Wikipedia:Featured article review/Climate change/archive1

Climate change

Climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Global warming
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Global warming/archive1

• Featured article review/Climate change/archive1

Notified: EMsmile, Dtetta, RCraigh09, Bogazicili, Dave souza, Efbrazil, Stephan Schulz, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject geography, WikiProject Meteorology, WikiProject Science Policy, WikiProject Antarctica, WikiProject Arctic, WikiProject Environment talk page diff

This featured article from 2006 was last reviewed in 2007. Since, it has been completely rewritten (twice?). While we have a very active community, I think it is important that this article is reviewed with outside eyes, given its controversial nature. Over the last couple of months, concerns on the talk have mainly been about neutrality: should the article focus more on worst-case scenarios (f.i. talk page discussion a). Should we mention that climate change is seen as an 'existential threat to civilization' by some scientists (cf. talk page discussion b)?

I'm not perfectly aware of everything in a manual of style, and would appreciate feedback on that topic, as well as on the images.

It would be brilliant if this article gets to be main page ready again, so that we can feature it if climate change becomes topical again. In March, when I asked whether it could be run at today featured article, it was indicated that the article wasn't quite ready and a peer review + featured article review would be beneficial.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

MurrayScience, just noticed that you are not on the list above. Thought you would be interested in this discussion....lots of good comments from the reviewers. Dtetta (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Moved to talk. My initial comments have all been resolved; I will read through again later, after others have weighed in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

• A few short paragraphs and sections scattered throughout.

I've expanded one short paragraph. Most of the others (I count three, but maybe I need to be more strict?) are a bit contentious, so I've proposed changes on talk first. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

CMD I just wanted to say that I think these are great comments. You clearly have spent a lot of time going through the article in order to provide these thoughtful, insightful suggestions. The article will be significantly stronger as a result of responding to them, so thanks very much for your work on this.Dtetta (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Flora and fauna are also behaving in a manner consistent with warming" could use a faunal example as well as a floral one?

I'd rather not expand this section, it's already quite big. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The paragraph on food security mentions overall trends for crop production in addition to regional variability, but for fish stocks the text hedges much more about potential losses, and provides no overall assessment. Is there such a difference between terrestrial and oceanic food sources? It seems unlikely that polar fish stock increases can balance out tropical losses, not least because there is less polar than tropical water. The 183 million figure sentence needs its page number fixed.

clarified that this is a global decline as well (which is what the sentence intended to say). Fixed page number. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC).

For both land and sea the reason for increased high latitude productivity is the same (becoming more tropical), so perhaps they could be grouped together. However, reading it again now, these seem like detailed caveats that take away from the overall global picture, and I wonder if these caveats are due here or reflections of mercator-orientated worldviews. At the moment, I would leave regional analysis to subpages. CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Rephrased

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

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

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

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

• I have just noticed that the already extant warming of 1.1 °C mentioned in the lead is mentioned nowhere in the body. That figure is completely necessary contextualisation for the 1.5C and 2C goals, as well as perhaps the entire article. I am surprised it (or related figures) is not mentioned multiple times.

I'll make sure the first section and the lede have the same number (now they quote different numbers). This week, an improved data set of warming came out, but it's too early to use that.

• I would replace "changes would also be necessary in forestry and agriculture" with a more general reference to land use change overall.
• The two short paragraphs at the end of Policies and measures may fit better in the Society and culture section, although I can see the argument for its current placement.
• The huge imbalance between Mitigation and Adaptation is concerning. Mitigation goes into relatively great detail, while Adaptation gets six lines. In general, this paucity of information on climate change adaptation makes the article feel very incomplete, and is a genuine delisting issue. Adaptation measures make up a huge amount of the response to climate change. Mitigation is half theories that may not happen, and may not work (although this article feels quite positive on the matter). There is adaptation to existing climate change, let alone future change. Whole cities, and even countries, are disappearing into the ocean. Coastal aquifers are becoming increasingly saline. Agricultural yields are decreasing. Disaster risk reduction management is becoming more developed. Sometimes people in Brisbane aren't allowed to wash their cars!

Long answer before I start working on this. The mismatch has multiple reasons, some "valid". It's partially due to my lack of knowledge. Partially due to the fact that the adaptation literature switches between very abstract technical and the very local. This makes it difficult to find out what is due. A third reason, is that the adaptation literature is smaller than the mitigation literature. This is reflected in the IPCC working groups as well. Impacts, vulnerability and adaptations are one volume together, whereas mitigation is it's own volume. Some discrepancy is therefore to be expected here as well. Some scientists have lamented this discrepancy in body of literature, but I think we should reflect it to some extent. I will propose we follow the IPCC WG structure a bit more closely, making mitigation it's own section, and grouping adaptation with impacts. EMsmile, you also indicated you had some insight here (a comment during the edit-a-thon).

An easy one to expand on is coastal protection. I think I can copy/adjust some of my work from sea level rise there. I don't know how countries are adapting to increased salinity, except for two local examples (salt-resistent crops on Texel, and desalination plant in Israel). In the tropical cyclone and climate change literature, I have seen review articles go on about extreme weather disaster risk management, which I might add if I don't find a more general source.

I've already pushed back very hard to get the mitigation section smaller, but open to suggestion to further trim it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

EMsmile I don't have particular expertise here but let me ping ASRASR, and my thoughts are this: The section on adaptation will always be different (and perhaps shorter) than mitigation because many of the adaptation technologies, approaches and concepts are not specific to climate change impacts but have been there already before but have now become more urgent. For example, countries have always had technology options if they were prone to flooding but now they need to intensify those efforts. For example in the area of sanitation: pit latrines and septic tanks have always been bad for areas that get flooded but if flooding is getting more frequent with climate change then the alternative options (e.g. container-based sanitation) are becoming ever more attractive. Same with water saving measures in relationship with droughts. So I would assume that a section on climate change adaptation is mainly a listing of links to sub-articles, pointing people into the right direction where to read more. I don't think that "per se" it needs to have the same amount of text as climate change mitigation (mitigation being far more specific to climate change than adaptation is). EMsmile (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The IPCC will have a focus on mitigation over adaptation because of their role within an international system focused on the singular goal of mitigation, and because mitigation is inherently more relevant to an international level, with any country mitigating or not mitigating affecting every other country. Adaptation is intrinsically national, or even local, in implementation and in effect. International cooperation on adaptation is mostly related to funding, technology and knowledge sharing, capacity, etc. I find it a bit tricky to have a more technical debate over relative lengths when adaptation is only 6 lines. The two topics of mitigation and adaptation don't have to be linked, so perhaps it's best to consider them separately. For adaptation, perhaps per the sea level example adaptation for various issues may be a good way to consider the topic, which prevents getting too bogged down on a particular local issue. If there is a desire to shorten mitigation, there's a bit of wp:crystal wording which could perhaps be removed leaving the core ideas of what is lacking, and what has been done already. CMD (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've made the first proposal for an additional paragraph on talk, and I'll wait for feedback before posting. I'm seeing some options for improving our coverage of migration, which is now highly problematic (citing old numbers which were based on very little), by placing it mostly in adaptation. I'm tentatively aiming for four well-developed paragraphs. I've rephrased some crystal in mitigation, so that it's clearer it's a projection rather than something that will happen. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

-I think the idea of expanding the adaptation section, in order to make it more consistent with the extent of treatment given to mitigation, is excellent. Some background may be helpful here. When I was doing a rewrite of the Mitigation section in May, it involved an expansion from 500 words to around 1350 words (compared to about 1700 words the the Effects section at that time). In May, like now, there was concern expressed about the mitigation/adaptation length discrepancy, but I still think the appropriate thing to do is to beef up the adaptation section, rather than shorten the mitigation section.

-I’m not sure I quite follow one of your comments regarding the mitigation text; it seems like you are suggesting that since these mitigation actions may not be carried out, they deserve less coverage in the article? While it’s true that the mitigation strategies describes in a number of the major reports (IPCC, UNEP, One Earth, Princeton) may not all happen, I think it’s critical for a reader to understand what are the approaches to NetZero that are generally considered viable, regardless of the extent to which they end up being followed. And the issue of viability (which I think is what you are driving at) could also apply to many adaptation strategies. When I look at AR5WGII Ch.14, and some of the recent UNFCC TEP-A technical papers, I am struck by the lack of clarity on successful, scalable adaptation approaches. Some seem just as theoretical as the idea of decarbonizing the electricity grid, or moving to EVs. The latter have market drivers (and specific government mandates in some cases) that I don’t think are clear in the former.

-My 2 cents is that a reader of this article most likely is concerned with a few main things: what is global warming/climate change; how much global warming/climate change is happening or will happen; what is causing it; what are the problems that this warming/cc is causing; and what can we do about it. From that, I end up thinking that the effects, mitigation, and adaptation sections should be roughly comparable in the extent of coverage they provide. Athough, for a variety of reasons, as noted above by Femke, a top level description of adaptation may end up being somewhat shorter.

-I think the Adaptation to climate change article (which Femke has recently spent time improving), provides a reasonably good starting point for further developing the Adaptation section. Your point about adaptation being a societal response that is happening now is an excellent one, and I think that should be emphasized in any major rewrite of the current section (it’s also a relevant thought for the Mitigation section). As Femke points out, she (and Bogazicili) are currently making some proposals on the talk page for strengthening the Adaptation section, so I will focus on some more specific suggestions there.

-CMD, your comment about the tone of the Mitigation section being more positive than is perhaps merited is an interesting one. Can you give some examples from the text?

I take a positive tone from the parts of the text that seem to more describe an envisioned world than discuss the current one. The opening "Long-term scenarios point to rapid and significant investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency as key to reducing GHG emissions" doesn't indicate if these investments are happening or not, but following it with "that mix is expected to change significantly over the next 30 years" suggests it may be. The text is focused on a maximalist pathway of reductions, saying things like "scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles, low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping", while not mooring these pathways to the current situation. CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, thats helpful. I will look for ways to address this. One possibility: the original May version had language about how, despite renewables dominating new investment, fossil fuels still comprise about 80% of the world’s energy mix. I’ll look at putting that back in, as well as other possible edits. Dtetta (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Dtetta: I'm not sure why that was deleted. Even with my tendency to shorten, I can't object to reintroducing it. The 80% is still in the text.

@ CMD: I've finished my proposal for the new adaptation text. Feel free to comment, or wait for the 'core group' to polish it first. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC) / 20:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason the section was too positive is the structure. After renaming the subsections to 'clean energy', and 'carbon sequestration', the decarbonisation pathways subsection became a bit of an odd duck. For instance, one would expect clean energy in heat and transport to be featured under the heading clean energy, but it was only featured under the heading of decarbonisation pathway, which makes it difficult to indicate that these are harder sectors to abate then power. I've made a start of making more concrete subsections, with a new 'agriculture and industry'. I need to do some more fine tuning with the prose to reflect this new strucutre, but I do feel this is the way to go to address MurrayScience's and CMD's comments. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

For me, a lot of the positive vibes stem from what feels like an assumption that theoretical changes will be made. It does sound like a structure shift might help with this by making the surrounding context more obvious, but I think so long as it is kept in mind that'll help. (I haven't found time to track the various proposals in any detail I'm afraid, but undoubtedly the core group knows what it's doing, and there's no single correct answer after all.) CMD (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Political response is another quite positive subsection. It's a bit redundant as a topic to the Policies subsection in Mitigation, and feels like it's going out of its way to try to argue the free rider problem, and I don't even find it that convincing. "further eliminating" feels distinctly weasely.

Hmm.. I think the framing of climate change as a prisoner's dilemma our free rider problem is very common and due, but does not reflect the latest scientific ideas. For the sake of being well-researched, I believe they need to be included too. I've condensed the text and removed the weasel words.

I would like to add a source directly on the Green Climate Fund, which falls short of its goals in terms of adaptation and mitigation finance, replacing its mention in the sustainable development goal paragraph. Do you have other suggestions to make that section more balanced? This will expand the third paragraph make the second paragraph shorter, so that they are out of balance. EMsmile, is there another way to incorporate the sustainable development goals into the article? Maybe a mention in the adaptation section? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene I am not really sure. Perhaps we get inspiration by looking at the 5 targets of SDG 13. They are: "The targets cover a wide range of issues surrounding climate action. There are five targets in total. The first three targets are "output targets": Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related disasters; integrate climate change measures into policies and planning; build knowledge and capacity to meet climate change. The remaining two targets are "means of achieving" targets: To implement the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and to promote mechanisms to raise capacity for planning and management. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change." We could also mention that SDG 13 is of course closely related to many of the other SDGs, in particular SDG 7 on clean energy (see here). EMsmile (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of the current attempt? The GCF is now discussed in Copenhagen Accord paragraph, and sustainable development (including goals) is the second introductary paragraph of political response? I've also made the link to other sustainable development goals there. I've tried to avoid using UN jargon as much as possible. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's great work. CMD (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• The Scientific consensus subsection could use a little more on consensus about different issues and/or strategies to deal with climate change, rather than just whether it exists. For example, consensus on the likelihood of meeting the 1.5C and 2C goals. If the Warnings to Humanity are included, there should be some indication as to why they are significant.

I've cut warnings to humanity. I don't think there is consensus on the likelihood of meeting 1.5 / 2C. This is really dependent on how much confidence scientists place on political will/geopolitics and negative emission techniques. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Warnings to humanity have been re-inserted. I assume you want evidence of continuing importance after the mention directly after publication in media? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current sources are effectively primary sources and a news story which merely replicates parts of the warning.

I've also now seen the new image of the various pie charts for scientific consensus. It also feels like belabouring the point. Is there another subject where a ~3% viewpoint would be given this much space? CMD (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

We just recently had a RfC about the pie chart graph. There was one person objecting on the same grounds, but most editors wanted to include it. I'm constantly changing my mind about it. The current implementation is a bit too shouty, but a smaller picture size and less caption could already help. The text now further elaborates on this, with more numbers than I think are justified. (90-100 and 100%). I prefer the top-level discussion we had before where we didn't mention those numbers. Considering the fact that the 90% was found by explicitly inviting contrarian scientists, it also feels misleading. Bogazicili? Okay if I remove those duplicate numbers from the text or condense those two sentences?

Bogazicili; can you find a source showing continuing importance by using secondary sources? I feel we're framing scientific activism as normal scientific work. Are there other parts of the section you really want to keep. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Scientific consensus and its debate is notable per sources; its length is not undue. Also most of the public in many countries are unaware of the degree of the consensus. Eg: "However, only about one in six (17%) understand how strong the level of consensus among scientists is (i.e.,that more than 90% of climate scientists think human-caused global warming is happening)." [1] So, the comment about "belabouring" is nonsensical.

Those two warning articles themselves are pretty much review articles, and hence secondary sources. They are also massively cited. But if you want more secondary sources:

Eg1: You can find them in books. 2017 warning is on p 9 [2] (author of the book [3])

Eg2:" If the threat of climate change to freshwater ecosystems is not addressed through mitigation or adaptation efforts, we risk extensive environmental, economic and social impacts (Ripple et al. 2019)." [4] Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

To show its length is due, we need to look at sources that have a similar scope to our article (science + society). One of those books is 'Climate change: what everybody needs to know'; which spends one page, or 0.3% of the book on consensus. Similarly, Climate change: what the science tells us spends less than one page on the topic, also about 0.3%. A very short introduction to climate science only mentions consensus off-hand in their discussion of specific controversial issues (methane clathrates f.i.), and their discussion of climate denial, so below 0.3%. Our article dedicates 2.5% of space to the issue, excluding the image caption.

We don't use the warnings to society as a secondary source, we're citing them to talk about themselves. Which is different to the citation 56 you indicate, which cites is as a secondary source. Can't access the book you cite, so not sure whether they discuss it as a warning, or use it as a secondary source.

It's not super polite to say that CMD's comment about belabouring is nonsensical; a friendly atmosphere creates the best articles. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, you recently made a comment about my bolding [5], when it should not have been an issue since it should have been clear that I'm using it to highlight main points (similar bolding usage is also done by others such as SandyGeorgia [6]). These kind of remarks seem to have become a pattern now, which is problematic. I'll refrain from saying nonsensical, but I hope you work from your end too, to improve editing/working environment.

As for the length, the book examples you gave artificially minimize relative weight of core topics. For example, this book has 346 pages. So it has enough space to cover core topics as well as detailed stuff (such as implications of Donald Trump's presidency), which reduces the relative weight of core topics. We can't justify adding an entire paragraph about Donald Trump's policies into the Wiki article based on that book alone, for example.

If you look at other online tertiary sources, which are more similar in format to Wikipedia, the weight of scientific consensus is much larger. Eg: Britannica's Global Warming article, which has an entire section on "The IPCC and the scientific consensus". Or NASA's facts page. One of its 6 main tabs is Scientific Consensus.

Also those 2017 and 2019 warning articles have seen massive coverage and have been cited by other scientific articles many times. 2019 article was also the most impactful scientific articles (top 5) in 2019, as measured by Altmetric [7]. Bogazicili (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that difficult to find a secondary or tertiary source about those warnings then (so not simply citing them). I think I'd like to strive to a slightly smaller paragraph, but nowhere near 0.3%. The 'very short introduction' is quite similar in size to our article. Nasa is weird, as it operates in an outlier country in terms of climate denial, but Britannica's 3.6% about the history of IPCC and consensus is an argument I find more convincing ( Even as it's writting by a US author who was in the mids of those American climate wars). I think a more horizontal design of the image (5 pies next to each other), allows for it taking up less space. We now cite that primary source on consensus of 100% in 2019 twice, and we need to choose a location (either text or caption). What is your preference? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I had found secondary/tertiary sources referencing both 2017 and 2019 warning articles above. Maybe we can keep the text as is and add those two additional sources to assuage any concerns? As for consensus of 100%, I think text is better than image caption? Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You found a paper citing the warning. I don't know whether the book talks about the warning or only cites it. Could you quote the book here?. We're going further than citing by talking about the warning. If the book explicitly describes them, I'm happy for having an extra cite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The book talks about 2017 warning at length. I can't copy paste that format, but you can see it through google preview (page 9) [8] Bogazicili (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis; is that acceptible if we make some further small tweaks? (smaller redisigned image / not repeating primary source). To avoid overcitation, we could cut the Independent news story. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

On the warning letters, certainly the book is a better source than the Independent news story, and meets the need for at least one secondary source. Whether the mention is due is then up to editor consensus.

On the importance of scientific consensus, climate change is accepted to the point where it is treated as a basic background fact of life by policymakers around the world, let alone just scientists. The current article highlights the odd empahsis. Currently, the Scientific consensus subsection comes immediately after a number of paragraphs covering 2.5 decades of international collaboration on climate change, and various governments literally declaring climate emergencies. It's odd to read, for example, "national science academies have called on world leaders to cut global emissions" after already reading "South Korea and Japan have committed to become carbon neutral by 2050, and China by 2060". Given the above discussion, I would like to throw out the idea of rearranging so that Scientific consensus (and perhaps parts of The public?), are included with Discovery so that the coverage of consensus becomes part of the progression of scientific knowledge rather than being out on its own. Britannica does similarly, framing its The IPCC and the scientific consensus subsection as a story going from 1988 to the present. CMD (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to that suggestion, but we had a giant restructuing debate, so I'm starting to think we should be conservative with restructuring, unless there is a real good reason. I also made the title more clear [9], which addresses some of your concerns I think. Scientific consensus part also goes together with the public and denial and misinformation, etc, so the current grouping also makes sense from an organizational perspective. Bogazicili (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

My comments were made looking at the previous structure, so the details will need to be relooked at. However, in either structure there remains an emphasis that comes across as wp:systemic bias. This is in addition to the textual flow issues I gave an example of above. The first sentence effectively says "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that the things you read in the article so far are true", which feels like it should be implicit. (Imagine the poor reader otherwise.) I do agree it provides good context to the public information. "The public" main section is already in a chronological flow, so it would fit into a chronological summary as well. CMD (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is the systemic bias? We are not giving space to 3% opinion, we are giving space to the discussion of the whole issue. Also look at the examples of tertiary sources such as Britannica and NASA. Bogazicili (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A systematic bias towards discussing an issue that's only really significant in a couple of countries. The Britannica article section is really a section about the IPCC and the broad points of agreement, and is part of a larger section which runs from the development of understanding in the 1980s all the way to current and future policy. It reads as describing the development of understanding, rather than specifically trying to prove a point on consensus. The NASA section is like the one on this article, but is likely framed by its particular national context. CMD (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We are also not "specifically trying to prove a point on consensus". We just mention the latest understanding per journal review articles, scientific bodies etc. Beyond that we have an IPCC statement similar to IPCC coverage in Britannica. The current percentage devoted to that section (above discussion) is low and not undue. You will have to back up your statements or maybe open an RFC or something like that. Bogazicili (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Back up which statements, with what? The section opens with "There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that...". This is very much a direct, and quite blunt, point. Next to it is an image with five pie charts to make the same point five more times. It is not "just mention"ing something to give it its own subsection. My statements on Britannica referred direclty to the linked Britannica article. CMD (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Back up your statements about systematic bias with something quantitative. You previously had said "feels like belabouring the point". I can't really respond to your feelings.

Britannica article has points similar to our article:

"Nevertheless, a growing body of scientists has called upon governments, industries, and citizens to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases" And it goes on and on about IPCC conclusions (we cannot dedicate such a giant space to each IPCC conclusion, so we just summarize the latest scientific opinion).

NASA article cites the same study where those 5 charts come from, and talks about professional organizations such as scientific communities.

There was also a recent RFC about the image Talk:Climate_change#RfC_about_a_photo_in_the_Scientific_Consensus_section, where there was an overwhelming consensus.

So, if you feel strongly about those opinions, maybe start an RFC and seek consensus. FAR is not the place to suggest backdoor changes going against consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FAR is the place to initiate new discussions, nothing backdoor about it. I think the way forward here is (a) very slightly condense the current text to remove/de-emphasize primary source (100% study), (b) I develop a proposal as part of the historical section, in line with Britannica. (c) After we finish ongoing discussions we attempt to find consensus on that, and (d) probably start a request for comment to actually establish consensus. Does that sound okay? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

100% study looks like a review study to me. The rests sounds goods. I'm just against changes such as these [10], without talk page discussions and consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Something quantitative to demonstrate systematic bias? There was literally a number about a point made in prose in my last response. More widely, 192/193 UN states are signatories to the Paris Agreement. All UN states are members of the UNFCCC. There is apparently a source saying there is no less than 100% consensus among climate scientists. Also, these quantitative ideas are to compare with what quantitative basis for the current section being systematically balanced? Points that Britannica and this article do share doesn't impact on what I mentioned, which was the points they didn't share. On the aside, commenting and suggesting changes is exactly what FAR is for: "Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed". CMD (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• The sentence on the meaning of global warming could more precisely express its use as a single reference for surface temperature change rather than various surface temperature changes in general.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"increased surface warming" could mean any surface tempterature change, whereas the source specifically says "the average global surface temperature increase". A singular meaning, rather than potentially a more general meaning which could discuss different instances or regional examples of surface warming. CMD (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas climate change can refer to natural as well as anthropogenic change." This sentence feels a bit off. For a start, the climate.gov source goes on to use global warming to include natural changes, "Today’s global warming is overwhelmingly due to the increase in heat-trapping gases that humans are adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels." Overall, the difference feels like far too fine a distinction to draw on this page, and I don't think it helps.

I agree. Removed, but posted on the talk page, as people may disagree.Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And has been placed back. Talk discussion in progress. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• A general note that the lead should be considered and rebalanced once/if the overall article balance shifts. Currently it deviates from the recommended maximum four full paragraphs, but cases can be made for deviations.

The lede is already reflecting the direction we're shifting the article towards: relatively more attention to human impacts, and less to causes. We'll might need some more information on adaptation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Information on adaptation has been added. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Minor sandwiching
• On shortening some sections, I think it helps both the encyclopaedia and editor discourse if it's clear that when information is removed it's placed onto the most relevant sub-article if it is not there already.

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

• Major issues/article may not meet FA criteria: I made some of these arguments in the talk page, Talk:Climate_change#Restructuring. Right now the article is too focused on mechanics of climate change (eg: Physical drivers of recent climate change, Climate change feedback, Physical environment sections). Effects on humans are minimized. This approach is contrary to how reliable sources structure themselves. For example, see 2020 Lancet review. All of their sections tie into Human effects. As such, the article is not comprehensive and may not meet a major FA criteria. For example, a co-benefits of mitigation section is missing, which is a giant section itself in Lancet review. Physical drivers of recent climate change, Climate change feedback, Physical environment sections could be merged and summarized a bit. Current too much focus on mechanics of climate change may not meet Length criteria as well. Finally, we are talking about a major restructure in talk page, so the article may not be stable, another FA criteria. I think many editors have done great work on this article, and the article is already high-quality with lots of sources, but we might need more work to restructure the article, summarize some sections, expand some sections and rewrite the lead accordingly.Bogazicili (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The lancet review is a review about the health effects of climate change, so of course it focusses solely on humans. That will not help us find the right balance between sections. If there are specific sentences in the physical drivers section you would like gone or shortened, please suggest them here. You know how much I love condensing the article. We do mention co-benefits around air pollution twice now (in mitigation and in political response). What other co-benefits do you think should be included? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You are not suggesting a systematic approach. First we need to agree on our end goals. Are impacts on humans minimized in the article? I say massively. Then we need to agree on a reorganization. Then we need to shorten and expand based on that. It's too premature to suggest few specific sentences now. I'm not suggesting a band-aid solution, but a more comprehensive one.

Impacts on humans is currently around 6-8% of the Wiki article (rough word count in Microsoft Word: 597 words out of 9,639 for Humans sections plus few other sentences). I don't think such a low number could be justified based on the focus of reliable sources.

For example, IPCC Fifth Assesment has multiple reports too, and some of them focus mostly on humans, economy, etc etc [11], such as this.Bogazicili (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Apart from adaptation, I do not think that humans are minimized. I won't object to additions in the human impacts subsection based on length criteria either. One of three IPCC reports contains impacts on humans (WGII), but that same report also covers impacts on ecosystems, vulnerability, and adaptation (both ecosystem and humans). Say 40% of that report is human impacts only. About 70% of our article is scientific (politics, terminology and history are not really covered by IPCC). So 0.7*0.33*0.4 = 9% of the article should be human impacts. We're almost spot-on, with a bit of space to grow. 18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In the human impacts section, I only miss an estimate of the people being affected by SLR. That paragraph already already has these pre-2008 estimates of future migration that I still oppose strongly, so for prose reasons I will not add any further numbers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I had made up the upper limit as I didn't systematically go through the article. The Humans section accounts for only 6% of the word count. Your calculation seems to be extremely preliminary too, obviously. But it's good to have this discussion now. I currently see multiple sections and topics missing. Missing sections:

1) Mitigation co benefits section per Lancet and it's also in IPCC. (Part 3 ties into co-benefits IPCC 5th Assessment Mitigation of Climate Change)

2) Adaptation co benefits section per IPCC (eg: Chapter 11 in IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability)

Some missing topics in Humans section (not exhaustive):

1) Tipping point impacts [12] (can find more secondary sources)

2) Climate security /Human Security. We only covered migration, and not potential for violent conflicts (eg: Chapter 12 IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability)

I'm not keen on a mitigation co-benefits section. For health, they are extremely important, but less so for other topics. Like any odd 'criticism' section, they may lead to the collection of one-sided (here positive) information about mitigation instead of whatever is due. CMD already indicated that our mitigation section may be too positive. I prefer to note significant co-benifits directly at the point it's relevant (reducing fossil fuel -> less air pollution). That makes it easier to keep track of due weight. I think the case for a specific section on co-benifits of adaptation is weaker, but am learning (trying to edit adaptation to climate change, which is in a right state).

The tipping points literature is difficult. The article you cite is quite exemplary for the wider literature in that it's mainly about the physical impacts rather than the human impacts. I'm open to mentioning it off-hand (f.i. in a SLR sentence), but I don't quite know the literature to justify a general addition. I've got a good source for cliamte security, and will add that. Because of racist media frames connecting migration and security, I will follow IPCC and put it in our livelihoods paragraph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Link climate change / armed conflict has been added. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Drivers of recent climate change now merged with feedback section per one of first suggestions above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For example, we have impacts of mitigation under "Policies and measures" subsection. Specifically, this paragraph:

"Reducing air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels will have significant co-benefits in terms of human health.[253] For instance, the WHO estimates that ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases.[254] Meeting Paris Agreement goals could save about a million of those lives per year worldwide from reduced pollution by 2050."

This is not a policy effect, as it's not simple as changing the % of tax on the books. So its position on the article is nonsensical. I also think we should mention economic benefits etc. There is simply no space for this kinda relevant information. IPCC gives extended length for co-benefits, look at the tables in each section such as energy and transportation with list of co-benefits.[13] Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. We've struggled a lot with getting a good structure up for mitigation. We could bundle that with negative side-effects of mitigations such as financial instability due to stranded assets. (moving some information from the first paragraph of political response perhaps). Co-benefits and risks could be a subsection if we can make one without expanding the article too much. Let's first focus on those proposals that a) make the article shorter and b) fix the adaptation section. Those two should be easier :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: I'm going to strike out my original comments about length of Drivers section. Given the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#What_is_the_recommended_article_length?, maybe it'd be ok if we end up with 11k or 12k word count. In any case, we can concentrate on expansion and restructuring, then consider the length after that, depending on the input we get from other editors.Bogazicili (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

11k would be an obese monster that won't be kept up to date, and additions will not be held to standard. Even the current 9k is very challenging. There's room for trimming to make space for adaptation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained in the discussion elsewhere, I will !vote to Delist this article if it expands beyond its current size. (As of now, I am waiting for the long issues raised by CMD to be resolved before I review). Please have a look at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content for my further reasoning on what happens when articles are allowed to sprawl. A major part of good writing is knowing what to leave out; our goal is not to impress with minutiae but to engage average readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Mitigation section: Femkemilene, Co-benefits and risks subsection might work. I don't think it'd increase the length much, as we will be transferring a certain portion of Policies and measures subsection to there anyways. Policies and measures could actually just be few sentences, I wonder if it can be absorbed elsewhere. Bogazicili (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead may need expansion: One of the FA criteria is a lead that "prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections." Our lead is 525 words (after my last edit) without including pictures and their captions. World War I lead (an article that was given as an example af a good FA article here [14]) has 1,114 words. For example, massive effects on people and societies are summarized with only two sentences, which are 40 words ("Rising temperatures are limiting ocean productivity and harming fish stocks.[9] Current and anticipated effects from undernutrition, heat stress and disease have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century"). I think this is insufficient and lead may need to be expanded. Bogazicili (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

CMD, would you mind moving any points you feel have been resolved to the review's talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD, I set up a section for you at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Climate change/archive1#Comments by Chipmunkdavis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, just dropping a note that I've seen this but haven't been able to get around to it yet. CMD (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Clayoquot

Really great work has been done to explain the mitigation story. In particular, the "Changing sources of energy" section is an excellent summary of a complex topic.

The section on "Carbon capture and sequestration" has some serious issues. As a bit of background, the Royal Society 2009 report that's used as a source is pretty out of date. A newer source from an equally reliable body is the 2019 NASEM consensus report on negative emissions. My comments below are based mostly on the NASEM report. I am open to rewriting this section myself, but since we're in FAR I figured I should post here first.

• The paragraph beginning with "Earth's natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO2 beyond naturally occurring levels" implies that carbon dioxide removal is only meaningful at large scales. I would change this to "Earth's natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester large amounts of CO2."

Agree, but I do think it is only meaningful in large scales in the context of CC. Newer wording still has large in it, so I'm happy with fewer words. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• The next two sentences on reforestation, afforestation, soil carbon sequestration and coastal carbon sequestration reflect a much more negative POV of these techniques than I believe is justified. These techniques generally have co-benefits for biodiversity, soil fertility, and flood control. Saying that tree-planting could use land that might otherwise be used for food production would be less scary and more factual than the current wording of "raise food security concerns." Saying that soil carbon sequestration and coastal carbon sequestration are "less understood options" makes them sound scary but doesn't give the reader any facts. If we were to base this sentence on the NASEM consensus report, rather than on the primary study that is currently cited, we could say something like "Soil carbon sequestration and coastal carbon sequestration are other options that can benefit local ecosystems in addition to offsetting emissions." and perhaps follow that by "The sequestration achieved through these methods may not be permanent."

Happy to see some bold proposals here. One of the reasons this currently has a negative POV is the large discrepancy between modelling studies and realised/planned projects. Historical attempts at carbon dioxide removal have frequently not let to the benefits that were promised, and have had trade-offs with more sustainable development goals than food [15]. Nonetheless, this consensus report seems to be a point of view we should include. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• "As models disagree on the feasibility of land-based negative emissions methods for mitigation, strategies based on them are risky." Way too scary. The NASEM report says, "Reducing emissions is vital to addressing the climate problem. However, the least expensive and least disruptive solution involves a broad portfolio of technologies, including those with positive, near-zero, and negative emissions." I think the IPCC has some recommendations around negative emissions strategy too - I'll look this up.

I do think the literature on how negative emissions are used to postpone more realistic action is vital here as well. Maybe this could be rephrased strategies that rely on them in large-scale. A lot of the IAMs have an extreme reliance on negative emissions, which are at odds with the literature from land use scientists. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC

I agree that these are important issues. The most important thing in this section is to right-size expectations around the role of negative emissions. I think it's worth taking a few sentences to cover this evenly. (If you want to cut something so that the section doesn't become too long, you could cut the pros and cons of individual methods.) The introduction of the NASEM paper is a good source for this because it specifically evaluates the levels of mitigation that can be achieved without having to do bad things like take over agricultural land, and it also addresses the issue of the moral hazard that negative emissions present. The IPCC Special Report on 1.5 Degrees, Chapter 4, has a nicely balanced discussion about the role of CDR as well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Most other geoengeneering falls into the category of solar radiation management." Solar radiation management has nothing to do with carbon capture and sequestration. It should be in its own section.

It used to be in its own section (geo-engineering on the same level as adaptation and mitigation), but then it would get undue weight. I cannot think for way to put it in a logical space without giving it undue weight. I'm open to suggestions :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• The IPCC and NASEM both identify issues with the term "geoengineering". The NASEM consensus report says, "methods that create or enhance carbon sinks are best considered as part of the toolkit for net CO2 emissions reductions, although they are sometimes misleadingly classified with solar radiation management as “geo-engineering." The IPCC says, "Because of this separation [between two meanings of the term], the term ‘geoengineering’ is not used in this report."[16] I suggest we follow their lead and avoid the term altogether.

I'm happy dropping that word, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other people objecting. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The "Carbon capture and sequestration" section should probbly be called "Carbon dioxide removal", as "carbon capture and sequestration" is not usually used to refer to natural methods such as reforestation. Also add {{Main|Carbon dioxide removal}}.

My impression from reading the Wikipedia article is that carbon dioxide removal doesn't include CCS. As the section is more about negative emissions than CCS, it would be an improvement, but still not perfect. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. How about "Carbon sequestration" which covers the intention of both paragraphs? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Done (with a note that it's too jargonny, but I don't think there is a non-jargon alternative). Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in! I think this is a difficult section to write and am glad to have your help. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is too UK specific for this article (obviously UK has plenty of holes in North Sea to store CO2 whereas other countries may not) but there is a short (38 pages), up to date, and easy to read source on BECCS, DACCS and Wood in Construction here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot’s point is well taken. I think that the earlier presentation of this topic under its own heading was still a preferable way to present it. The topic still has a significant presence in the popular and scientific literature, and that should merit its inclusion as a separate subsection, perhaps within the mitigation section (which would be consistent with how it is treated in AR5). Clarity for the reader should have priority over due/undue policy considerations. In the text it may also be worth acknowledging that there is some work being done on the viability of limited SRM. Dtetta (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Should fix the slideshow of images four basic accessibility concerns. Its using a portal template that is broken that does not work for over 60% of our readers. It's either hidden from view or displays all images at one time stacked. It's why its not used in mainspace anywhere.--Moxy 🍁 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)