore et al., 2014) and mountain glaciers (Zhao et al., 2017), weakening of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC; Cao et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2017; Tilmes et al., 2020), changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation (Curry et al., 2014; Ji et al., 2018; Muthyala et al., 2018), and changes in frequency and intensity of tropical cyclone (Moore et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2017). [[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 WG1 p. 625]]}}
:::A closer reading of this leads me to now suggest "Scientific studies have ''consistently'' concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and ''some'' of its impacts." [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 07:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
:: {{reply|TERSEYES}} I generally favor brief and concise mention of SRM. However, the last half of your 19:52 proposed text (starting with "but imperfectly...") contains descriptions that are vague and non-illuminating. I would replace the vague half with a sentence distinguishing SRM from ''mitigation'' as usually understood. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree that a distinction from mitigation would help. However, the text from "but imperfectly" emphasizes SRM's risks and limitations,  while @[[User:Femke|Femke]] above is concerned about an unduly positive tone. I believe that these risks and limitations should be stated.
:::As a compromise, I propose to add: "SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations, but could be a supplement." [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
:::: Where on page 350 does it say that SRM is not mitigation? And which source supports the last sentence (which may be a prime one to cut, if we want to limit the word count). The last sentence is not cited either. FYI: the convention on Wikipedia is to not alter text people have responded to. A second proposal should be posted separately, so the flow of conversation is clear. I would also appreciate links to the cited sources, for ease of checking text-source integrity. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::First, I apologize for editing a previous post. I have reverted it to the original ('version 1') and here is what I wrote about 12 hours ago ('version 2'), with ''additions in italics''.
:::::{{blockquote|Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. ''SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations, but could be a supplement. ''Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method.[SR15 p. 350] Scientific studies have ''consistently ''concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and {{Strikethrough|many }}''some ''of its impacts, but imperfectly.[AR6 WG1 p.625] It poses environmental risks as well as political, social, and ethical challenges.[AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495] Significant uncertainties remain.[AR6 WG1 pp.624-625] SRM is controversial but is receiving increasing attention.}}
:::::For cleanliness, I will address your questions in a separate reply. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 15:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Second, to address your questions on version 2.
:::::I did not provide a citation for "SRM is not mitigation," assuming that it was self-evident. But I can and do, below.
:::::IPCC AR6 does not quite say that SRM is controversial, only "The plausibility of many SRM scenarios is highly contested." And it does not say that interest in SRM is increasing. Other authoritative reports, such as those from the [https://scientificadvice.eu/scientific-outputs/solar-radiation-modification-evidence-review-report/ EU] and [https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment UNEP], suggest this but do say so explicitly. I am therefore fine with removing that final sentence. 
:::::Here is version 3 (77 words):
:::::: <blockquote>Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations [[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.619]], but could be a supplement. [[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.624]] Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/4-3/ SR15 p. 350]] Scientific studies have consistently concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and some of its impacts, but imperfectly.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.625]] It poses environmental risks as well as political, social, and ethical challenges.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-14/#14.4 AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495]] Significant uncertainties remain.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 pp.624-625]] </blockquote>
:::::[[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think it would be good to talk about risks more specifically (is the hydrological cycle risk the most prominent one, in addition to risks of abruptly stopping it)?
::::::Style-wise, Wikipedia rarely says things like "studies have consistently concluded that". Instead, use Wikivoice and say it directly.
::::::Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations [[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.619]], and therefore does not solve ocean acidification.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-14/#14.4 AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495]]<sup>(page number needed)</sup> Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/4-3/ SR15 p. 350]] SRM can reduce global warming and some of its impacts, but imperfectly.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.625]] There are risk and uncertainties, for instance the effect it would have on regional weather patterns / hydrological cycle (whatever is most appropriate), and the risk of abruptly stopping.[AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495]<sup>(page number needed)</sup>
::::::(The prose is not yet up to FA levels, with the sentence lenght being too similar). [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 15:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. Version 4 (79 words):
:::::::Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. It does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations and is therefore not considered mitigation [[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.619]], although it could be a supplement. [[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.624]] The most-studied approach is stratospheric aerosol injection.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/4-3/ SR15 p. 350]] SRM could reduce global warming and some of its impacts, but imperfectly.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-4/#4.6.3.3 AR6 WG1 p.625]] It poses environmental risks, such as changes to precipitation patterns, as well as political, social, and ethical challenges, such as how to govern it.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-14/#14.4 AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495]] SRM would not address ocean acidification.[[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-5/#5.6.3 AR6 WG1 pp.767-768]]
:::::::I did not include the risk of abruptly stopping SRM because this is both an environmental risk and a political/social challenge. The "directly" is important because SRM would indirectly reduce [GHG] by increase plant C uptake. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 05:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Having not heard from Femke or others for about a week. I implemented the above, and squeezed in a few words on potential termination. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 09:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Have been busy, so feedback on the current version:
:::::::::* It feels very academic still, it's not meeting [[WP:MTAU]]. 
:::::::::** It could be a supplement is a bit unclear. I think we know it should only be a supplement because of the related risk, including of rapid warming after an abrupt cessation. 
:::::::::** I don't understand what "prevent its sustained termination" means. Why do we want to prevent that?
:::::::::** The sentence on ocean acidification should be next to the sentence that it doesn't limit GHG emissions, as it's out of place at the end
:::::::::** There are long page ranges, which should ideally be single pages, given how extremely dense the IPCC reports are. 
:::::::::** When trying to make something less academic, avoid abstractions (political, social, ethical challenges). Instead, name the challenge (who gets to decide for instance).
:::::::::[[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks @[[User:Femke|Femke]] again for the helpful tips. I polished and improved the paragraph, per your suggestions . Note that the three-page reference is for a paragraph in AR6 that is split across two pages with a full-page figure between. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 06:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

== Is "Climate Change" related enough for a see also mention on [[Climate change]]? ==

On [[List of notable media in the field of meteorology]], there is a well-known iconic photograph literally titled "''Climate Change''" (taken by Sergio Pitamitz), which ''[[Life (magazine)|Life Magazine]]'' considers in [https://www.life.com/history/the-100-most-important-photos-ever/ this article] to be one of the "most important photos ever". I [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] added the list to the see also section. However, {{u|RCraig09}} reverted the see also addition saying, "{{tq|Sorry to revert, but weather is one step removed from climate, and weather people are a second step away from climate change}}". So, let's have a discussion. As crazy as it sounds...'''Is ''Climate Change'' related enough to the [[climate change]] article for the list of media to be in the see also section?''' <small>(What a sentence to say!..Is ''Climate Change'' related to climate change.)</small>

Also a small P.S., ''Climate Change'' is also listed at [[List of photographs considered the most important]]. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 22:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

: Beyond the fact that weather is distinct from climate, you will note that the sole mention of "climate change" in the List article that you link ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_media_in_the_field_of_meteorology&oldid=1283608590 pertinent version]) is in reference to the Sergio Pitamitz image ''that is not even shown'' in the List article. You will further note that the content of that copyright-protected image is a polar bear on ice, which is cumulative to [[:File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear (cropped).jpg]] which has long been present in this CC article's "Impacts" section. Accordingly, the linked external image is not only excluded from Wikipedia itself and a small fraction of the List article but is cumulative to existing article content. On my User Talk Page, you slapped me with a trout and frame the issue there and here as, "Is ''Climate Change'' related to climate change", when the issues, obviously, are weather versus climate, cumulativeness of content, and overall relevance. It's nice you claim that you are not officially trolling me, while "smiling and laughing", and tell me to "feel free to discuss it" here, but I ask you to consider that not everyone wants to spend the time to read or deal with your misunderstanding, not-trollings, and amusements. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 05:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::I am not misunderstanding anything. You actually just admitted to misunderstanding. Weather is distinct from climate. Absolutely. '''The list is not about the weather.''' The list is about '''meteorology''', which is the study of the atmosphere of Earth. Clearly it is relevant, given the [[National Weather Service]] has a related branch called the [[Climate Prediction Center]]. You point blank just claimed weather is not related to the climate. You are absolutely wrong. I will go ahead and revert since you are the one with the misunderstanding. Also, the Life Magazine list does indeed have the photo. You did not do enough research. That cropped photo is not the same as the copyrighted photo. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 12:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::The list has been removed again by {{u|William M. Connolley}} with the reasoning "{{tq|sorry but no}}". William M. Connolley, can you kindly explain how ''Climate Change'' is not related to climate change? '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 15:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::: You [[User:WeatherWriter]] are engaging in an [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]], which after your 32,000 edits you should know is wrong in view of [[WP:BRD]]. You have ignored my 05:43 post, which shows how you are falsely framing the issue. Now you continue wasting more editors' time. Stop. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 16:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am not engaging in an edit war. Please do not falsely accuse me of that. I did not ignore anything you said. Here is exactly how I understand the issue:
:::::#I want to know if an image of a polar bear on ice, titled ''Climate Change'', is related enough to the [[climate change]] Wikipedia article for inclusion in the see also section.
:::::#Per [[MOS:SEEALSO]], {{tq|Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.}} That means my question in general is valid.
:::::#Two editors, {{u|RCraig09}} and {{u|William M. Connolley}} dispute the idea that climate change is related to meteorology, which therefore means the list of notable meteorology photos, which includes ''Climate Change'', is not related enough for the climate change Wikipedia article.
:::::#I then take that literally, saying a polar bear on ice is not related/relevant enough for the climate change Wikipedia article.
:::::#That additional photo removal is reverted and I am accused of engaging in an edit war and ignoring previous statements.
:::::Clearly, I am not ignoring you or William M. Connolley, who I am still waiting for a better explanation than "sorry, but no" from. Two editors disputing the topic means one should not rerevert the addition, which I never did. You also took a friendly gesture (i.e. the trout slap) ''way'' to seriously. I was laughing at a sentence I stated and you seem to have taken it like I was laughing at you. {{u|RCraig09}}, you are engaged in disruptive and uncivil behavior. Please be more civil towards this discussion. Since three editors are now involved, a 3rd opinion is out. I do not accept William M. Connolley's sole opinion in this dispute (literally "sorry, but no"), which means the only other options are an RFC or WikiProject talk page discussion. Given your uncivil accusations here, I shall be opening a new discussion soon to help solve the issue, as crazy as it sounds, if a polar bear on ice is related to climate change. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Your re-introduction of disputed content at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&diff=1283752122&oldid=1283648073 shows you have violated [[WP:BRD]]. You repeatedly twist what I "D"iscuss here ''in compliance with'' [[WP:BRD|WP:BR"D"]].
:::::: I never claimed a polar bear on ice was irrelevant to climate change. Clearly, what I said was that a '''weather''' <u>list</u> ''that does not even show the polar bear image'' is steps removed from CC.
:::::: You removed a different polar bear on ice image with the '''''false''''' statement " Removing polar bear on ice. That related too much to meteorology, which per the talk page, is not related to climate change." Obviously it is your list that is irrelevant, not polar bears on ice.
:::::: Another editor and I did not "dispute the idea that climate change is related to meteorology". They are related. But they are distinct. Your statement is false.
:::::: How old are you? Many people here are working professionals who do not have time to spare. Stop. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 17:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Age is not relevant (reminding of [[WP:AGEISM]]) and several other editors on here know who I am in the professional workforce. I do indeed have a meteorological job and I do not have a ton of time to contribute to Wikipedia myself. I am not some random troll or kid. Now, I would like to continue this conversation calmly, where both myself and you work to focus on the content of the article and not each other’s past statements/behavior. Do we have a deal {{u|RCraig09}}? I am asking for a [[WP:MUTUAL]] sort of redo to the discussion if you are up for it. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
Again, compare:
# Climate change --> ''Weather'' ''LIST'' --> ''one external'' link --> ''copyright protected'' polar bear/ice pic
# Climate change <--> existing Wikimedia image of polar bear/ice pic
Do you see the difference in [[WP:Relevance]], and cumulativeness issues? —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Per [[MOS:SEEALSO]], {{tq|Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.}} It is editorial discretion, which is perfectly ok to manage, but sadly creates debates like this. The articles should be ''tangentially related topics''. The article has images, including a similar image to the one in the list article. It is clear, based on this article’s usage of a similar image, there is indeed a tangential relationship between the articles. Whether the article is already using a similar image, bluntly, has no barring whatsoever on the see also section, since the only thing being mentioned is a literal Wikilink to a tangentially related article. So, if I may ask, what is your direct objection (preferably a [[MOS:SEEALSO]] objection) to the article being included in the see also section? Do you not think there is a tangential relationship between the articles? That is more or less my direct question. I am trying to understand why an image in the article automatically means there is no clear relevance to a list with a similar article? '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:To add on to my point, ''[[Migrant Mother]]'' is also listed in the notable photo list, sourced with an article explaining the climate connection to the iconic photo. So, for reference, if you exclude the extreme weather events ([https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/extreme-weather/ which NASA links to climate change]), then there is two photos in that list, sourced by reliable sources, which have some link to climate change. I am wanting to point that out since there is indeed one additional photo besides the polar bear photo that is relevant for this discussion. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:: ''Of course'' there are <u>countless</u> "tangentially related" '''''topics'''''! However, a '''''list''''' of 28 weather-related ''images'' is not even a topic and is not in [[MOS:SEEALSO]]'s "same defining category" as climate change. Applying [[MOS:SEEALSO]]'s "editorial judgment and common sense":
:: Only 12 of the 28 images are even shown (!). You argue the bear pic is relevant because of the photo's ''name'' and Migrant Woman because of a background source that "links" the woman to a "climate connection". However, the ''unshown'' polar bear pic is cumulative to what has long been in this article by consensus, and Migrant Woman obviously concerns the Great Depression and Dust Bowl and not climate ''change''. '''''Readers''''' arriving at this [[Climate change]] article will not come here seeking a ''link'' to an image that's similar to an already-included image, or a picture of a worried woman. Some of the Wikimedia Commons images might be of interest to editors in weather-related articles, but the copyright-protected bear is not available for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia, and a worried-looking woman is not seriously relevant to this article. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 07:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
:::If the discussion is about whether this article: [[List of notable media in the field of meteorology]] should be under "See also", I would say it should not. In my opinion it is not that important that it ought to be in the See also list. I think we should perhaps delete the "See also" section altogether. I'll start a separate entry for that just below. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 21:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

== Suggestion to remove the "See also" section? ==

I think this article does not need to have a "See also" section as it could be way too difficult to decide what should be in there and what shouldn't. We have a nav box at the bottom of the article which should be sufficient. At the moment, the "See also" list contains:
* [[Portal:Climate change|Climate change portal]]  - the portal could be moved to somewhere else; as an aside, the icon with that Earth + Fire seems a bit childish; there is so much more going on than just heating and wildfires.
* [[List of climate scientists]] - could be accessed through the navbox. Is it really that important? Why is the [[List of climate activists]] of lesser importance? Show either neither list or both lists?
* [[Charney Report]] - how is this so important? If it is, mention it in the "history" section rather and also in [[History of climate change science]] (it's not in there yet)? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 21:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:: {{done}} [[Charney Report]] is now incorporated into narrative text; problematic entries are removed. This reset doesn't preclude adding links in the future, but the extensive side bars and bottom templates seem to cover the field of relevant related topics. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 05:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Great, thank you! [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 08:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

== Mentioning public support for climate action in the lead section ==

I wrote a sentence about public support for climate action and divided information about impacts and climate change mitigation in the lead section, but it was deleted. Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&oldid=prev&diff=1287298561

In my opinion it is important to mention in the lead section that climate action has broad public support.

@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] deleted it writing:

 "rv as clearly WP:RECENTIST, and reads quite tendentiously starting a paragraph privileging a particular data point over broad distillation of the topic. the paragraph break's unneeded also, full paragraphs are fine and needn't be chopped up like on a news site"

Firstly, the study that I refer to, was published in September 2024, so it is not recentism.

Secondly, it is true that it is better to not refer to only one study. In the article I refer to there is  at least 6 links to different studies which proves the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/spiral-of-silence-climate-action-very-popular-why-dont-people-realise

Here also there are 2 studies showing that 80%-89% support climate action.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/apr/23/climate-action-public-support

So, in my opinion, it is neccessary that we will put in the lead section the phrase: "The vast majority of human population support climate action" or "80% - 89% of human population support climate action" putting those links as a source. There is a lot of content about it in the page, so, it should be mentioned in the lead section also.

Also, in my opinion, it will facilitate understanding if we will divide the information to a paragraph about impacts and a paragraph about climate action as I did. What do you think?

@[[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] @[[User:Sadads|Sadads]] @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] [[User:אלכסנדר סעודה|Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה]] ([[User talk:אלכסנדר סעודה|talk]]) 13:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{talkquote|was published in September 2024, so it is not recentism.}}
:Please take a moment to at least skim [[WP:RECENTISM]], which was linked in the edit summary, so you're aware of what it actually says.
:{{talkquote|So, in my opinion, it is neccessary that we will put in the lead section the phrase}}
:You didn't make a substantive argument here, though. Yes, there being multiple sources potentially supports the case that the prominent placement of a claim within the article would be [[WP:proportionate|proportionate]] to its attestation in the body of [[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]]. What's more, potential references like Andre et al. (2024)<ref>{{cite journal | last=Andre | first=Peter | last2=Boneva | first2=Teodora | last3=Chopra | first3=Felix | last4=Falk | first4=Armin | title=Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action | journal=Nature Climate Change | volume=14 | issue=3 | date=2024 | issn=1758-678X | doi=10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3 | doi-access=free | pages=253–259 | url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01925-3.pdf}}</ref> and Bergquist et al. (2022)<ref>{{cite journal | last=Bergquist | first=Magnus | last2=Nilsson | first2=Andreas | last3=Harring | first3=Niklas | last4=Jagers | first4=Sverker C. | title=Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws | journal=Nature Climate Change | volume=12 | issue=3 | date=2022 | issn=1758-678X | doi=10.1038/s41558-022-01297-6 | doi-access=free | pages=235–240}}</ref> are actually really popular as far as research articles go, both among their peers, secondary news outlets, and the general public.
:However, the problem with your particular demand is outlined clearly in the abstract for Andre et al. (2024):
:{{talkquote|Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action. Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. Countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute. Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act. This perception gap, combined with individuals showing conditionally cooperative behaviour, poses challenges to further climate action.}}
:If you decide to pluck only the 89% statement from this summary, and privilege it as uniquely vital and important for readers, you divorce it from its original context and place it on its own in the most valuable and highly visible part of the article. Sorry, but I don't know what to call that other than egregious cherry-picking, and ultimately [[WP:NPOV|POV-pushing]], given how different one's impression of the 89% figure alone is, compared to that of the full abstract, where the datum is more properly contextualized and issues of how to interpret it are explicitly addressed.
:I would fully support mentioning that there is {{xt|widespread support for climate action}} worldwide in the lead, but anything more incisive or specific than that is clumsy at best and actively dishonest at worst. That's what the article body is for—readers can learn more where there is space for the details of scholarship to be properly expressed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
::Exellent. I agree to write "there is widespread support for climate action worldwide" in the lead. [[User:אלכסנדר סעודה|Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה]] ([[User talk:אלכסנדר סעודה|talk]]) 17:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Talk ref}}

== Climate Change Affects Snow: An In-Depth Look ==

Climate change has a significant impact on '''snow patterns''', especially in regions that rely on consistent snowfall for ecosystems, water supply, and recreation. As global temperatures rise, many areas experience warmer winters, which leads to less snow and more rain. Even small shifts in temperature can have a big effect, turning what would have been snowstorms into rain events. This not only reduces the total amount of snow that falls but also shortens the length of the snow season. In mountainous regions, snow is arriving later in the year and melting earlier, which affects both the natural environment and human activities like skiing and snowboarding.

The early melting of snow due to higher temperatures also disrupts the natural water cycle. Snowpack in many regions acts like a natural reservoir, slowly releasing water into rivers and streams during the spring and summer. When snow melts too early, it can lead to water shortages later in the year, especially in places that rely on snowmelt for agriculture, drinking water, and hydroelectric power. Additionally, the shift from snow to rain can increase the risk of winter flooding, as rain runs off frozen or saturated ground more quickly than snow would.

Climate change also affects the quality and type of snow. Warmer temperatures can lead to heavier, wetter snow instead of the light, powdery kind that many ecosystems and ski resorts depend on. This changes the structure of the snowpack, making it less stable and more prone to avalanches. Wildlife that relies on deep, consistent snow cover—like lynx or snowshoe hares—also struggle to adapt, which can impact entire food chains. In the long term, these shifts in snowfall patterns are signs of a changing climate that touches both natural systems and human ways of life. [[User:Babreweruci|Babreweruci]] ([[User talk:Babreweruci|talk]]) 00:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:To me, all that you're saying there makes sense, but please be aware that article Talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article. Do you have a specific proposal for doing so? Also be aware that any new content must be supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=56af58707372583917ad804557162751c5ade0f2
::The article linked is another scholarly text discussing the climate change affects on snow in Australia. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935|2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935|talk]]) 02:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

=={{anchor|Geophysics|geophysics}} Your removal of Geophysics sidebar template from [[Climate change]] ==

Discussion copied from my User Talk Page. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 21:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you justified removing Geophysics sidebar template from [[Climate change]] with "''not even the best summary of what this high-level article pertains to . . . . see extensive navigation footers''" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289137391&oldid=1289123547&title=Climate_change diff]) I did check out the footers and everything else - thanks. I was correct indeed: climate change is a subfield of geophysics, which is why the [[American Geophysical Union]] has [https://www.agu.org/learn-about-agu/about-agu/governance/sections eight sections dedicated to studying climate]. Besides, the '''article is already in''' (the Climate Change category as a subcategory of the Climate variability and change subcategory of) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geophysics '''the Geophysics category''']. The template obviously helps provide more complete information and education to the visitor. [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
: {{reply|Tinterest}} There has been a strong consensus developed over years regarding what should be included in this high-level article, especially the lead. Physical space in the article—especially in the lead—is at a premium. Any template pushes ensuing graphics out of place (away from their intended sections) while adding only speculative relevance: almost all the links in the Geophysics template are to subjects at a different level than climate change, and the template doesn't even include a link to [[Climate change]]. It is irrelevant that [[Climate variability and change]]—which after long discussions was made purposely distinct from the [[Climate change]] article which deals with ''present-day'' climate change—is in the Geophysics '''category'''. Re the AGU: be aware that climate and climate change are distinct concepts at entirely different levels. I agree with [[User:Bogazicili]]'s exclusion of the template. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for additional info. However, it seems you missed my reply to him: [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper Wikipedia is not paper] because it aims to educate '''online''' visitors (whose interfaces come in countless shapes and versions), not impersonate paper encyclopedias. Your "premium physical space" sounds like relic typography journalism. Seriously, who in their right mind would/should care if a Wikipedia article's layout "looks impressive" on a specific device/browser/version... like yours, given that it won't/can't look that way on the next person's device/browser/version...? [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]])
::: {{reply|Tinterest}} It's not about looking impressive. It's about editorss' consensus over years, which underlies all the reasons listed above. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 21:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::: {{reply|Tinterest}} Now I see you are posting the same template across multiple article pages. You are new, and should wait until you understand how Wikipedia works before proceeding. You can continue discussion here if you like. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 21:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Please refrain from [[Wikipedia:POV_railroad#Incivility|incivil behavior by patronizing]] and instead read my argument offered in good faith: [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper Wikipedia is not paper], so spoiling the looks of an article on a device is not a criterion for content removal. [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 22:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: You have not responded squarely to a single fact or policy or guideline or explanation of consensus that I have made. In true [[Straw man]] form, you pretend my argument is about "looking impressive" or "not spoiling the looks". Instead you again point to an ''essay'' vaguely describing what Wikipedia is '''''not''''', an essay that is not a even a policy or guideline. Two editors experienced in this article's history have removed your post here. Further, you have experienced at least another editor removing the template from still another article, as being tangential, which is central to the template's problem here and other places. It is not patronizing to state that you are new; it is an objective fact that is corroborated by the number of reversions that have been performed against your posts. If you were proceeding in good faith, you stop to understand what the rest of us are talking about and stop repeating the same behavior in other articles. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 04:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I agree with the removal, as it pushes images down, disrupting flow. With the current skin (Vector 22), there is less variation in how people on Desktop see this article. Everybody with a slightly smaller and bigger screen than me will encounter the same problem. There are quite a few of these templates that could be added, but I see little value in any of them. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} {{u|Tinterest}}, [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper Wikipedia is not paper] is just an '''essay'''. It's not part of the [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]. If you are looking for an actual policy regarding your edit, see [[WP:ONUS]]. 
If others are not objecting, maybe we can add [[Template:Geophysics navbox]] at the end of the article, with other navbox's. The navbox wouldn't disrupt the article layout. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::Sounds like an idea, although I don't see why we should be shy about the fact that climate change is primarily a natural process and not sociological (or else only sociologists would be studying it and geophysicists would never even touch it). [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 23:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
: {{reply|Bogazicili}} I'm not seeing the relevance of the Geophysics navbox—any more than countless other science-related navboxes out there ([[Template:Weather]], [[Template:Renewable energy sources]]...) that are much more directly relevant to this article's content than geophysics. There has been no showing of why any further sidebars or navboxes should be included. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 20:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::This sidebar template is not just any navbox - the fact that so many geophysicists (including at least [https://www.agu.org/learn-about-agu/about-agu/governance/sections eight sections] of the [[American Geophysical Union]]) study climate (and its change, as studing properties ''and'' processes/changes is what science is all about) implies that climate change is primarily a natural process rather than manmade. So your stubborness seems politically motivated. A matter of fact of such fundamental importance to the society should not be hidden in an encyclopedia. [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 23:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: That climate change is of interest to many geophysicists, does not mean that readers will benefit from a geophysics sidebar or navbox that points to barely-related articles. The myriad links in the text of the article show that nothing relevant is being "hidden". You do not understand that the present article is about current climate change, which is no longer "primarily a natural process". "Political" motivation? Just stop. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: You [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] will note that ''no one'' here agrees with you re a sidebar. No one. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Of course it means exactly that: the box has links to basic stuff, not myriad, as encyclopedias are for general public, not experts (so this milelong article with a ton of links should really be a stub at the most). I have no idea what "current climate change" is (as I said, science studies processes, meaning the changes that occured at any time, not just recently and not just in the distant past - that's what the word '''process''' means, so processes are always observed at all times, without bias). You should also read [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]] and ease off on people with your consensus mantra. [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 00:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::: Here, "current climate change" means the anthropogenic climate the planet has been experiencing as a result of humans' greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution. You were, and possibly still are, unaware that prior consensus has determined that—as already explained—''that is what this article is about''. You continue to weasel out of accepting what has been explained to you by your using vague references, including the latest: you will note that [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]] describes "decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion ''leading to '''consensus'''''" that you discount. Above, you have spewed [[straw man]] arguments, and accuse ''someone else'' of stubbornness, imply political motivations—anything but squarely responding to, or possibly even understanding, what has been repeatedly explained to you by editors experienced in this article's content and its established editorial consensus. Just stop. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 03:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::: 1. What fraction of the following articles are '''''directly relevant''''' to anthropogenic climate change as explained here? 
:::::: 2. Which articles would readers be interested in after coming here to learn of anthropogenic climate change? 
:::::: 3. If these Geophysics links are included, how many dozen ''other'' templates should be included??? Template:Physical chemistry? Template:Renewable energy? Template:Psychology? Template:Weather? Template:Motor fuels? Template:Oxides? Template:Glaciers? Template:Industrial Revolution?
{{geophysics}}
{{green|Mineral physics 
Petrophysics History
Computational
Electricity
Ionosphere Polar wind Thunderstorms
Fluid dynamics
Atmospheric science Magnetohydrodynamics OceanographyTurbulence
Geodynamics
Climate Earth's mantle Exoplanetology Geochemistry Glaciology Planetary science Plate tectonics Tectonics Volcanism
Gravity
Gravity of Earth Geodesy Geoid Physical geodesy
Magnetism
Earth's magnetic field Geomagnetic reversal Magnetosphere Paleomagnetism Solar wind
Waves
Seismology Spectroscopy Vibration
Scientists
Aki Alfven Anderson Benioff BowieDziewonski Forbes Eotvos Gilbert Gutenberg Heiskanen Hotinevon Humboldt Jeffreys Kanamori Love Matthews McKenzie Mercalli Molodenskii Munk Press Richter Turcotte Van Allen Vanicek Vening Meinesz Wegener Wilson}}
::::::: —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 03:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Of those eight AGU sections that study climate (change), only one studies paleoclimate (change), so geophysicists obviously (by a large majority, in fact) do study your "current" climate change. Sociologists do not, practically not at all. So answer this if you would: what does that tell you? Come on, it is not that hard! Or just stop. (Though I am amused by the tactics you [[cult]]ists use in justifying owning your little privatized corners of Wikipedia like this article - all that ranting over an attempt to include one little and highly relevant sidebar infobox, wow.) [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 02:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: You haven't answered my three questions posted 03:53 8 May.
::::::::: It doesn't surprise me you now ask a question I have already answered: "That climate change is of interest to many geophysicists, does not mean that readers will benefit from a geophysics sidebar or navbox that points to barely-related articles." You've got it backwards. And you've admitted that the sidebar itself is not "highly relevant". And it's not "small" especially in the lead.
:::::::::::I didn't say it was not highly relevant (I wouldn't be advocating its inclusion obviously). It was just a remark on the fact that you fight so much the inclusion of a highly relevant yet tiny infobox only because it directly opposes the very existence of this article. Implications from hard science studying the main subject of this article so vastly and deeply (as the AGU does, which means by extension that we are talking roughly 1/3 of all geophysicists, not "some" as you would downplay it), are that the article in reality has a totally opposite meaning from the one purpotrated by you and your mass following. Speaking of which, your mass following is really irrelevant and you can have 1 million followers if you like but that still would not change the fact that this article has missed the point entirely. Personally, I think this article should be speedy deleted. [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 23:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: This article is not a "privatized corner of Wikipedia": it has [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Climate_change 3,126 editors] who watch this page and 5,333 who have edited this article... arriving by consensus at its current state. It's not surprising that the one with the least knowledge does the most name calling. Just stop. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 02:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: I think you may underappreciate how many disciplines study climate change. Sociologist definitely do. They may for instance study the large disconnect in public opinion supporting climate action, and the lack of sufficient climate action. How does social change come about? What have been successful movements to demand climate action? How does climate disinformation spread? These questions are as key as the questions that geophysicists study. Please, [[WP:focus on content]], and do [[WP:NPA|not attack]] other volunteers. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
The crux of this relevance issue is:
<br>{{green|Tinterest's premise that some geophysicists study climate change, does not imply that readers here are interested in all the '''''other''''' things that geophysicists study (or in list of geophysicists)}}.
<br>I realize that dozens of disciplines study climate change (see my question 3 above); this fact does not imply we should have dozens of sidebars here, especially in the lead. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 14:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:Seriously? So to you, that some (or all) sociologists or dozens of non-physical disciplines study climate change implies sociological or non-physical nature of a '''physical process'''? You don't realize that when something gives physical character to a process, no one else's opinion matters anymore except the physicists'? Then don't forget that housewives too study it over morning coffee, so let's include a section dissussing what housewives think about climate change. While at it, how about midschool seniors (it's their future after all)... and then bus drivers... and... Your playing the "mass following" card reminds me of the [[Luddite]]s ("what do all those '''physical''' scientists know"). [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 23:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:: More [[Straw man]] arguments and name calling. The issue, again, is relevance. Like the growing list of things you have ignored above, you haven't answered the three questions I posed above, and now you ignore the crux presented 14:46 9 May: '''Your premise that some geophysicists study climate change, does not imply that readers here are interested in all the ''other'' things that geophysicists study (or a list of geophysicists).''' Obviously ''dozens'' of templates involve one idea that relates to climate change, but all or almost all of the <u>links</u> in the <u>templates</u> have nothing directly to do with climate change. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 04:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The only elephant in the room is the one you refuse to see (summarized in the subsequent section below; on mistaking the studying of effects of a physical process for hardcore physical science on that physical process). Again, I move that we delete ridiculous ([[Luddite]]) contentious articles like this one, instead of leaving them linger forever unresolved. What good are they, given that they forever deepen divisions in a society (and this one "succeeds" in doing so in most societies of the world)? [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 00:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

== Climate change  ==

The annual review of sociology’s article “climate change and society”, which was published in July 2020 in volume 46, examines how sociological viewpoints help us comprehend climate change as an ecological and social issue. The human drivers of climate change are examined by the authors, Thomas Dietz, Rachael L. Showman, and Cameron T. Whitley. These factors include how social structures and political economies affect greenhouse gas emissions, how political and power interact in corporate and policy systems, and what influences the individual behavior of consumers and citizens. The significance of tackling climate justice across multiple strata, including race, class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and indigenous identity, is also emphasized in the review. Sociology needs to integrate theoretically in order to successfully contribute to the conversation about climate change. I didn’t make any chances on the information above, but I did add some extra important information that I think would be helpful. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054614 [[User:Andreaperez12|Andreaperez12]] ([[User talk:Andreaperez12|talk]]) 17:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:Hello @[[User:Andreaperez12|Andreaperez12]]. Is there any change you would like to see based on that paper? Either in this article or another? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:"Feedbacks are expected to trend in a positive direction as greenhouse gas emissions continue, raising climate sensitivity."<ref>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</ref><!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Backendchild|Backendchild]] ([[User talk:Backendchild#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Backendchild|contribs]]) 04:55 13 May 2025 (UTC)</small> 

::Mistaking the '''studying of effects of''' a physical process for '''hardcore physical science on''' that physical process is a redflag revealing a [[Ludite]] movement at work. And you not only equate the cause and consequence, but you go a step further and take the consequence out of the context and make it the character of the process itself ("blame the humans!"). Wow. I mean just - wow. As I said above, this article should be speedy deleted as it fails even the common sense check. Now I understand why the article is milelong and why you hate it even mentioning geophysics: you've been trying to make up the lack of quality with increase in quantity. Never works in the end. [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 00:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tref}}

== Ocean and Climate Change ==

According to an article written by Maria McNutt, she states that, "The loss in ocean productivity will be detrimental for the 20% of the population that depends on the seas for nutrition." This means that the global food supply will decrease quite intensely. That means people will have to find ways to adjust and survive. This also means that many animal species in the oceans will also suffer because as the oxygen levels are decreasing, the carbon dioxide levels are increasing which depletes the amount of safe water in which the species can survive in. Both human and animals species will heavily feel the impacts of climate change as it will only get worse if people don't take an initiative to slow the effects of climate change. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1243256 [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935|2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935|talk]]) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:From rising seas to homeless polar bears - no scary prediction on climate change has ever come true. Neither did that 20% tale she told us back in 2013. [[User:Tinterest|Tinterest]] ([[User talk:Tinterest|talk]]) 00:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

== Aerosol and Clouds ==

According to the scholarly article titled, “Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing," the authors state that there is robust evidence that aerosols actually don't actually play that big of a role in the climate change crisis. There is a significant shift in the way that we think aerosol's role is in the changes of climate. 
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12221/2022/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:2605:a601:a7ab:ef00:921:5a85:3bf:e9aa|2605:a601:a7ab:ef00:921:5a85:3bf:e9aa]] ([[User talk:2605:a601:a7ab:ef00:921:5a85:3bf:e9aa#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/2605:a601:a7ab:ef00:921:5a85:3bf:e9aa|contribs]]) </small>
<ref> Quaas, J., Jia, H., Smith, C., Albright, A. L., Aas, W., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Forster, P. M., Grosvenor, D., Jenkins, S., Klimont, Z., Loeb, N. G., Ma, X., Naik, V., Paulot, F., Stier, P., Wild, M., Myhre, G., and Schulz, M.: Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12221–12239, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12221-2022, 2022.
</ref>
: Hello! This is a primary study. Usually we try to use [[WP:secondary]] articles that collate information, to avoid given undue emphasis to a single study. In some of the subarticles this paper may be relevant. Did you have any specific text in mind? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 08:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
{{tref}}

== Impacts  ==

Recent advances in climate science have enabled researchers to assess the extent to which human-induced climate change has increased the likelihood or severity of specific extreme weather events, a field known as extreme event attribution. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (2023), there is high confidence that climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of heatwaves, heavy precipitation, and some types of droughts and tropical cyclones in many regions. Attribution studies use statistical and modeling techniques to compare observed events with simulations of a world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, helping to quantify the influence of climate change on individual events." [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:71F4:410:5138:758:9E4D:3597|2600:1700:71F4:410:5138:758:9E4D:3597]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:71F4:410:5138:758:9E4D:3597|talk]]) 00:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia uses "ref" tags for citations, as shown above. You can also use the citation tool in the editor to enter the following details:

Title: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report

Publisher: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Year: 2023

DOI: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

: Not sure if you're the same person as above, but please suggest a change to the article, rather than simply putting information here. Is something wrong or out of date? Do we miss something? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

== Lead images ==

I think we can consider an update here.

* I think for wildfires we should find a better image. There are newer images such as this [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palisades_Fire_as_seen_from_Venice_Beach.jpg]
* Change coral image with economic impacts or flooding. I find the image of a single coral very underwhelming. 

[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{multiple image
| perrow            = 2
| total_width       = 310
| image1            = Soldiers on Dixie Fire (9401).jpg
| alt1              = 
| image2            = Flooding aftermath of Cyclone Idai, Mozambique (9410).jpg
| alt2              = 
| image3            = Water Shortage in Ethiopia (935).jpg
| alt3              = 
| image4            = Extreme heat warning sign in Death Valley, California, USA (9282).jpg
| alt4              = 
| image5            = Pine Gulch Fire (9404).jpg
| image6            = Sea Ice Melt Ponds (938).jpg
| image7            = Flooding in Bridgnorth, England (9272).jpg
| footer            = Examples of some [[effects of climate change]]: [[Wildfire]] intensified by heat and drought, [[Coral bleaching|bleaching of corals]] occurring more often due to [[marine heatwave]]s, and worsening [[drought]]s compromising water supplies.
}}

I'm happy to discuss new images there. One of the difficult bits is to find images that look good while being that small. I think the fire is okay, but I do get you with the coral. 

Just a collection of newer images to test out, not yet selected for good geographic diversity (these all come from a collection [[User:TatjanaClimate]] managed to secure for Wikipedia. Took those because I'm lazy and just wanted a single search term on Commons). [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think the top two images could do with a [[Template:Multiple image|multiple image template]]. '''[[User:Dracophyllum|<span style="color:Crimson;">Draco</span>]][[User talk:Dracophyllum|<span style="color:Darkgreen;=">phyllum</span>]]''' 06:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Femke}} we are still proceeding with 3 images for the lead right?
:I think one developed country, one developing country, and one nature image would be balanced?
:How about one fire (a California fire?), one flooding [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flooding_aftermath_of_Cyclone_Idai,_Mozambique_(9410).jpg], and one ice melting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_Ice_Melt_Ponds_(938).jpg]? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::I think we can go back to four. One was removed because people didn't like it, iirc, and four would be the optimum from my perspective. One rich country, one emerging, one developing and one nature? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm all for fewer images - I don't like multiple images & think they should be kept to a minimum. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm ok with 3 or 4. For the 4th one, it could be heatwave related, such as a heatwave map. If 3 images, something heatwave could also be better than forest fire. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{multiple image
| perrow            = 1 / 2
| total_width       = 310
| image1            = Quebec Canada Wildfire Smoke Consumes New Jersey and New York City June 7 2023 - 52958921436.jpg
| alt1              = 
| image2            = Flooding aftermath of Cyclone Idai, Mozambique (9410).jpg
| alt2              = 
| image4            = Sea Ice Melt Ponds (938).jpg
| alt4              = 
| footer            = Caption will be updated
}}

::::@John: Why do you dislike multiple images? Do you feel it becomes too busy in the article with them? I've always wondered about accessibility, given that they have an absolute size rather than an relative one. 
::::@Bogazicili: I don't think a heatwave map works in miniature? I'd also like to avoid adding even more maps and figures to the article, as the balance between photos and graphs is already off, making the article feel very theoretical, rather than about daily life. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: General comment: the major [[:File:20200118 Global warming and climate change - vertical block diagram - causes effects feedback.svg|impacts]] of climate change are intensified heat waves, sea level rise, glacial melting & freshwater loss, intensified storms/cyclones & resultant flooding, intensified droughts, intensified wildfires, desertification, habitat loss & increased extinction, spread of "tropical" pests & diseases. So hard to choose! Maybe there's a creative solution to prominently illustrate, maybe a gallery near the top, though that will likely not gain consensus. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::There are currently 3 images so we can conservatively change those 3 for now at least. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Femke|Femke]], fair enough. How about this for wildfire: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quebec_Canada_Wildfire_Smoke_Consumes_New_Jersey_and_New_York_City_June_7_2023_-_52958921436.jpg]? It doesn't show the actual fire but the impact of [[2023 Canadian wildfires]] in New York City is very notable I think. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Added my preliminary suggestion above. What do you guys think? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::If we can make this one 4 images, we can use the heatwave image: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extreme_heat_warning_sign_in_Death_Valley,_California,_USA_(9282).jpg] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Scrap the montage of small images completely. It doesn't work on small devices. Place good pics among the text in sensible places and a better message will be delivered! [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::Agree 100%..... the article should be focused on accessibility. All clusters of many images should be removed. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 00:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::Which small devices? Please provide technical information, so this can be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)]]
::[[MOS:IMGSIZE]] (bolding mine): {{tq| As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 250px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide (300px for lead images) and 500px tall, for comfortable display on the '''smallest devices "in common use"''' (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays).}}
::I adjusted the lead images, they are now no more than 300px.
::The other relevant guideline is [[WP:GALLERY]]: {{tq|Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.}}
::I don't think various images used in this article cause an unbalance, and it improves reader understanding. This is a science heavy article, and images are useful. Other websites such as [https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/ NASA climate change] also make use of images. Images also include "point of contrast or comparison" as they show different impacts etc.
::This is also a Featured Article. It passed the most recent community review with several multiple images. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::: I've got a tiny little phone, and it seems to work there (pictures are under each other). [[User:Moxy]], always appreciate your input on accessibility, so keen to hear why this should not be used. I feel like we've done a downgrade in terms of accessibility by downscaling the images, as you now need very keen eyes to read these two initial graphs without enlarging them. I might start a discussion on the max sizes for lead images, given how small 300 px is. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::::The community has just up the size for default images to 250px ..... Thus having images at 120px or so jam together with a fixed size obviously doesn't meet our basic requirements. An article of this nature should be an example of what to do not an example of what not to do [[MOS:ACCIM]]. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 21:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::::: My thinking here is that some images are inaccessible at 250px (text too small for people with limited vision), or even at 400 px, whereas other are fine at 120 px. It matters whether they are clear, including from when you try to mimic various visual disabilities by increasing distance from screen for instance. From [[WP:ICCAM]], it does seem that there is a bug with galleries (which we use later in the article). 
::::: The change to 250px was mostly an aesthetic change as far I remember that discussion, rather than setting the new standard for accessibility. 
::::: For the fixed-width objection, would it make sense to request a change to the multiplpe image template to also take an upright parameter? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 06:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|Femke}} if there are any accessibility issues, my understanding is that these are due to fixed-width parameter. total_width seems to be required for automatic resizing of images in {{tl|Multiple image}}.
::::::I think upright parameter or a new parameter called auto_resize should automatically handle auto resizing. Maybe we can request this in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)]] or [[Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)]] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)