Talk:Climate change: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:42, 3 June 2020

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 4, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
August 24, 2019	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
March 26, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 5, 2004, and October 11, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

This page has 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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the [show] for references at the bottom of the FAQ.

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change?

A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists.^[1]

Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place?

A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."^[2]

Q3: Can't the increase of CO₂ be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?

A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics,^[3]^[4] including academically trained ones,^[5]^[6] they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives:

Current human emissions of CO₂ are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO₂ levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions.^[7] This is easily seen in a graph of CO₂ concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.^[8]
Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.^[9]
If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic).^[10]

Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?

A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum.

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.^[11] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.

Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"?

A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO₂ and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess.

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO₂ (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles.

Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled?

A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.^[1] This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change.

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998.^[12] More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out;^[2] thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend.

Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement?

A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."^[13] Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD.

While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference:

A map of the Eastern Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A map of the Western Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located

Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?

A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties.

Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years?

A12: Measurements show that it has not.^[14] Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts.

Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards.

Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming?

A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming.^[15] The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975.^[16] (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)^[17] The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming.^[18]

Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?

A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO₂ or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change.

Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends.

Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)?

A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming.

A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.^[19] Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'"^[20]
There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change.^[21]^[22] This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.^[23]^[24]
Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates.^[25] Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article.

Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money?

A16: No,

Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses.
Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming.
- Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data.^[26]^[27] Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist.

Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity?

A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction.

Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe?

A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying.

Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important?

A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities.

Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.

Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby?

A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them.

Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?

A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before?

A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept.

Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays?

A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:^[28]

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:

Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation,
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN),
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining.

Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."^[29]

Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true?

A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details.

References

^ ^a ^b Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
^ ^a ^b "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
^ Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)
^ Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.
^ Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.
^ The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.
^ "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
^ Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
^ The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.
^ "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link]}
^ Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
^ Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.
^ Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.
^ Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.
^ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
^ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
^ Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.
^ Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.
^ "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.
^ Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Antarctica FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arctic FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment FA‑class Top‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Geography FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Weather FA‑class Top‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology FA‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Climate change is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Globalization FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sanitation FA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0 Template:Vital article

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service.
Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post.
Lawrence Solomon (July 8, 2008). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". CBS News.
"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (August 15, 2015). "On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily.

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "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 examine the findings.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95

/Terminology section /General discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sofiahsantamaria (article contribs).

Fixing Temperature Charts

Global average temperatures declined for thousands of years, until fossil fuel-based industrialization beginning roughly 200 years ago reversed the decline. Global warming has intensified in recent decades.

Scientists have investigated many possible causes of global warming, and have found that accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, especially those resulting from humans burning fossil fuels, is the predominant cause.

@RCraig09: The temperature charts shown on the right need lots of work. There's very good content in them and I see no reason to throw out the intent behind the charts, but they need to be rebuilt from the ground up to be professional quality.

The same applies to the sea / land temperature chart and the top temperature chart, both of which I worked on. They should all be standardized, professionalized, and brought into alignment.

I'm happy to make all the changes, but I figure you created the charts on the right so maybe you'd rather take a crack? It's really up to you, I'll start hacking away next week unless you'd rather do the work.

Here are some of the top line items I'd fix, although I'm sure more would occur to me as I do the work. Feel free to add to the list and critique the other temperature charts... Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

@Efbrazil: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had not consciously focused on making images exactly consistent with each other, much less consistent with other editors' existing images. You make some good points, regardless. Since you're talking about harmonizing the two images at right with two existing images, it might be best if one individual did the work. I'll take a look at my original Photoshop psd files (would you use Photoshop?) within a few days, but I'll respond to the points below, probably Saturday 8 Feb. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Efbrazil is making a good point. The fact that the images aren't of professional quality is also the reason I was against including them when that discussion was helt. I'll probably change my opinion on that if we can get them professional :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your support on this. I agree with one person doing the work. I am mostly free to do the work next week, but I have no complaint if Craig09 wants to do the work instead. It will be a lot of work to get things right. I personally just use Powerpoint for graphics. I used to work on the product team there, so I know all the ins and outs of how to get poster quality content out of it. The only downside is there's no native svg editing, so I need to directly edit the markup on svg files (the top graph is svg). Also, I tweaked my comment on fonts- that's the big kahuna in terms of work here aside from professionalism- making the thumbnails and smartphone view legible. --Efbrazil (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real natives edit SVG directly, right? :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020

Later today, I'll add comments in the individual sub-sections below. Then, within a day or two, I plan to correct the basic problems inside each of the two images at right, and then step aside to let you (Efbrazil) harmonize all four images. Also, I can send you my PSD (Photoshop) files directly, if that would help. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Efbrazil: I think we need to coordinate how much I should do to the basic images before you begin harmonization. At the very least, we must all decide whether-&-which images should be combined/eliminated (discussion below, re redundancy). My PSD files are very much "layered", and it would not be easy for you to modify from a resulting PNG; I could send you the smaller elements that went into the making of my two images. After considering my comments from tonight in following sub-sections, let me know what would make your process easiest. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to say what would be helpful in terms of source content until I dig into the content and start rearranging things, but of course more is better (data, source images, etc). I'll add asks stuff to this thread if I get stuck. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distorted, inconsistent font use and inconsistent font sizes

Between the charts shown here, the left hand side fonts are too small and the right hand side is distorted and mismatched, and they're inexplicably different from each other. The charts need fonts standardized across the board. Same applies to the 2 temperature charts I made.Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

The big part of this work is going to be zooming the smallest fonts, which means changing the text in several places to favor brevity. The font type and size when viewed on a smartphone should ideally match the wiki text. This issue applies to all 6 of the charts.Efbrazil (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate the general goal of making important text readable on both big and small screens. The only exception might be to include some text purposely so tiny (such as sourcing, or confidence interval explanations, or reference indicia like "1901-2000 average") that casual users won't even notice or care about, but scrupulous researchers will want to see without clicking through to the Wikimedia page. I purposely put such tiny text inside the images themselves, to avoid cluttering the textual captions for our predominantly non-scientist readers. It's a judgment call, more formal than substantive, and not a huge issue for me. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all this. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone rendering for the images needs to be fixed

Most people use wikipedia on a smartphone and the charts should simply look good there- be full width and be legible without zooming unless it's essential (in which case landscape mode should work, like it does for your causes and effects chart).

The images on the right look like they are optimized for PC thumbnail / zoom view, but having a few crazy big fonts and some super tiny fonts is not good. It makes it so the content is both unusable on a smartphone and too unprofessional to use in a presentation. The goal should be a legible thumbnail view whenever possible.

Also, the current wiki embedding markup is resulting in the images being badly shrunken on smartphone. That issue applies to the land / sea graph as well. The wiki embed formatting needs to be fixed. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

I had no problem viewing images in the the side-by-side { { multiple image ... } } markup (iPhone7, iOS 13.3.1), though if you are having trouble viewing, then so must others. Placing them vertically would make the images spill over onto ensuing sections of the article (bad). Combining images (consolidating them, per your suggestion in an ensuing section) may be a solution; I'll continue discussion there... —RCraig09 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The temperature images are squinched sideways on chrome and in the wikipedia app on my iphone 8. Don't know why you aren't seeing the issue. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The giant arrow showing zoom is a pixelated mess

Needs to be fixed. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

9sptfAq5VYDNKYYeVbCPaLtKuc7N2B58GKo3wPG4GSMTpeqnj5QQUwsNriGb Yep. I'll clean that up, before you (Efbrazil) take over. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Observed global warming" chart is almost entirely redundant with "Since 1880" chart

The two charts are essentially presenting identical data in entirely different formats. We already have too many graphs in this section, and having one of them presenting the exact same information as another one but with different labeling and fonts is not good. I think it could be best to combine the charts and turn the 2 graphics each with 2 charts into a single 3-stack chart. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

Good idea, methinks, though combining the left (temperature history) chart with the right (causation/attribution) chart definitely blends substantive concepts, which may be controversial here. I'm totally OK with it, though, especially if it solves a smartphone readability issue. If we combine those two charts into a single 3-panel image, then I think the present File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg graph could be eliminated^:'( altogether, and your proposed 3-panel image may completely replace it at the top of the article. I this case, we would have only three panels, not four, to deal with in this process. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I mention the File:800,000-, 2,000-, 139-year global average temperature.png graphs at right would provide even more time perspective, though that chart was disfavored by others on this page in October 2019. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally: I think any temperature chart should emphasize with broader lines the smoothed/moving average (as in the left chart), not the individual years' temperatures (as the dots in File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg): emphasize trend over annual variations. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the 3 stack chart, but it does take a lot of space for just making the point that recent warming is atypical. The trouble with SVG elimination is that it's already translated into about 20 languages and is a good "summary" graph. SVG is always better than PNG when you can pull it off, because it zooms reliably and takes up less download bandwidth. I can change the SVG as you say though- to emphasize the trend and not individual years. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I upgraded the global temperature anomaly graph to emphasize the trend line like you suggested, among other tweaks. The graph is used in a lot of places and is being responsibly edited by a lot of people so I didn't go too far with changes. Plus the only way to edit the file is to edit the xml directly. Efbrazil (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Efbrazil: Thanks for your time and expertise in updating this widely-used chart! I think it's a definite improvement. In the next version, maybe consider:

(1) making the spikey annual trace lighter or non-existent (see File:20191021 Temperature from 20,000 to 10,000 years ago - recovery from ice age.png as an example of separate dots) so that the smoothed trace is much more dominant than the spikey annual data,

(2) remove or make lighter, the grid of horizontal and vertical lines (lay readers don't need precise grid lines),

(3) change "Temperature vs baseline" to "Temperature change" (less technical, for lay readers), and

(4) consider eliminating the "Annual mean" and "Five year average" legends altogether as being unnecessary to those who understand smoothing, and confusing to those who don't. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with (2) and (3), and have no strong opinion on (4). I disagree in (1) that points are an improvement over a line. If something is a timeseries, line is really the scientific standard and I would feel quite uncomfortable not following that. I agree that the smooth should be dominant, but a light grey or blue line should work. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these changes mean tossing the work of others, and I wouldn't make any of them. I strongly disagree with 3, and dislike 1 and 2 and 4 although my disagreement isn't as strong. (1) I already faded the absolute line in response to Craig's ask, I think that's good enough, although it could be faded more. There's nothing magical about a 5 year moving average, some us 10 years. Showing the real data is important I think, so I wouldn't remove the line. (2) Is the work of others and is very helpful for seeing where temperature has precisely been year to year- this is not fuzzy modeling type data, it is real data. (3) Is really just incorrect. Measuring temperature change means measuring how much temperature changes each year. So if it goes up .1 degree one year to the next the graph should show .1 degree. Maybe "Temperature vs 1951 to 1980 Average (c)" would be better, although that goes against Craig's intent. (4) Is helpful I think and has already been localized into a couple dozen languages. In general, I think these are fixes in search of a problem that doesn't exist. Efbrazil (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: My point "(1)" meant only that the line could be lightened more or eliminated, not the actual data points (which I agree should remain!). Also, "Temp vs baseline" is one type of the non-techy word, "change". I can't comment re the history of politics at Commons, so I'll acquiesce in its present less-than-ideally-friendly-for-non-scientists state after having left my suggestions on the Commons' image page's Talk page. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasted effort and mid-course corrections, I want to emphasize:

A. Our audience is predominantly non-sci/techy. This critical fact suggests any new charts embody the following:

A1. Make only the most important traces dominant: use solid lines, strong colors. (Any less important traces: partially transparent or light gray, thinner lines, etc.)

A2. Minimize dominance of grids: discerning exact numerical values isn't appropriate for expressing concepts and trends to the public (fewer grid lines,^{less 'granulatiry'} less solid, more transparent) (example)

A3. Eliminate sci/techy words (drivers, forcings, anomaly, baseline, mean) that the public won't immediately understand. Substitute accurate common terms (causes, forces, change, average).

A4. Make legends—if they're needed—friendlier (not in a separate box); instead put color-coded label next to relevant traces (example) This is akin to "show, don't tell".

B. Re Attribution/Causation chart: Parallel to discussion in "Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph?" (three sections below)

B1. A first issue is whether to combine the three natural causes (forcings) in the attribution/causation chart into a single "natural causes" trace. Efbrazil was concerned that showing three specific natural causes is "cheating" while I think the (small, non-correlated) natural causes in practice cancel each other out so that showing plural natural causes is not cheating. Also, identifying separate natural causes exudes a data-driven analysis—rather than a vague conclusion re generic natural forces; it's better to show (data) rather than tell (general conclusions).

B2. Conversely, a second issue is whether to break down the "human forces" into smaller component traces (presumably greenhouse gases, deforestation, agriculture?). This could be done, but GHGs are so dominant a cause that I think it isn't worth the added complexity for minimal additional edification.

B3. Efbrazil, you were worried about "explaining" the flat portion of the "human forces" model through the ~1970s and a short valley in the early 1990s: These are present in all the charts I've seen, and WP editors don't need to (in fact, should not) "explain" reliable sources. Do you still think it's a problem?

B4. In short: I favor breaking down natural causes (since they're all comparably weak), but leaving human causes broad (because one human cause does dominate all others).

P.S. @Femkemilene: I realize you've already commented on A1-A4, but I think your subject matter expertise would be particularly valuable re B1-B3. 21:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC) and RCraig09 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Agreed- key point should be instantly clear

A2 There's two sides to this. The grids can help with reading the graphs and make it clear they are real data, not some spark line data. My general approach is to fade the lines to nearly transparent so they're there but not obtrusive. If you really hate grids I guess we can kill them- I didn't put them into the temperature graph, that was somebody else a while ago, I actually faded them a ton already.

A3 Only if it can be done using words that are scientifically correct. As mentioned above a good example of going to far is replacing "vs baseline" with "change" on the temperature graph- "change" means the rate of change on every scientific graph I've seen, so using it in place of "vs baseline" is jarring and looks wrong. For clarity, we could switch to using real world temperature instead of a baseline comparison.

A4 The key issue here is that it's terrible for localization- strings need to be easily changed and be made longer or shorter.

B1 Clarity yes, biased propaganda no- I mean, all natural causes pale in comparison to aerosols, yet we aren't breaking out aerosols from greenhouse gases.

B2 I think we can resolve this by having a vertical bar graph beneath the "human" vs "natural" causes, like this but vertical and having the y axis be degrees celcius of warming. It's on my todo list next week.

B3 Judging from this graphic, it appears that aerosols counterbalanced GGE during that time. It would be good to add that to the article at some point. Efbrazil (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A1. ✔

A2. ✔ Grids: Widely spaced, lighter gridlines are fine with me; you didn't need to delete altogether. Goal: not to distract.

A3. Wording: I can't remember ever seeing "change" meaning "rate of change". What's your experience, Femke?

A4. Legends: re localization: I'm just getting familiar with Inkscape, and don't quite see why separate labels would be less changeable, but it's not a huge issue. It's just that list-style legends demand back-and-forth eye movement, which makes non-sci/tech readers work and could make color-blind people struggle.

B1. Combining natural causes: I'm not understanding the reference to propaganda. I've now labeled my earlier conclusion paragraph "B4." (above) and hope that clarifies. Not breaking out aerosols has only to do with human causes, not to compare aerosols alone to natural causes.

B2. Bar graph: That sounds like a new topic. FYI: File:Radiative forcing 1750-2011.svg is already in the article under "Physical drivers". (I just didn't want to rely on a bar graph instead of a line graph, since that would be closer to telling than to showing.)

B3. Aerosols: I notice that File:Radiative forcing 1750-2011.svg (already in the article) portrays aerosols.

B4. (Newly labeled above.)

—RCraig09 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A1. ✔

A2. ✔ (don't delete altogether)

A3. While I don't think I've seen it used as rate of change, I think we should go for vs baseline, as a confusion rate as low as 2% in our readers would be bad.

A4. I agree that legends are better placed next to line. For translations it would be more difficult with some software (f.i. python), but that's alright I think considering gain.

B1/B3/B4. I think it's fair to break out aerosols from GHG, and break out natural causes. Aerosols are massively uncertain and our biggest obstacle therefore to predict future warming. It's only fair to put it in.

B2. Would that not be duplicative with the causes timeseries graph? I prefer keeping the graph that's in there, to reflect different ways of looking at it.

C1. I'm not sure whether the arrows are still on the table for this/other graph. Wouldn't it be better to have a gif instead? I find the arrows quite distracting even if we fix the resolution. In a gif we can have the normal graph as first frame, a red square around zoomed in area in second, and then the new graph in third? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B1/B3/B4: It seems that Ef's new simplified causation/attribution chart is a good replacement for my "old" dual-panel causation/attribution chart, and Femke's general idea for a GIF would be a good replacement for my "old" dual time chart with big arrow. Femke, I don't quite understand the details of your GIF suggestion, but I'm sure it would work (save space, draw attention, simplify the concept of how unusual the present warming is). —RCraig09 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gray background is unusable in slides, not consistent across graphs

I would prefer a white background on all visuals, it makes it easiest to reuse and edit the content. At the very least, the two graphs shouldn't have different gray backgrounds. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

Yes, after our cause-effect discussions in January, I appreciate uses outside Wikipedia itself (slideshows). My early perception was that our readers, being predominantly non-scientists, might find graphs like File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg dry and not eye-catching. I have learned to largely surrender colored backgrounds (first career: engineer), but I still think a light gray border helps to aesthetically "frame" the content we are trying to emphasize to public readers. I certainly won't argue, though, since this is a scientific subject in a high-visibility article. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll try to figure out another solution to the framing issue. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US units instead of international

We should either have Celsius, or both on the graph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Sadly, the elements in the source for the right image were published in the National Climate Assessment by the U.S. Government—a notoriously Fahrenheit organization! Especially if images are combined, I favor Celsius consistency and harmonization. ☺ —RCraig09 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll standardize on Celcius. Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius certainly should be included. But because because many Americans – who are the most significant block of CC deniers – are not familiar with Celsius I think there needs to be some accommodation. Could we have the equivalent Farhenheit temperatures on the right side? Or at least perhaps a mention that 2°C = 3.6°F? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020

I agree it would be helpful, but it's not easy. I can't add Farenheight to the existing graphics without substantially cluttering things, and if I do it for one I'd want to do it for all. Is it worth the added clutter and breaking localization of the graphs? Maybe we could add links in the captions of the existing Celcius graphics to Farenheight versions of the same graphics, but that would be a significant amount of work to get going and to maintain going forward, and I'm not sure how much they'd get used since you'd have to click into them. I'll keep thinking about it. Efbrazil (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it was easy, it would already have been done, right? :-)

Or more likely the formatting is set deeper in the process, so it has more dependencies. Still, I think there is some scope for adding Fahrenheit. E.g., in the "Observed GW" chart above, the first and third panels have some room for a scale in reduced type. (And in any event I would suggest smaller type than for the Celsius scale, as the F. scale is derived, not in the original.) If not, then there is plenty of whitespace for an explanatory "[some typical range in C] = [the equiv. F]".

As far as localization goes, perhaps en-us could call a version of a graphic with a Fahrenheit overlay. But you are right that we shouldn't have links coming from within a graphic, that would be too much to maintain. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph?

I love the idea, but I'm concerned about the reliability of this graph. It shows human-caused impacts as flat from 1930 to 1970 and in decline in the early 1990s. Is the graph saying that between 1930 and 1970 humans contributed nothing to climate change, and we momentarily cooled the planet in the early 1990s?

The 2017 article that's the basis for it is drawn from a 2013 paper that I can't get into to evaluate. It looks to me like human contributions might just be a "leftover" component in their graph, and that they were studying natural variability.

The graph just raises too many questions for me. I'd like to cut it unless someone has a better basis for defending it, like a recent source from NASA or the IPCC. --Efbrazil (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existing 2017 attribution graph ("Forces affecting...") does suggest what you describe, but there's a danger if we as Wikipedia editors judge reliability based on our own personal perceptions. This graph's 1990s precursor, Robert Rohde's File:Climate Change Attribution.png, suggests a somewhat similar "modeled" pattern, so maybe that's what the ~~data~~ data+model(s) should show even if details seem counter-intuitive to us. 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC) See also this NASA "Earth Observatory" graph. —06:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) The "human causes" include the climate-chilling effect of our aerosols through the 1980s (it's not all CO2/CH4); plus, it was the attribution chart chosen by NCA4. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A PDF of the 2013 paper can be found at https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.pdf, and its title, "An empirical model of global climate–Part 1: A critical evaluation of volcanic cooling", does suggest its focus was not on differentiating human influence... but I'm not sure its focus matters as far as reliability goes. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that attribution should figure prominently in this article, and that images communicate much more effectively than text, especially to our predominantly non-technical readers. I think that if there's a better attribution graph, it could be compared to the current one and a substitution made if there are solid reasons. I can only say that I searched a long time before finding NCA4's 2017 Fig. 3.3, and I still had to adapt it to cleanly compare human to natural causation in a single graph. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another brief search this evening for *.gov attribution graphs led me to Fig. 3.1 of the the same report (!), though that Fig. 3.1 undesirably compares natural-only versus observed, not the (desirable) natural versus human. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all well said. Can you research the basis for the flatline from 1930 to 1970 and the dip in the early 90's? If we present this data, I would like to explain those anomalies. I'd actually like to position it directly under "Global Average Temperature" once the formatting is aligned. That accomplishes most of what your 2 stack chart does, while elevating visibility. Efbrazil (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some searching, but I'm not sure how easy it will be to extract a definitive explanation of a climate forcing model for any particular time period (other than noting, as I did above, the cooling effect of aerosols until their ban in the 1980s/1990s). In a chart, especially an intro image in a high-level article, I don't think it's necessary or even appropriate to 'explain' what one perceives as a limited-time-period anomaly, especially if (as noted above) other charts basically agree. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was fussing with it today for quite a while, but I came back around to really not liking the chart in the first place. Why treat solar, volcanic, and "other natural" separately while leaving human factors combined? There's also the problems I raised before with the human factors data fluctuation not being explainable. Chart 3.1 from the same source is maybe better since it groups natural factors, but it still has unexplained human factors phenomena and has the problem of using multiple real world data sets for no good reason.

The key thing we are trying to get at is the factors causing climate change, not charting their influence year by year. Make sense? Given that, I'm thinking the best thing to do is to adapt chart 3.2 from the same source, which is just a bar chart attributing recent temperature change to different causes. It's a confusing mess in it's current state, but I'm going to try to rebuild it for clarity. I'll first try to square it with the chart we already have in the article, which is "Physical drivers climate change" (reads like a typo). Both of them are as clear as mud right now, but I think they could be fixed to make the point we want to make. I'll tackle all that tomorrow. Efbrazil (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- What's good about the current chart is that it shows how the "multiple real world data sets" are all down-in-the-noise (relatively negligible) compared to the Human-caused trace. That is the "good reason" you refer to, for showing multiple non-human drivers. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the key thing is showing (NCA4 Fig. 3.3 timewise graph) versus mere telling (Fig. 3.2 bar chart). In images we're trying to show what causes GW, and the current timewise graph based on Fig. 3.3 dramatically shows correspondence of drivers to the temperature-vs-time graph directly above them—adding credibility. In contrast, a bar chart is not much better than text, and merely tells a conclusion based on changes over a single reference time period, without showing attribution is based on data and thus leaving readers to question if the conclusion is credible. Graphs communicate far more than bar charts. Also, critically, a bar chart will change as the time period changes, rendering the bar chart wrong and not merely slightly outdated. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe there are better timewise graphs out there (I sent you (Efbrazil) a private Wiki-email... I may save you a lot of time 'fussing'!), but in any I strongly think a bar chart is a step in the wrong direction. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Craig, I understand what you mean about "show" vs "tell". The graph chart definitely has more intuitive impact than a bar chart, no argument there. That doesn't mean it doesn't have drawbacks, which is why I keep looking for a third way. I haven't found it yet though, and if I don't figure one out today I'll just be upgrading your temperature chart.

The concerns I have about natural variability being broken out while human causes are not: First, I think it comes across as a "cheat" to have natural causes broken down so they seem smaller, while human causes are aggregated. Second, it would help a lot with making the point clearly if natural were grouped, since that's the key point being made (natural vs human). Finally, if something was going to be broken out, I'd like see it be greenhouse gas emissions, since that's really the driver behind warming. Aerosols and other human impacts are more in the "noise" category and would explain the flatlines and declines in temperature over recent history. Efbrazil (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I've just finished the single-panel version at right. It saves space and reduces redundancy problems, and I've applied others' comments here, re font size & background color. Details can be changed (e.g., adding Celsius, etc.). This condensed image may change our thoughts on overall arrangement of prominent images. Also, it makes any perceived anomalies (probably aerosol-related) seem less significant and less in need of ~explanation on our part.
- I empathize with the desire to have some datasets combined and others distinguished, but, hey, the NCA4 chose this Fig. 3.3 arrangement (not to forget its Fig. 3.1). I agree it's been difficult to find a single source that neatly and concisely combines the exact dataset arrangements we want so that we as WP editors don't have to violate WP:SYNTHESIS.
- Your comment re making natural causes "seem smaller" is very perceptive, but I think the traces actually show that the various natural forces are mutually random (uncorrelated) and thus tend to cancel each other out. The 13 Feb 2020 chart specifically disproves deniers' claims that solar, or volcanic, or El Nino, etc. are "causing" GW. Also, bunching natural forcing agents together makes the chart seem less data-driven, and appear less credible. Breaking out GHGs, aerosols, agriculture, deforestation, etc. would definitely be instructive, but might complicate the chart (which seems near its limit now). It seems like the cooling effect of aerosols could be appropriately mentioned in a textual caption, to avoid complicating the image itself. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of aggregation and breakouts, Scroll down to figure 2.1 here, it's interactive. It lets you aggregate or break out human / natural causes. The report is from 2018 but unfortunately the influence data seems to cut off in 2010-ish.

I like the combined chart, but it's stupid for both of us to be editing the same images at the same time. I had basically already made the image you have on the right. Can you send me the assets or let me know if you want to manage changes? Efbrazil (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid is as stupid does! As it turns out, my Photoshop psd file from Oct 2019 would have been frustratingly klugey for you to work with. I'll try to break out and send more 'component' graphs by this weekend (maybe even Friday if my Valentine lets me!) I don't plan on making any more new charts without mentioning here first. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I also have a very busy day tomorrow and won't be online much. I did research today rather than twiddling with images and will wait to mess with stuff until you hand it off to me so we don't duplicate effort. If you use this in interactive mode it's fun because you can choose whether to break out human or natural components, and it's already in svg format no less. It is clear that if you separate out human drivers into individual components that GGE are the overwhelming component of them, with stuff like aerosols acting as modest dampers, and natural components just noise. The view does turn into a mess of spaghetti if you choose to show everything and for some reason some of the influences model data is older, even though the report is from 2018. The solution the authors used for their static image was to render the same graph 3 different ways. For some reason the data does differ a bit from what you are showing.

It is weird that the data from that interactive differs somewhat from your data. For instance, the human influence is a very jagged line in the interactive, and in yours it is weirdly smooth. Anyhow, my current thinking is we have a stack of 2 graphs like you suggest. The top will be the last 2000 years graph showing the spike at the end. The second would be similar to what you have on the right here, since it is the only one that has recent data and is a fair compromise. I'll probably go on a detour and try to turn it into a 3 stack chart, but then just end up where you already are. I wish we could do better, but CMIP6 should be out this fall and then it's all gonna get replaced anyhow. Efbrazil (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent interactive, except for its not-so-updated data. I think its curves differ from mine (jagged versus smooth) because they may result from different climate models or even averages of models; they're not raw measurements of the same "data". I'm not sure what you mean at this point by a 3 stack chart (not sure what the third panel would be), but... stay in touch here! I'll get to work extracting parts of File:2,000- and 139-year global average temperature.png, at least, noting with sadness the bottom chart only had data through 2018. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think you are right about older ios versions becoming increasingly niche. I don’t have much Android experience, but I looked at a few articles, and it looks like Android tablets are moving towards desktop web browsing experiences as well. Dtetta (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planned change to graph sequence (cuts, adds, rearranging)

Good news is PPT supports native saving to SVG now, so I'll look to have all text in SVG format. That also lets me make the effort to combine all temperature graphs that go from 1880 to today.

Changes I'm currently thinking of structurally, beginning at the top:

World map of temperature change --> Keep, but convert to SVG so text zooms correctly
Global average temperature --> The trick with this one is it's used all over the place, including being localized dozens of times. It's also good to have in an intro, to get the point across. I will keep it but update the graphic and include the latest data.
Causes and effects chart --> No changes, although it should be convert to svg as well for localization.
2000 years to 140 years --> Rebuilt as per all comments above. I might look at switching the 140 year graph to include land / sea info, so we aren't being redundant with the top graph. I could also look to put in markers for the max and min temperatures over the last million years, to capture a bit of Craig's third graph showing the last 800,000 years.
Observed temp and forcing --> see Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph?
Land / sea temp --> Cut as a separate graph, maybe incorporated into 2000 years zoom view if it doesn't look too weird
Video of temperature changes --> Keep as is, I don't see much value in it but it's pretty to look at

Efbrazil (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Good general thrust to a complex problem, though I'm concerned about a few things. (#5) Per my comments in the Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph section, above, I do think a graph quantifying Attribution should figure prominently, regardless. (#7) Also land/sea might be confusing and inappropriate in a highest-level position; maybe it should stay in that Regional Trends section. (#4) The 14-degree range over 800,000 years would be far beyond the ~1.5-degree range of any 2,000 year graph (if I interpret your suggestion correctly). I think your original idea of combining two 2-panel graphs into a single 3-panel graph is most likely to succeed; I appreciate that a 4-panel graph including 800,000 yrs might be too much. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Idea: In the Attribution graph: superimpose the red "Observed GW" temperature trace atop the blue "Human-caused" trace to emphasize the high correlation. This combination would allow one full chart to be eliminated from the mix. Aside: making the "Observed GW" trace be partially transparent would allow the models' traces to be emphasized as they should. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand wanting to show attribution early on. If we want a graph, I think the best might be a Celsius version of the top graph in this article, because it's from a US government agency and shows uncertainty well, although it's low quality and an older data set so I'm not excited about it. It could be better to show a clear diagram of how CO2 / Methane create climate change, or perhaps a graph showing atmospheric CO2 / Methane / Temperature over time. There's a lot of those out there, but imho none of them are very clear at a glance. Efbrazil (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- The EPA graph is in some ways a good find though for a non-scientist audience, uncertainty may be confusing, which we should avoid especially in prominent introductory images in top-level articles. And I think a separate human-caused trace is substantively more demonstrative than the EPA's combined "natural and human factors" trace. The age of the EPA data is another reason to keep searching, methinks. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Your suggestion for a CO2+CH4-->G.W. graph is right on track, but is one step short of affirmatively asserting that it is humans who cause CO2/CH4 in the first place. Also, it omits the cooling effect of aerosols—another human influence—before the ~1990s. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All true, I don't have a solution yet. Today I updated the first image to be SVG and include 2019 data (released on 1/15/2020) and to be super-high resolution. I checked and it looks good zoomed in or on smartphone. As an SVG the text can be selected and localized and zooms correctly. I expect programs like Google translate can also do stuff with it. Also, the save as svg function in Powerpoint works but is buggy- you need to dive into the XML after exporting and make some clean up edits, then verify everything with SVG Checker. If you export as PDF and then convert to SVG all the fonts are converted to shapes, which is no good for localization / accessibility / etc. Mostly mentioning all that in case you decide to SVG-ize the causes and effects chart. I'll tackle updating the temperature graph tomorrow, then continue working my way down.Efbrazil (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Efbrazil: Regrets, I never graduated to SVG (somewhat intimidating to even set up the environment), much less XML editing. (html and C++ were as far as I got!) I plan to send you (Efbrazil) the basic elements I used to generate the composite graphs we've been discussing in this section—without textual labels since (as I understand it) you must use SVG to do labels properly. Sending you the basic elements should make it easier for you to generate more usable final products. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following observations & suggestions, to possibly influence any graphical work you are doing:

A. The (static) heat map (presently at top) is eye-catching, but substantively seems suited to distinguish global differences in the "Regional trends" section, and the video already does that, arguably even more effectively than a static heat map. Is eliminating the static heat map an acceptable option? Or replacing it with the video?
B. To emphasize how recent warming is ~unprecedented in recorded history: a composite of a 2,000-year graph and your File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg, along the lines of a cleaned-up successor to my File:2,000- and 139-year global average temperature.png. Such compositing eliminates redundancy of ~140-year graphs.
C. To emphasize causation (attribution): use the single-panel attribution chart File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.png. It includes a ~140-year chart, but doesn't take up additional space.
D. To emphasize wide-ranging effects: keep the File:20200118 Global warming and climate change - vertical block diagram - causes effects feedback.png block diagram we've recently labored over.

Of course, individual images can be improved, SVG-ized, etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. The existing graphic captures arctic heating and land heating very well and is in good shape and is being widely used on the Internets. It's more important than the graphs to visually capture planetary impact- remember "show, don't tell". The video is cute but really is overwhelming with the amount of info and doesn't zoom or render well in a range of outputs. The current graphic is current and high quality, I would definitely leave it as is, I'm disappointed you aren't a fan.
B. Yeah, that makes sense once we have something better to replace it with that includes attribution, like you say in C.
C. I'm reworking that chart but it's a laborious process. I agree it's a good overview chart and could replace the other chart when done to reduce redundancy and elevate causes.
D. Yep- it stays as is. It would be nice if it was SVG and provided more clarity at a glance. --Efbrazil (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service! I'm learning Inkscape now and can generate SVGs, so let me know if you want to coordinate changes that we agree on. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the 2000 year graph only go up to 0.6 degrees celcius?

@Femke: It looks like the 2000 year chart you made is normalized against a baseline of 1951-1980, so the squiggle at near zero degrees is the temperature flatline from 1950 to 1980. If so, the top of the measurement line should go up to nearly 1 degree celcius, but it maxes out at 0.6 degrees celcius. Is it out of date, or am I missing something? Efbrazil (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is half a year out of date. As the proxies for the last 2000 years are not always yearly, the original paper used a moving average. For consistency, the current period is also produced with a moving average. Don't remember exactly how long it was, probably around 30 years. So the last point on the graph corresponds to the 1990-2019 average or smth, less than 1 degree warmer. I can easily change the baseline to be a bit earlier I think.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the 30 year moving average could be collapsed to 5 years for the observational data set? It would help with clarity for a non-technical audience if the peak was near +1.0 instead of +0.6. I think a more narrow moving average is intellectually honest- the older data is less precise, newer data is more precise, so naturally the recent "measured" values would be less blurred out. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked second graphic, chart of temperature since 1880

I'd like to replace the second graphic in the article with what you see on the right. Tried to incorporate feedback from above as much as I could. I even labeled the Y-Axis "change", but clarified the baseline (pre-industrial). Content adapted from the existing second graphic. Efbrazil (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Your new graphic definitely conserves space and is preferable (for me) over a bare-bones temperature graphic, since your new graphic places causality/attribution prominently, and a good introduction to the Effects block diagram immediately following. Breaking down causality as discussed above (natural and/or human-caused) can be done in a separate graphic and placed further down—very preferably compared to a Temperature trace as in File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.png.

- On the substantive side: I've just adjusted the Temp trace downward in the apparently-soon-to-be-superseded File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.png to match a 1901-1960 baseline in the NCA4 Fig. 3.3 source. The difference in reference periods explains why your Temp trace is "higher".

- On the presentation side: The graphic itself is layman-friendly, but the proposed caption can be simplified, for example: "Scientists have investigated many possible causes of global warming (black line), and have found that accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, especially those resulting from humans burning fossil fuels, is the predominant cause (red line) rather than natural forces (green line)." I suggest that all sourcing and technical jargon can be placed inside the footnote itself so as not to make the public's eyes glaze over as they read. (Aside: placing the sourcing & jargon in a local footnote makes it more accessible than at Wikimedia Commons—though I think you should add sourcing there, in case the image becomes unused here down the road).

- Thanks for all your work! —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Craig! The graphic is now live. Your point on the description is a good one, I mostly adopted your text. I did leave references inline though, for a couple reasons- people that doubt what is being said can get directly to the source, and it helps to lock down the content against lazy edits, since lazy people don't want to mess with references. Efbrazil (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not paying as much attention as I should with the review (and life) ongoing. A few comments about the graph and caption.

We're not allowed to have things like "scientists say" in prose per WP:WEASEL
You probably know that external links are a no-go in the body of an article, so this point is probs moot. But if you didn't know, could you conform to the standards of this article?
I think 'And forces' should be deleted from the title. What you're showing is the temperature, and the temperature components, both with units degrees. Forcing is something else: in climate it usually means the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere measured in W/m2.
The squares at the individual years for the black line are distracting. Could you delete it?
To me, the font seems a bit off, or just a bit too busy. Maybe the frequency of tick labels can go down? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good feedback, will tackle all that now. Efbrazil (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) done (2) done (3) Forces cut from title, forces changed to "drivers" in the key. Drivers is consistent with the source material as well. (4) done (5) Fixing the font is hard. I don't want to convert the font to images like you did Temperature_reconstruction_last_two_millennia because it blocks localization. It might look better if I recalculate all the points and sizes in the image so that the native scale approximates the thumbnail, but that's a ton of work. You know of a better fix? Maybe I'll fuss with all that later. I'd rather not change tick labels because they make sense (.1 degree, once per decade), but if craig has issues I can tweak them.Efbrazil (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a straightforward demonstration of a critical concept. "Change from pre-industrial era" is a brilliant solution to the simple-versus-scientifically-correct issue. No changes are "needed" though I mention the following in case others deem them worth (re)considering: • legends close to respective traces • less granularity on vertical axis • a few light horizontal grid lines would be OK as I didn't argue for their deletion • light gray "frame" to aesthetically emphasize graphical area of interest. Happily, my Chrome for Mac does not render any areas black as it (perplexingly) does enlarging some other SVGs. In short, this chart is "ready for primetime!" —RCraig09 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and much thanks for your help on this! To get a white background I just put a solid white rectangle in the background before exporting- SVG with transparency is shown on black in Windows Chrome too. The horizontal / vertical grid line issue I really don't have a preference on, so I'm just going to leave it unless someone else chimes in advocating for a grid line comeback. The legend is as good as I could make it given the shape of the graph. Efbrazil (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(A very belated response, trying to do too many things off and on wiki)

5a. So about those fonts, I'm not entirely sure what the options are. Is there only one font you can choose from if you have adjustable fonts?

5b. In terms of tick labels: I think doing one every 25 years instead of 20 would be immensely helpful. Now the distance between 1880 and 1900 is about as big as a space, which doesn't work for me. Alternatively, you can make the fonts for everything but the title a bit smaller. The temperature tick labels could be similarly spaced: 0.25, but that would require more significant digits.

6. To get rid of more distracting details, you could consider removing the upper and right spine, making all the spines (dark) gray.

7. To gauge the natural factors, a light gray line at zero temperature may be helpful.

8. The line thickness for the actual information could be a bit higher. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5a. It's tough, wikipedia has extremely limited font support for svg files. I'm trying to follow advice from a wikipedia SVG help request I made.

5b. I shrunk the font size on the axis labels so the gaps are better and so it matches the other graphics as I've been working my way through. I think it's better now. I don't want to change scale- what's there now works with tick marks being on decades, matches the data set (which starts at 1880), and also matches up with the temperature scaling.

6. The border helps with getting your bearings since there's no grid lines anymore. Color could be tweaked to match other graphs- I need to bring them all into better alignment still. It's hard because some are things I rebuilt from the ground up while others are tweaks to existing SVG files, like this one, and they have stuff like different native sizing on the svg viewbox.

7. It's already really busy around the 0 temperature mark, hopefully the border helps with bearings?

8. I'm not sure I see this problem- the trace lines seem very visible to me and the thicknesses are comparable to what you have in your graphic on "CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years" Efbrazil (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5/6 Okay :).

7. Not realy. The right border doesn't have ticks on it, so I don't feel it helps at all. I think it's important to know what natural drivers do in the last 20 years. Have they been positive or negative? That's difficult to see now. A small grey line in the background wouldn't make it much busier.

8. I'm not sure I've put my finger on the problem yet. If I compare this graph with the other graph about attribution, I think those lines are clearer. There are three differences: thickness (tiny bit thinner these), transparancy: they seem to have a 80% transparancy and colour: the previous graph uses less primary colours. Maybe all three need changing for a more professional vibe? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of minor tweaks done to chart:

Added tick marks to right hand side of graph, changed line weights to match other graphs
Fixed a bug where the svg converter was ignoring styles on fonts, so font colors in the key now match the lines on the graph
Trace lines a tiny bit bolder now
All data ranges re-verified, found that natural influence was offset a bit high, graph range extended down to capture full natural range
Fixed localization of one numberEfbrazil (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the 2000 year view in the "Observed Temperature Rise" section

My initial attempt at higher quality for capturing the 2000 year view is on the right. It's an updated version of the 2000 year view femke came up with that features recent warming the way craig wanted. The Y axis is baselined to 1850-2000 temperature averages since that's what the IPCC uses. It includes the 5 year moving average of data from NASA for 1880 - 2019, replacing the 30 year average femke was using.

Also, the other 3 graphs in that section go away I think- the attribution graph content is now covered in the intro area and the land / sea temperature graph we can live without. I could upgrade the land / sea graph if people like the content- it does capture how land is heating much faster than the ocean, pointing to how the ocean is absorbing a lot of the increased temperature. I guess we keep the video of change. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- For ideas re the 2000-year chart, see this recent Ed Hawkins chart (which is licensed under Creative Commons).

- In your chart, "Proxy" (jargon) can be replaced with "Indirect" to balance the "Direct measurement..." legend. The main caption can be "Global average temperature ~~in the Common Era~~" since the data axis is clear. I'd leave off the "–2019" so the graph doesn't advertise it's outdated next year. I'm thinking the two Confidence legends can be made super-tiny and at the bottom of the image, so casual readers aren't distracted/confused.

- I think it's important to have two charts in the Physical drivers section: (1) one with human causes graphed with Global temp, alongside (2) another image showing natural causes graphed with Global temp. I think it's too messy to combine them into one. (The second one is like this image but without the 'Human forces' trace.)

- In Regional trends, in addition to the video, I think there is value in showing (A) land-versus-sea as in the article now, and (B) Northern versus Southern Hemispheres (data is a this file description page).

- My foray into SVGs has been frustrating (here), so I hesitate to volunteer for anything that would have result in an SVG. Text renders differently on file page, enlarging Commons file page image, in en.wp, enlarging en.wp image, etc. . . . I could shoulder the work for PNGs, no problem.

- Probably too late, but I've cleaned up the pixellated arrows in my old charts. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm really impressed by what you can do with those images! I agree with RCraig09's suggestion to further improve, except I wouldn't even put the confidence intervals in there at all per Ed Hawkins chart (and because super-small things are just not that clear in my opinion). This information can be on the Commons background page. I don't mind having the 2019 in there, as that will motivate us to update the graph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your support! Addressing Craig's list in order:

- Good find! I overlaid the femke / composite graph on top of that one and the data matches, which is nice affirmation. I think I'll stick with current data since it has smoothing and is native SVG and I don't see much value in switching. The added labels and section description just clutter things I think.

- Proxy --> Indirect done, good change! The title of the top graph is already "Global surface temperature" so I want to leave in the time frame for this graph since that's the critical feature that distinguishes this chart. I removed the "2019" like you suggest (as femke unsuggested), mostly because I don't know that it added much value other than forcing the chart out of date in a couple years. I shrunk the font on the confidence indicators, but I don't see harm in leaving them in- it's clearly a subtitle under the main text, so it can be easily ignored when not zoomed.

- Yeah, I'll tackle physical drivers soon and see what I come up with- there's room for improvement there.

- I'll look at what I can do with showing regional info outside of a map view. I think map view is maybe the most informative though- it has everything there at once.

- SVGs have a learning curve for sure. I've struggled a lot with fonts- ideally the thumbnail fonts look the same as the article fonts, and I haven't figured out how to pull that off yet.

I'll look to make these tweaks live now. Probably other changes need to wait until tomorrow. Thanks for your support! Efbrazil (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you look at it as support and not a work assignment! :-D ☺ —RCraig09 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching image used in the top line graphic

Femke changed the top line graphic yesterday, I reverted it back. The inserted graphic was of low quality and not consistent with the work I've been doing to clean up the fonts and graphics throughout the article, including conversion to svg. It had inconsistent fonts, wasn't localizable, didn't zoom well. Femke- if you want to switch the graphic, please make the case here. I can incorporate the new graphic source and update the SVG if there's agreement on the switch. Efbrazil (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the bold move.

The old image suffered from a couple of defects that can probably not be remedied easily: it showed mountains and other distracting features and it was too dark. Furthermore, it contained a 5-year average over 2015-2019, giving the impression that warming is not a global phenomenon, but has quite a few areas that didn't cooled instead. The ongoing peer review also noted that ENSO might not be averaged out completely with such a short average. The website I used: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html, also allows saving the image in pdf (which should be convertible to svg?) and PostScript (no idea how that works). Would you be willing to work from that image? Or tell me more specificly what you want me to do? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding Femke, reverting stuff is not something I like to do. Sure, I'll make the update, I agree the new image source is better- I was using downloads from the video image source. If you have any other graphics asks please let me know in this section. I'm going slow but my plan is to work my way through all of the images.

Regarding time period, I'd like to stay after 1950 since that's what NASA does by default and going earlier misses temperature in areas of the globe, particularly the poles. I'd also like to have a 50 year time differential since that's a crisp number. If you want a 10 year minimum, we could do 1951 to 1978 vs 2010 to 2019, meaning an average of 1964.5 to 2014.5. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though EF's graphic has more color gradations, I agree that mountain ranges are very distracting. More importantly, I appreciate Femke's substantive comments and suggestions, and give substantial weight to her demonstrated judgment and subject matter expertise. If moving the NASA video to the lede is off the table, I suggest the compromise of the two still-picture maps along lines described above by Femke. Afterwards, it seems like adding some SVG-localizable legends to a thus-improved map would be a relatively small additional step. Sorry, I'd offer to do more of the work, but I'm still in the I-have-SVG-font-display-problems stage. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Craig / Femke, change to the lead graphic made to use the new source image. I removed the stupid "+" over the globe (who thought that was a good idea?), shortened the temperature scale to only show what is on the map, and I changed the vertical height to match the prior image scale as that's more typical. I also updated the caption with the new dates. Let me know if you want anything further done. Efbrazil (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You used the January temperatures! Furthermore, I think the units should be displayed in the standard format of °C instead of Celsius:. I'm okay with removing some of the unused colours, but would like the colour bar to be centered. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, fixing up now. Efbrazil (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sorry for the sloppiness originally. Let me know if anything else is off. --Efbrazil (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent result from your working together! I touched up the caption to reduce distraction for the general public. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New temperature chart

File:500,000 Years of CO2 Impact.svg

CO2 concentrations are associated with global temperature changes and sea level changes. Recent CO2 changes are beginning to be reflected in global temperatures, which then lead to sea level changes. Between glacial and interglacial periods CO2 varied by about 100ppm, global temperatures by 6 to 8˚C, and sea levels by about 90 meters (300 feet).

This chart has been floating around in various forms for a while, it does a good job of illustrating the association between CO2, temperature, and sea level. Here's an older version for instance. The changes I made were to get current data, convert to SVG, and clarify recent changes relative to pre-industrial baselines. I also changed the time scale to 500K years instead of 400K or 800K, as I think that's easiest for people to wrap their heads around. All data was rerendered from the ground up, so changes are easy for me to make.

I'm a little conflicted about the graphic, so I'd like reaction here. On the good side, it's useful for highlighting recent climate change relative to glacial time periods to highlight the potentials for the climate system. On the down side, it's arguably too long a time frame for us to be featuring in this article and it takes some explaining, which I tried to do in the description but that maybe it's more confusing than clarifying. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-balanced, clean, and visually attractive graph showing successive correlations: CO2-->Temp-->SLR.

a. My first thought is where to place such a graph, since the first "-->" has to do with causation/attribution and the second "-->" has to do with effects. I think it's too detailed and complex for the lede, which is well-populated with images now.

b. Considering the caption: it seems the temperature variation is actually ~15˚C, and SLR is actually ~150m — unless you mean something different for "between glacial and interglacial periods".

c. The "1870 to today" looks like an alternative title to the entire graph. To clarify things, I would combine that legend with the ""+47% ... legend, and add a little line from that combined legend to the red part of the trace, surrounding that red part of the trace with an oval as in Femke's File:Carbon Dioxide 800kyr-nl.svg. Similarly, an arrow pointing from red legends toward the changed portions of the traces would make it clearer (it took me a long time to figure out that the four red legends correspond).

d. I'm not sure how 500Kyr is easier to grasp than 800Kyr, so I'd prefer the larger number for greater impact, but it's not a big issue.

e. In the caption, I think that "are associated with" and "are beginning to be reflected" don't state the case strongly enough. I think you can be more definitive about causation.

f. Sourcing may be an issue, and you must consider WP:SYNTHESIS. Include the entirety of sourcing in footnotes, not in the caption where it would befuddle non-sci/techy readers. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

g. Some of the sourcing may be accomplished with the Wikimedia Commons file description page, but I also think that putting basic sourcing in the image itself in purposely very tiny lettering—text that casual viewers wouldn't even notice—could remove some of the burden of sourcing in the article's textual caption. Such in-image sourcing has the additional benefit of crediting the sources when others use the image both inside and outside Wikipedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good article on the association- it's not as simple as CO2 causes the temperature changes between glacial periods unfortunately. There's a correlation, but the causal link is weak. At the very least, it looks to me like it's false to say that 100 ppm of carbon ultimately will result in a 10 or 15 degrees celcius temperature change. So I think I'll let that chart die, unless you have a more clear headed idea for it than I did when I made the chart. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the problem with publishing a chart that encourages readers to make inferences that scientists know aren't so clear cut, but at the same time a good caption can fairly explain the level of significance the correlation does have. I don't think strict or unique causality is needed for the three traces to be meaningfully juxtaposed—just careful wording in the caption for its interpretation. Aside: I hate to see hard work go to waste! —RCraig09 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the kind thoughts here, it was a lot of work! At least I learned something along the way. Putting aside causality, the chart does usefully highlight the range of the climate system. It's chock full of interesting data for sure! Still, if the graph was honest it would begin with sun exposure, as that seems to have been the primary driver for glacial periods, with carbon dioxide more of a feedback mechanism that followed temperature changes. So then you're looking at a 4 stack chart with CO2 third, and that has nothing to do with modern climate change. Efbrazil (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the file for deletion. If you see another way to organize it then let me know. I'll tackle the air / sea temperature chart next week. Efbrazil (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to start with a goal or purpose or problem in an article, and then make a graphic to fit it or solve it. If one starts with a graphic, one can have a graphic in search of an article! I'm not sure this graphic should be deleted, even if it isn't used now. (P.S. When I open this SVG file in my Inkscape, the text objects are placed differently, sometimes overlapping even though everything's alright on WP & Wikimedia... it's still a mystery to me.) —RCraig09 (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had great goals and purpose- to show how carbon has spiked unnaturally in current times and to show how temperature and sea level have historically followed carbon concentration and to show the range of temperature and sea level in prehistorical times. All noble goals and all reflected in the data. The problem is in implying that carbon is the driver for glacial cycles- it's correlated, but that seems to be as far as I can honestly go with it. Efbrazil (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three-latitude-band SVG chart

Especially to @Efbrazil and @Femkemilene: do you see an advantage using this chart in 'Regional trends'?
Especially to @Efbrazil: Your explanation at SVG Help is much appreciated, but involved XML editing and was a bit over my head. FYI: Version 1 had terrible text rendering in thumbnails so I converted the text to 'paths' (vectors) for Version 2, and preserved the native text objects in a hidden layer for others to localize. The addition of the path/vector layer almost quadrupled file size (57K --> 214K); however, being a bit old-fashioned I'm of the opinion that computers should work for us, and not vice-versa! Comments welcomed. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The kinky multi-parallel-line graph traces are chosen for people who are color-blind. Microsoft Excel does not have too many options in that department. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The path solution is covered in the bug description I filed. Having hidden text I don't think helps with localization. For localization to work the svg should "automatically" localize when pumped through a translation engine, then be touched up by a human being. Svg with text is best for smartphone and localization, and bad for the desktop thumbnail view. I don't see how to improve desktop view without losing one of the other advantages. Efbrazil (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing the bug report and for this explanation. It looks like any true multi-platform solution/workaround would require a bit of work for the localizer person, regardless. If the original (hidden) text objects are automatically or manually translated, the human would have to delete the old pathtext,^{(I put it in a separate layer)} duplicate the translated text, and convert the duplicated translated text objects into visible paths. It doesn't seem to be an egregious amount of work especially if there is minimal text—numerals are easy to translate ;- . —RCraig09 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the graph, and wouldn't mind if it replaced the video that is currently used. There is no place for an additional graph, and I don't think regional warming patterns are important enough for two graphs. I'd use "T" as abbreviation for tropics, to be consistent. You can cut off the graph at -0.8 degree to amplify diffferences and make the asymmetry between warming and cooling starker. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery has a big disanvantage of showing loads of white space at higher resolutions. Since there is overlapping information between this graph and the video, there is little priority to put both in. I think the strong decline in aesthetics and the summary style (if that's a thing for figures) are good reasons to choose either this figure, or the video. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've eliminated the NASA video since it resembles the blue-red map at the top of the article. I've right-justified the remaining two graphs.

Especially considering this article's ~4.7 million annual views, I strongly urge that our presentation be readily understandable to "butchers, bakers, candlestick makers". Sourcing and techy details can be in footnotes or in tiny print in the images, as well as on the Wikimedia file page, for the small fraction of readers who will scour the article as if its authors were defending a dissertation. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring the chart more in alignment with the other charts. 1. Normalize the temperature to the 1850 to 1900 average as per what the IPCC uses. 2. Remove grid lines, add ticks to right hand axis 3. Use standard text that can be localized instead of vector text. If you want to just send me the data I can generate it all pretty easily- I've got a system now. Efbrazil (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic updated, but I'd like to get the video back, so I'll look to rearrange for that. The video had no text so no localization problems, and for some people seeing the video will be more compelling than just a static graph. Having said that, I don't see the graph as being a bad thing.

Also, stacked graphics are really not a good thing- you can't follow recommended sizing based on thumbnail scaling. That means that stacked graphics will not scale correctly based on screen resolution- they're stuck as a certain pixel resolution. So next I'll unstack the graphs and get the map animation back in to a different location where there is room. Efbrazil (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I appreciate graphs being consistent, at least within a single article. Agree re videos in general (despite what Wikipedia leaves you, after play is complete :-\ ). ~~P.S. I don't know what "stacked graphics" refers to.~~ —RCraig09 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Perspective" video: recent GW in 2000-year context

Video showing recent (1880– ) global warming in a 2000+-year perspective. (Add part of caption from Efbrazil/Femke's two millennia chart).

Video is made as a general response to User:Femkemilene's 22 Feb 2020 suggestion here.

Video includes simplification of User:Efbrazil's chart, File:Common Era Temperature.svg, which was derived from an earlier User:Femkemilene chart, File:Temperature reconstruction last two millennia.svg.

I tried to make the video thumbnail be the same as the 2000=year chart so that the video thumbnail would look ~the same in this article as the current chart, and allow much of the ~same caption to be used. I thought that putting the 2000-year chart as the first frame would accomplish this goal, but it did not—the 1880- chart shows instead! If you know how to control the thumbnail in a video, please let me know!

I set thumbnail to first frame with thumbtime=0.

My intent is to substitute this video for the present still picture ~~after the thumbnail issue is resolved~~. Comments welcome. —19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC) revised with strikeout RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the existing static picture to the video. Videos are generally less usable and visible (e.g. in Internet searches, for reuse in Websites / presentations, for localization, etc), and I also don't see this particular video as being superior to the static graphic. --Efbrazil (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true about automatic localization, though I purposely minimized non-numeric text. I'm not sure why a video would be less usable outside WP: the Wikimedia file page has the standard "Use this file" button at the top, as well as a pic of and link to the still image. My goal was to add to the Wikipedia article(s) rather than promote a file per se.

Substantively, you may remember from early-February comments above, re how File:800,000-, 2,000-, 139-year global average temperature.png emphasized how abnormal the present GW is... eventually Femke suggested^{10:14, 22 Feb} a gif and I think this video expresses the unusual nature of current GW best—show, don't tell. Also, maybe there's a sub-article where the video would also be appropriate (Temperature record of the past 1000 years?). Maybe User:Femkemilene still has an interest in commenting? —RCraig09 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Efbrazil that I prefer the static picture to the video.

-> A video is more distracting than a static picture, with an arrow shouting press me please. When you press it, it pops up in the middle of the screen. A gif doesn't have these problems, as it automatically plays in its correct location.

-> Both a video and a gif are more distracting than something static. This means that the execution much be close to perfection. In this case, that would mean having the frame, the title completely static, while only zooming in. Now, two frames merge into each other. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike Wikipedia's way of ~blanking the video window after the video completes, but I do think videos are valuable and warrant the 'distraction'. I think videos are and should be more engaging, and preferably, cool while instructive. Granted, my first video is not aesthetically perfect, though I purposely wanted the 2000-year graph to aggressively "squeeze" the 140-year graph in order to show modern GW in context and perspective. But it looks like even an aesthetically perfect video won't meet consensus here, so I doubt I'll pursue it further, at least in this venue. I appreciate different points of view, though. Thanks to both for taking the time to express your reasoning. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the drawing board! —RCraig09 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Efbrazil: @Femkemilene: and others:
I've found that Gimp can produce high frame-rate GIFs, making for smooth animation. Though you were against the March 20 video, would you be in favor of a "perfect" GIF (one that adopts your suggestions above to the extent possible)? Or would the motion be too distracting? Let me know either way, as I won't invest the time unless it will be used. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to know about GIMP. I wouldn't object to it, but I think the current situation is quite good, so maybe invest the time elsewhere? There are sooo many climate change articles with outdated and poor graphics. Hope that I'm not reducing your enthousiasm :(. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry about my losing enthusiasm. Specific suggestions welcome. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "Climate change and global warming causes and effects chart"

Separating causes and effects

I spent time trying to rework the chart shown here and I'm concerned that it's biting off more than it should. There's really 2 key topics here- the causes of climate change, and the effects of climate change. I don't see a good reason to combine those 2 things in one chart, as they're really separate issues. So I'm treating them separately down below.

(a) Oy. I completely agree that "the whole system is complicated to represent visually", but thankfully, representing the system is not the diagram's purpose, and would indeed be "biting off too much". More simply, the purpose of this intro diagram is to visually portray GW's causes and effects, including feedbacks.

(b) Your "Causes..." section (below) has more detail than appropriate for an intro chart. And textual tables lack the impact of a block diagram in visually (instantly, intuitively) showing (not telling) the many pathways of wide-ranging effects—without being unmanageably complex. The diagram also visually portrays the feedback principle in a way that laymen can instantly see.

(c) Motivation for the chart was the very fact that, indeed, "nobody on the Internet has created a coherent graphic describing..." these causes and effects, including feedbacks. With valuable contributions from you and others, I think it has achieved that ambitious purpose.

(d) Diagrams embodying your ideas, being detailed and seeking "data", could find a good home in the 'Physical drivers...' or 'Effects' sections. Within the scope of the diagram's purpose, you know by now that I'm open to specific suggestions. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I go back and forth on the chart. I spent a lot of time trying to tweak it. What I came around to thinking is that, without backing data justifying what's in the chart, it will be viewed not as unbiased information, but as alarmist propaganda. I think it could be easily picked apart by someone that is skeptical about the threat of climate change in a way that the charts showing data can't be picked apart. There's individual things like how increased plant growth is a much stronger negative feedback than permafrost methane release. Then there's larger things like how impacts on the environment and humans are mostly just a lot of text- I don't know that the flow chart format helps to illustrate them. That's how I ended up thinking of a reset, but I could be persuaded to just go back to being incremental and editing the chart. I'd be interested to know what @Femkemilene: thinks. Efbrazil (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be picked apart. Granted, the block diagram is qualitative rather than quantitative, but the quantitative GST graph directly above it can also be picked apart as alarmist propaganda since it's so general (why I favored breaking out drivers). Again, within the context of causes and effects of global warming—in the title of the diagram—the details of the entire climate system are so numerous and complex that they couldn't, even shouldn't, be included. Other commenters are invited. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with the GST graph is that it has sources that justify the information presented and is showing data from those sources. You raise a good point though about the GST graph over-abstracting human and natural influences though- I'll improve the source links next. The flowchart does not have backing data- what's there is strictly a qualitative editorial decision. It's true anything can be picked apart, but I think the flowchart can be justifiably picked apart. Efbrazil (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In an encyclopedia for mass consumption, in a lede graphic, in a top-level article—one with ~4.7 million views/yr—quantitative data is not needed or, arguably, called for in the lede; note the lede text itself is devoid of numbers except for "1.5-2 °C" ~~and 42 gigatons~~. Rather, directly-understandable concepts like those in the diagram's blocks are absolutely critical to our primary duty here, science communication. As an engineer I appreciate the techy/sciency/graphy impulse, but many intelligent-but-non-techy people see a line graph and their eyes glaze over, so it's best to have concepts be as immediately accessible to all, with "drilling down" being accomplished through references, article sections, and sub-articles. The four (qualitative) sources ensure the diagram's qualitative content can't be justifiably "picked apart". And the flow of the diagram—which you even call a flowchart—visually portrays causal paths even though the blocks themselves are textual: show, don't tell. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from commenting /(making up my mind) until I have a better idea of what LAYOUT issues we don't comply with. I asked whether GW could be run on the front page, and the coordinators indicated that the current article doesn't comply with the layout criteria of FA. I suspect this is because we have too many figures, but I'll have to check. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitable re GW/CC Diagram

I'm still having trouble understanding the change in opinion over the past five weeks, after an intensive two-week multi-editor collaboration. I don't perceive my arguments, above, have been specifically responded to, so I've made this chart to crystallize any issues. Feel free to add to it; I'm hoping to keep things short & concise.

Objection	Support
...don't see a good reason to combine cause, effect in one graphic	This GW article largely concerns both causes & effects (& feedbacks). Diagram instantly conveys the few causes and wide-ranging effects of GW/CC.
In terms of cause, fossil fuels are the vast majority of the problem, something on the order of 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the cause depending on source, with most of the remaining being land use. I don't think individual feedbacks belong in an overview graphic like this, they just confuse and distract from the primary drivers.	Conceptual chart doesn't pretend to be quantitative. Chart is designed to show RSs' causes & effects of GW/CC—not whole (climate?) system. Also, article has an entire 'CC feedback' section. Re fossil fuels' dominance: an arguable issue of internal chart design.
Some negative feedbacks the chart ignores (like plant growth) are currently stronger than the positive feedbacks the chart features (like methane release), which makes the chart appear biased towards the apocalyptic.	Every block has data support. See the RSs! They "justify the information". It's just presented as linked concepts not plotted as "data". Most readers aren't dataheads, but do care about flooding, crop yields, etc. Diagram is about global warming; cooling influences aren't called for in a summary diagram. Adding negative (cooling) feedbacks would increase size & complexity.
Can be "picked apart" by skeptics, and wikipedia needs to be about presenting information that cannot be picked apart. The other graphics are all strongly sourced, so if anyone complains about them they can click through to the study or source data that is the basis.	No more than any other diagram; see the RSs! Every block has data support.
Large size that causes layout problems	... and with good reason! The graphic has^imo the highest concentration of content per sq. inch. Substance should trump form.
If the picture is predominantly text, then the text should be done as a text-centric format that supports links, be localized, be edited, be accessible, etc. A table might be the best solution, because it is easier for some people to digest than a paragraph and helps organize the information. Tables can even contain triangles for directionality like this: ►▲▼◄	Flow diagram instantly, visually shows causal paths, and relation of causes & effects & feedback. A visual is more impactful than prose or text tables buried walls of words. Also consider: stripped of its decoration, the GH Effect schematic is a flow diagram of text, also. To be as readable, a table would have to be as big as the diagram, and even bigger if adding negative feedbacks, future outcomes etc.
Somewhat redundant with the Table of Contents, which can be clicked to contents and easily edited / localized / zoomed / is accessible / works on all devices	Precisely! Lede images should summarize. Plus, causal flow diagram concisely links concepts better than any ToC could. Text has some internal 'mechanical' advantages, but readers clicking on ToC entries are sent to long, distributed sections of prose.
A zoom of 1.35 upright is max allowed for lead standards, so text in image is not visible on desktop, plus it is awful squinty on smartphone at present, plus the aspect ratio is not suited for reuse in presentation graphics	MOS:IMGSIZE: "Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most"—non-mandatory. If there's a conflict: substance should trump style. Consider what readers are seeking to find, quickly, when they come here.
Currently replaced with GH Effect schematic that is grounded in data and clarifies the core mechanism behind climate change, but this does not have to be the case. We could switch out the GH Effect schematic for a table or another graphic that we all agree on.	GHE schematic shows internal mechanisms that are behind GW—not summary content about GW itself that should be in a GW lede. Again, each block in the diagram is "grounded in data". Note that the lede mentions causes, effects, feedbacks—but not GHE.
Text largely "unreadable" due to thumbnail sizing, and without reading the text the graphic conveys no information.	Is clicking on a graphic to enlarge, too much to expect? The color-shaded regions' labels impress the cause/effect/feedback relationship instantly, inviting clicking if needed in particular screen resolutions.
A key criticism of climate change messaging is that it goes overboard and is apocalyptic, so wikipedia can be a real antidote to that by putting the science first in a way that is indisputable. This graphic appears biased towards the apocalyptic, especially since it does not present multiple future possibilities.	Re apocalyptic: I just plain disagree, & think these scientific sources are not apocalyptic at all. This diagram does "put the science first" (see sources). Behavior (=responses)—a separate issue—has never been in any recent lede image, including the GH Effect schematic.
When presenting future possible outcomes we need to be very clear about how our behavior will influence them and how long they will take to develop.	Sources disclose these effects at the most general level—which does "inform people with hard facts". Re "future possible outcomes": True, there is a 'Responses' in the ToC but it's one step beyond effects... and adds size. Arguably, removing RS content for its social/political purpose or conjectured psychological effects violates WP:Neutrality.
___	___
Summary: Causes are over-complicated and confuse rather than clarify, effects would be better done in a text-centric format	Summary: objections seem mostly formal, stylistic, ~"internal" to WPedians (versus reader-centric). Substantively, the diagram concisely summarizes essential GW content.

——RCraig09 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My major objection is these two contradictory requirements: the figure must be displayed sufficiently big to be readable. At upright=1.5 it was just about readable. At 1.35, which is the max in the lede, the figure becomes unreadable. The placement in the effects section is less ideal, and enlarging it there brings us back to the problem we started with: sandwiching. I think photos are essential to make this article accessible to a non-geeky public. We might want to consider adding the GHE into the lede, but that may be difficult as one of our 'assignments' before FAR is shortening the lede a bit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about high-pixel-count screens? iPhone screens? . . . Agree, some 'pictures' are needed, to humanize the topic.

I appreciate your points. True, MOS:IMGSIZE states that "Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most"—but the language isn't mandatory. In the context of this important article—sometimes criticized for being 'bloated'—and a public that^imo usually doesn't dig through long prose details, I think that either a upright=1.5 "stylistic rule"-stretching, or expecting people with certain screen resolutions to (gasp!) click to enlarge an image, are reasonable. I fear that drive-by reviewers, from FAR or anywhere else, may not appreciate the richness of this article's content. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand the frustration given all the work that was put into the graphic and the extensive edits made to get it in good shape and how valuable a single intro graphic would be. What led to me rethinking things was the process of trying to adapt the graphic to svg. There's two primary issues that came up.

First, the graphic is mostly text so it needs to be readable in thumbnail / on smartphone, and that requires zooming a lot of text at the current resolution. I tried collapsing the graphic to 2 columns, then realized it would be better to just go to a table view since that's native text, which has many advantages for localization, for links, for editability, and so forth. This is especially true for the "effects" section, which I don't think flow chart form works for very well. It could be the overall graphic would work better as a powerpoint slide, but then the whole thing would need to be pivoted to landscape mode and wouldn't work for Wikipedia anymore.

Second, when looking at the graphic with fresh eyes I think it is too heavy on the overwhelming / apocalyptic messaging. A key criticism of climate change messaging is that it causes people to throw up their hands and say oh well, might as well enjoy today since we're all screwed in the end. Climate scientists spend a lot of time trying to say "things are in fact going to get shittier, but the question is how shitty how quickly, and we can do a lot to impact that". Since this is wikipedia we want to firstly inform people with hard facts so they can't dismiss the science, then spell out alternate future possibilities. Efbrazil (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- And thank you for your valuable feedback, both substantive and graphical, throughout the creative process.

- I've responded in the table above, to the conjectured psychological effect on readers of seeing a comprehensive portrayal of GW's effects.

- Re screen resolutions, it seems it's a matter of values: (1) comprehensively and concisely portraying substantive content versus (2) stylistic layout considerations and convenience for some users in not having to click on an image if needed. I wish more editors would weigh in on what they think is most important. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Click at right to show/hide refs
References ^ NASA: The Causes of Climate Change 2019. ^ NCA4: Climate Science Special Report 2017. ^ IPCC SROCC Summary for Policymakers 2019, p. 6. ^ NASA: The Study of Earth as an Integrated System 2016.

Causes (feedbacks and the carbon cycle)

The causes section of the flowchart diagram is meant to capture climate change as a system. I like the idea, but all that's really there is to say FOSSIL FUELS with a sprinkling of land use and a few select positive feedbacks. The feedbacks in particular are unweighted and strike me as alarmist based on how much space they take when presented without data in the diagram.

For instance, why does feedbacks ignore negative feedbacks? Negative feedbacks include increased vegetation uptake of carbon, which has been a strong negative feedback so far, plus increased heat emissions to space as the temperature increases. Even positive feedbacks like permafrost melting to produce methane in the short term has a flip side of yielding more arable land for vegetation in the long term. The IPCC weighted feedbacks to be net positive in the near term, but they explicitly weren't looking at the carbon cycle and they didn't assign a net number to feedback impact that I could find (the article also refuses to assign numbers to feedbacks).

Ideally we could get good numbers to describe climate change by aggregate cause (fossil fuels, feedbacks, land use, other) and use that here in a simplified graphic. It would be like the physical drivers chart, but instead directed at sources instead of gases. I don't see that data clearly laid out, does anyone else?

The best numbers I see are these, but they don't spell out feedbacks and introduce the complication of needing to show the carbon cycle in addition to radiative imbalance:

GGE Sources- 72% Fossil Fuel Combustion https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ (agriculture 11%)
GG causing energy imbalance 76% Carbon Dioxide (Same source, methane 16%)
Carbon Dioxide 46% to air, 23% to ocean, 31% to biosphere, from global carbon project (http://folk.uio.no/roberan/GCB2019.shtml
Energy Absorption 92% to Ocean

The truth is that the whole system is complicated to represent visually. Either your just say "FOSSIL FUELS" in big, bold letters, or you collapse into a muddle because you need to include both the carbon cycle and also radiative imbalance. I think we do a good job in the physical drivers section, but just picking out a few select issues for the flowchart seems problematic. The fact that nobody on the Internet has created a coherent graphic describing climate change as a system illustrates the difficulty.

Effects on the environment and humans

	Effects on environment	Effects on humans
Air heating	More intense heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes	Direct physical harm, economic losses
Land heating	Wildfires, desertification, and ecosystem damage	Farmland loss, spread of tropical diseases and pests
Ocean heating	Coral bleaching, fish stock declines	Fishery and tourism losses
Ice sheet melt	Loss of arctic and marshland ecosystems	Flooding of coastal cities

The list of environmental and human impacts is really just a lot of text that might be better done as a table, so we can use real text. I have created an example here, sized to a width approximating thumbnails.

The down side of the table is that it's really just the paragraph of text in the intro broken down into a table format, so it's arguable as to how much value it adds. Of course the same applies to the flowchart view of effects.

The up side of the table is that it avoids svg rendering issues and can be easily edited, but is arguably more organized and digestible than a paragraph of text. It kind of splits the difference with the flowchart. I also reorganized the content in a way that I think is more accurate and clear than what's in the flowchart.

Elevating another graphic

One graphic I think would be good to elevate is the climate change performance index, shown here. The graphic clearly shows how the performance of various countries stack up against each other in addressing climate change problems. It's good as a snapshot of who is doing what to address climate change, which is an important topic to elevate.

So if I was just going to pull out the big edit hammer right now I think I would replace the flowchart with that graphic and then tack on the effects chart so effects get clear visibility as well. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following what you mean by "flowchart" versus "that graphic" versus "effects chart".

The Performance Index is a meaningful graphic, but—based on the principle that a Wikipedia article on "X" should prominently describe X's causes, characteristics, and effects—I think that since the Performance Index deals with human response (not a true effect) it's not so central to the GW article that it warrants a lede image position. It's excellent where it is now, in 'Political response'.

I plan to add the Performance Index to the CCPI article. I think specific sourcing is needed, at least in the Commons file page if not also here. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. This graphic seems to be an exact copy (converted to SVG) of the image on the CCPI.org website. Is there a copyright/licensing issue? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC) I'll delay adding to the CCPI article until the possible copyright issue is resolved. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of licensing, maps are a grey area- are they data, or are they an image containing copyrighted info? According to the wikimedia article discussing derivative works using maps none of the following are subject to copyright: data, colors, systems, and geographical boundaries. That covers all that this map contains. I could rerender the map using a third party tool, but I don't know that it would make a difference. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The data itself can't be copyright-protected, nor, probably, is there the required "modicum of creativity"^{(U.S. law)} involved in simply painting different countries different colors. The only possible issue is the bare-bones country-outline map itself, which the CCPI.org website designers probably did not create, themselves. So I think it's safe, at least from any claims by CCPI. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Causes and effects path forward?

	Effects on environment	Effects on humans
Air heating	More intense heat waves, droughts, and storms	Direct physical harm and economic losses
Land heating	Wildfires, glacial retreat, desertification, biodiversity loss	Farmland losses, spread of tropical diseases and pests
Ocean heating and acidification	Coral bleaching, ocean current changes	Fishery and shellfish losses, tourism losses
Ice sheet melt	Loss of arctic and marshland ecosystems	Flooding of coastal cities
Cumulative risks	Ecosystems collapse, climate tipping points crossed	Human migration and conflict

I agree that the greenhouse effect schematic is not great for the intro. It's overly technical and hard to digest. On the plus side, it's well grounded, clearly points the finger at greenhouse gases, and clarifies the cause of climate change in a directly visual way.

I'm going to try and recreate the graphic in a way that is easier for a lay person to understand, like this: https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*58aKfoSmb_hj4zFz0Egt6g.jpeg

I'll also try to add fossil fuels and maybe land use to the graphic.

I agree it would be great to capture effects in an intro graphic, but since effects are a messy area that requires tons of words, I think it's best to leave effects as a paragraph in the intro.

For effects, I updated the effects table I created earlier based on Craig's graphic, new version on the right. I added "cumulative risks" as a summary row at the end, to better capture key issues that depend on future emissions. It needs to have work put in to add links to depth articles or bookmarks in this article. I like the table being in the sidebar because it looks good on smartphone- tables that are full width don't.

Could the table be further improved or changed to capture some more advantages of the flowchart? You can add arrows to tables using ►▲▼◄, but I don't have a clear idea in my head how that would help. Thoughts?

For feedbacks, I don't think there's a coherent way to show them in a graphic or in the intro because the area is muddled and we don't have clear numbers saying what feedback contributions are relative to each other.

For the feedbacks area of the article, it would be interesting to create a list of feedbacks that sorted the feedbacks by relative importance, or maybe a table that organized them by historic impact, current impact, and future impact. Right now we just have an unsorted laundry list of feedbacks in paragraph form. Would be interesting to dive in on. Efbrazil (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of relative feedback strength: only an old paper springs to mind: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.earth.061008.134734, Figure 4. It is quite clear that water vapour in models is the largest, and cloud possibly second. Clouds are very uncertain. The cloud feedbacks are larger on average in CMIP6, so possibly they now trump water vapour, but those new high ECS/TCR models are bull (OR: https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2019-86/). I don't think showing them in a graph (be it historical, of model impact) is that useful; the 'units' we describe feedbacks are confusing and mathematical typically.

I'm pretty sure human migration isn't a tipping piont. I've never saw a study pointing to any threshold behaviour at least. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking tipping points not for climate change, but tipping points in terms of impacts, but the ambiguity is not good. I changed the "tipping points" table row header to say "cumulative risks" instead of "tipping points". Efbrazil (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some general observations and comments:

Causal paths in the Cause/Effects graphic have from 1 to 4 elements in series (after arrows leaving "GW & CC")—difficult/impossible to represent in a two-column chart.
Similarly, some EffectsOnHumans can be arrived at through more than one path—also difficult/impossible to represent.
I can't see a practical way to use ►▲▼◄s in a table: causal pathways would occupy space (presumably in "extra" rows/columns devoted to arrows to try to capture causal pathways).
I think graphics+tables in a high-level article, especially in the lede, should summarize concepts and their relationships, rather than try to exhaustively quantify each. It's probably futile to try to quantify multiple disparate concepts in a comprehensive rendering, since there are multiple dimensions for multiple concepts (hyperspace required!). As suggested above, concepts such as feedbacks could be ordered in separate lists/tables.
The blocks I entered into the PNG graphic were those most generally disclosed in the cited references. If a table is pursued, I think the contents of those should generally be included in the table (some seem to be omitted).
Some of the field (left) column entries might be simplified to eliminate ~~heating~~, to leave: Air, Land, Ocean.
"Feedback" deserves a row: there has been a text (sub)section devoted to it, after all. I even prefer "feedback and tipping points".

—RCraig09 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cumulative risks row stands in for the summary items in the flowchart, like human migration and conflict.
These complaints apply even more to the flowchart though. For instance, ecosystem loss of arctic and great barrier reef doesn't connect to the causes of ice sheet melt and coral bleaching, habitat destruction is only taken as a direct outcome of climate change and not a result of all the other types of damage, it's confusing having separate boxes for direct impact on human health and direct physical harm to humans, etc. I think the table actually does a better job of organizing the information, because it clearly scopes effects to a space.
Agree
Agree, although data is good too. Our first two graphics are very good I think, and they present data in a summary form.
I just revisited the table and flowchart side by side and tried to edited the table to include everything from the flowchart that were effects on the environment and humans, although there is some editorial selection (like biodiversity loss / ecosystem collapse I think make the point of "species extinction" without saying it explicitly). I also added a few things, like fishery and tourism losses (you had zero impacts on humans from ocean heating). The scope is limited to effects because the idea is to replace the flowchart in its current location. Efbrazil (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The row headers are meant to capture the change that leads to the impacts in the rest of the row. I added a newline between air and heating, which makes it look less weird I think. Having "air" on its own wouldn't work.
I added "Climate tipping points crossed" to cumulative effects, but I think individual feedbacks work better as a list in the feedback section.

Efbrazil (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics and tables clearly have respective advantages: visual portrayal versus conceptual organization.

Specific detail: (disease-carrier) "impact on human health" versus "direct physical harm to humans" (e.g., pandemics versus hurricanes) reflects a biological versus physical distinction that I think is important.

New idea: adapting Nassi–Shneiderman diagrams as a "graphic-like" textual rendering, could conceivably show causality in a more ~visual way than a category-based table. However the unexpectedly strong rejection-of-new-things experienced here with warming stripes makes me think it wouldn't go far. I mention it to provoke thought. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you know I'm all about visual portrayal if possible. I understand "show", but for effects I think that mostly amounts to showing things like flooded coastal cities, bleached coral, and the like. Stuff people care about, ignoring stuff like starving polar bears that seem very remote. We could add maybe another picture or two like that?

I can't figure out how assembling all effects would work better with Nassi-Shneiderman. I think the table does a pretty good job of organizing the info coherently.

I tweaked the table again to add acidification and shellfish. Are you OK if I swap the table in for the causes and effects flowchart you made? If not, do have a different thought on a path forward? Efbrazil (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminarily, I think the lead is best served by causes+effects than the Greenhouse Effect since the GHE is an underlying internal mechanism—not actually the reason most readers come here (+, GHE isn't mentioned in the lead and doesn't even have its own section or subsection). Unfortunately, the GHGas section is already populated with images to a degree that some^{(not me, with a 1600x900 desktop screen)} find objectionable if exceeded. :-\

Besides the visual^(show) vs. textual^(tell) distinction discussed above, the table (1) categorizes into land/sea/air categories what in reality is a very interrelated system that circulates energy constantly, and (2) masks complex causal relationships. . . . To explain #2: I mean that sometimes an Effect on Humans is a direct result of heating(s) in left column; other times an Effect on Human is a result of something in the Effect on Environment in the middle column; other times one item in the left column is caused by other items(s) in the same left column. Within Wikipedia it's easier for a community to tweak text than images, but the flow diagram reflects a reader-centric sensibility.

Sadly we don't have a large enough community (n=3 so far) to gauge a larger consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of hoping this deadlock will be solved during FAR. We could also tag a few people that have participated in recent GW discussions. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we dump both the table and the flowchart at this point, since neither is winning anyone over. I'm going to focus today on creating a gallery of images that capture impacts. The good thing about galleries is they change shape to fit smartphone screens, and it "shows" instead of "tells". Efbrazil (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— A non-prominent gallery of photographs seems like a good idea in principle—assuming it will be ~scientific in nature and not merely 'tug at our heartstrings'.

— Given the fact that there are entire sections titled 'Physical drivers' (i.e., causes) and 'Climate change feedback' and 'Effects', and most are discussed in the lead... definitely a cause/effect portrayal^{(flow diagram, or table)} is critical, very much preferably in the lead. In this context, causality is paramount: the article answers the questions readers must be asking: "What causes global warming" and "What causes the effects being experienced" —RCraig09 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Craig, yeah, I'll work to avoid sad polar bears or attributing everything that goes wrong to climate change. I want to try and get the same coverage we have in the table / flowchart though, since the idea is to replace those. Efbrazil (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 galleries for effects on the biosphere and effects on humans. The sad polar bear even made a comeback, cuz I couldn't find a better image on polar ecosystem impact, plus I'm lazy and that picture already had referenced text I could resurrect. We need one or two more biosphere pictures, but I think the structure is there and good. You agree I hope? As for the lede image, I'll add comments at the end of this talk page. Efbrazil (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reasonably-sized galleries are appropriate. Kudos.

However, in retrospect: a graphic that portrayed concepts central to the article (causes, effects, feedback) was demoted in what you perceived was an "open season" to move things, and deleted to make way for a collection of a select few images that do not even show causation. The flow diagram has in effect been replaced with a graphic for the GH Effect, which is not even mentioned in the lead and hasn't warranted a separate section or subsection, and that is "a work in progress" at best and "hated" at worst; the reasonable short-term solution is to restore the old GHE graph and move it down, rather than amend the lead to justify an in-process graphic. Whereas you have presented arguments against the flow diagram—based mostly on formal grounds and issues internal to Wikipedia—I don't perceive you've squarely responded to my arguments—which I believe have been substantive and reader-centric—but instead acted without consensus. Please take time to consider this history before proceeding. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the gallery, at first I was a bit chocked and my inner conservative screamed no. Upon further tinkering and reflection, I think it can work. A few comments:

@Efbrazil:; could you make sure all the essential information is present in the cites? Currently, the carbon brief lacks authors, the coral reef cite lacks an author (NOAA), the polar bear one only has a short cite, without any corresponding info in the full cite causing an error, and so forth. I'm willing to put the references in the style we agreed on, as long as the starting references are complete.
The captions are a bit too long, causing ugly white space. There are two solution; make them shorter and/or crop the images to be a bit wider. I think five lines of caption should really be the max. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think it can work! I'll try to fix those issues today. Efbrazil (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried trimming the captions. Note that the gallery tag uses dynamic resizing, so you may see more or less text wrapping depending on your screen width. I tried to make it so that the width of the galleries is similar and typically one screen width on a laptop.

I added the European heat wave last summer. I could trim sad polar bear width, move australian fires up to biosphere, and then pop this into human impacts to capture crop failure- thoughts? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corn_shows_the_affect_of_drought.jpg

I moved the biosphere gallery up to avoid having them so close to human impacts- feel free to move it back if you think that was a mistake- the old place was better except for the spacing issue. It's a bit weird to me that the text section on human impacts is so much larger than biosphere impacts (maybe that section needs to be filled out more?)

I tried updating sources, let me know if I fell short in places. For places where there's no author I just listed the publisher- for instance NOAA is the publisher, not the author, right? Efbrazil (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animated GIF for causes and effects?

Since some of the objection to the January flow diagram related to text size issues, I'm floating the idea of an animated GIF: A sequence of simpler cause-and-effect diagrams that spread out content in the time domain to alleviate crowding issues in the space domain. This proposal would still involve text, but less intensively at any given instant than the January flow diagram. Yes, it wouldn't be as quickly editable as "real" text, but it would perform the crucial task of considering what readers are seeking and illuminating main points as listed in the Table of Contents: causes, effects, feedback. For obvious time-investment reasons, I won't proceed unless there's some affirmative indication such an approach would likely meet consensus (after discussion and fine-tuning here, of course). —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel suggestion: Convert the recent galleries of "effects" images into an animated GIF and place into the lead.—RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have my answer! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not seeing this before. I'm glad you're sticking with this. I agree that featuring effects is important, although I don't want to come across as alarmist and I'm not sure feedbacks are important to cover up front.

I don't know that an animated GIF will help if the flowchart is going to remain mostly text. I also don't think an animated GIF would work because you can't have the text embedded- it might just look like an alarmist carousel of natural disasters.

See on right for the effect of turning the effects galleries into a slideshow and then putting it in the sidebar. The relevant help topics are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Random_slideshow/doc and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sidebar. It's a bit iffy- sizing is not going to match other thumbnails on all resolutions and it'll render as 10 images in a row on smartphone, and I expect standards people will have a problem with it if we put it in the summary section. Still, it's kinda nifty I think, maybe worth pursuing. Maybe we'd pull out 2 or 3 of the less important or redundant images and make them thumbnails in the effects section. Thoughts? --Efbrazil (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we disagree on whether a concise presentation of the many reliably-sourced GW effects, including feedbacks, is 'alarmist'—or merely alarming as those reliable sources agree. It's those many effects (along with GW's few causes) that are what's essential to communicate prominently. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To save valuable space, an image slideshow is excellent, and slideshow elements are easier to edit than a GIF. Definitely, the images should not be dwarfed by surrounding whitespace, but I couldn't find a size parameter/control in the template documentation. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the slideshow approach! I imagine there's a way to collapse whitespace with enough ingenuity. I'll take that as my next task, then post the result down at the bottom of this talk page if I succeed. I am worried we'll get push back regarding standards though- people will say there's too many pictures in the summary, or that galleries can't go in the summary, but no harm in trying.

Regarding alarmist vs alarming, I just want to make sure that anything alarming is not just correct, but that anyone doubting it can immediately read the text that explains it in a super grounded way. Efbrazil (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, also, am concerned that people who know "rules", but not this particular subject matter, will pay more attention to form than substance. That possibility is the downside of preparing something for Featured Article Review. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes to Responses Subtopic

I’ve been looking at revising the Responses/mitigation subtopic. This has included reviewing the following reports: UNEP Emissions Gap 2019; IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change; IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C; RENEWABLES 2019; United in Science-UNEP; Negative Emissions Technologies....NAP (2019); IRENA-2050 Roadmap; Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals, UTS-Sydney; as well as additional information from the references from WP-GW footnotes 209; 212; 218; 219; 220; 222; 223, 224; 225; 226; and 227. The outline and some of the text from the full Climate Change Mitigation article is also helpful.

I’ve come to think that the Responses subtopic could be reorganized and strengthened a bit, mainly in the mitigation section. For that section, the UNEP 2019 and AR5 WG3 reports, along with the outline and some related material from the WP-Climate Change Mitigation article, provide good organization examples for the text. Based on those information sources, I would propose the following outline for this subtopic (I imagine @Hedgehoque: and @Chidgk1: could provide some great insights on this as well, given their work to improve this subtopic during the recent peer review):

Responses

Minor edits to the intro. Add a brief mention of climate engineering.

Mitigation

Carbon budgets for 1.5 C and 2C - Source:AR5 WG3 pages referenced at WP-GW article footnote 206
Required 2030 and 2050 reductions beyond current commitments in order to achieve 1.5 and/or 2C by 2100. Sources:UNEP Table ES.1, Figure ES.4, AR5 WG3 Fig. SPM 7
Principal mitigation technologies - PV, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, biofuels, CCS. Sources: UNEP Table ES.3, NAP Table S.1, GW footnotes 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215 and related text.
Potential reduction strategies for:
- Energy Systems - Increasing RE in electricity, increasing electricity as percent of overall energy supply, coal plant phase out, elimination of fossil fuel subsidies. Sources: UNEP Table ES.3; AR5 WG3 pp. 69-70 & Fig. 7.14, Ch 7.5; IRENA p.48.
- Transport - Increase in EVs, low carbon (hydrogen) fuel substitution for transport modes like shipping, changes in transportation patterns (mass transit) Sources: UNEP Table ES.3 & p.49; AR5 WG3 pp.72-74, Ch. 8.3; IRENA p. 48.
- Buildings - Decarbonizing building energy through electrificcation (heat pumps), low energy building codes. Source: AR5 WG3 p.23, pp.78-81, Ch. 9.3; IRENA p.49.
- Industry - Production efficiency, materials efficiency, more intensive product use, reduced demand. Source: AR5 WG3 pp.81-85, Ch. 10.3; IRENA p. 49.
- Ag/Forestry - aforestation, sustainable forest management, reduced deforestation - Sources: AR5 WG3 pp. 86-89, Ch. 11.3; NAP 2019 Table S.1; GW footnotes 216, 217 and related text.
- Individual actions to reduce carbon footprints - driving an EV/reducing vehicles miles, adopting plant based diet, limiting consumption of goods/services, foregoing air travel. Source: GW footnotes 225, 226, 227, 228 and related text.
Policies and Measures
- Policy options
- Carbon tax, emissions trading. Source: GW footnotes 219, 220 and related text.
- Phaseout of fossil fuels subsidies, increased RE subsidies. Source: Footnotes 221, 222 and related text.
- Technology/regulatory controls - Vehicle efficiency standards, CO2 controls on fossil fuel plants. Citations needed.
Costs and Benefits
- Costs/benefits - Comparison of costs/benefits for BAU and 2C compatible investments. Sources: AR5 WG3 Table SPM2, p.15, pp.57-59 Chapters 7.8-9, & Table 7.3 for electrification (costs are outdated); GW footnote 209 and related text; IRENA Figure 11.
- Other Co-benefits - Sources: AR5 WG3 Figure SPM 6, pp. 16-17, Box TS-11; GW footnotes 209, 229 and related text.

Adaptation - No specific changes proposed at this point, although I think this section could also be strengthened a bit.

Climate Engineering - This section needs updating and revision. I would suggest it focus on items that are not (like CCS and ag/forestry related CDR) included in the mitigation section outline above. For example, it could focus more on SRM, or ocean related CDR technologies.

I think if this kind of outline could be expanded to closer to 1700 words (from the current 850 or so in the current section), it would help the reader get a better understanding of the issues involved in mitigation/adaptation. I think the main additions to the current text would be those associated with the carbon budget and 2050 reduction target bullets, and the bullets for the specific reduction strategies. But I think these are important additions; they were pretty much the gist of the AR5 WG3 report. I use the 1700 word count target because that is the amount of text currently included in the Effects subtopic, and I think understanding the approaches to dealing with GW/CC is about as important to readers as understanding GW/CC effects...and I would put both of these at or near the top of the kinds of information readers are looking for in this article.

I am looking for feedback on a couple of points.

Does this outline seem appropriate? I am sure it could be improved on, and welcome any suggested improvements, but does the overall structure seem ok?

I think your outline is definitely an improvement on what is there now, but I think "policies" should be before "Principal mitigation technologies" as the policies are more important than the technologies in my opinion. Re cost/benefits as far as I understand it it is already proven and mentioned somewhere in this article that 2C has a global net benefit, so I think BAU should be omitted, but if there are reliable sources for the costs and benefits of 1.5C maybe you or someone else could first bash a section into Economics of global warming (which looks pretty dire) and if people like it you could summarise it here? I am not an economist but I am not sure increased RE subsidies are actually needed if (Carbon tax or emissions trading) and Phaseout of fossil fuels subsidies are implemented? https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwyman/2020/01/14/why-its-too-soon-to-let-renewable-energy-subsidies-expire/#64a920e31e02 seems to say RE subsidies are still needed but their examples of China and USA are countries which still subsidize fossil fuels and in UK wind subsidies will be gone in a few years time according to https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/new-windfarms-taxpayers-subsidies-record-low. Probably increased capital investment in RE is needed, but not sure that is a "subsidy" if the investment pays back at a reasonable profit? But maybe the sources say that increased RE subsidies are a viable alternative to (Carbon tax or emissions trading)? That seems unlikely. I cannot see any link from this article to Climate justice - unless there is already a link via a redirect it should be linked from somewhere in this article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well structured. Technologies before policies would provide a better flow of comprehension. One remark about subsidies vs carbon tax: There is one more factor. Complicated regulations, grid charges, slow administration can easily distract RE investors. Fossil fuel substitution is not only a question of competitiveness but also of political will. Hedgehoque (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion @Hedgehoque:. If you have any recommended references on the issue of the various impediments to RE investments, that would be helpful.Dtetta (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense to expand the Response subtopic to more closely match the length of the Effects subtopic?Dtetta (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hedgehoque (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those suggestion @Chidgk1:, and for those additional references. I will look into the points you’re making about RE subsidies, investments, and net benefits as I develop some proposed language, which I will post here before making any edits. And I agree that there needs to be a reference to climate justice in this section - good catch. I’ll also take a look at how I might change the relative position of policies versus the technologies themselves. In looking at the major reports, however, they seem to set up a context by describing the technologies first, and then provide specific strategies and policies for implementing those technologies to various degrees. But I will see if I can figure out a way to implement your suggestion.Dtetta (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Below is text from my proposed revisions to the mitigation section. I think the word count is around 1500. There are still a couple of citations I need to select. But other than that I think it’s pretty much finished. Explanatory notes are in italics.

I edited the introductory paragraph to focus more on carbon budget and needed reductions concepts.

Mitigation

Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or by enhancing the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. In order to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C with a high likelihood of success, the IPCC estimates that global GHG emissions will need to be net zero by 2050 SR15 SPM p.15 & Fig. 3a, or by 2070 with a 2°C target. To make progress towards that goal, UNEP estimates that, within the next decade, countries will need to triple the amount of reductions they have committed to in their current Paris agreements UNEP Table ES1.

I expanded the title of the technology section and edited it in line with the outline I posted. I tried to preserve as much of the original text as I could. I thought some of the text from the policies and measures section worked better in this section, so I moved those sentences here.

Technologies, Nature Based Methods, and Individual Action

There are several forms of renewable energy in use today that can be further developed to help achieve greenhouse gas reductions. Solar installations range from small rooftop solar systems to large solar farms that can power thousands of homes. Wind farms, often consisting of hundreds of individual turbines spread out over large areas, can be built on land or offshore. Hydroelectric dams have historically been a major source of energy for many countries. For smaller countries with suitable geology, geothermal energy production provides a large portion of their energy needs. The term bioenergy includes energy produced from burning crops, waste wood, and trees; similar to how fossil fuels are used to create energy. It is also used to designate liquid fuels, such as ethanol or biodiesel, that are produced from crops.

Renewable energy technologies are technically capable of supplying several times the world’s current energy needs UTS Table 7.1, and have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years AR5 SPM.4.2.2, such that solar PV and wind are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation UNEP Fig. ES.5 p.XXIV. Renewable energy also has the largest share of current electricity generation investment IEA 2019 p.9. However, fossil fuels continue to dominate world energy supplies. In 2017 fossil fuels produced 79% of the world’s energy, with renewable sources accounting for around 10%REN 2019 Fig.1 p 31.

There are obstacles to the more rapid development of renewable energy and its substitution for fossil fuel in the overall energy supply. Environmental and land use concerns are sometimes associated with large solar, wind and hydropower projects UCS 2013. Solar and wind power also require energy storage systems and other modifications to the electricity grid to operate effectively UCS 2013. The use of rare metals and other hazardous materials has also been raised as a concern with solar power UCS 2013. The use of bioenergy is often not carbon neutral, and may bring negative consequences for food security UCS 2013. There are also a variety of institutional, regulatory, financial and social barriers also associated with these technologies SR15 SPM pp.15-16, SR15 Ch. 4.3.1.1, SR15 Table 4.11, and most climate change policies are designed to help overcome them.

Carbon capture and storage is another method to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants. CCS is a three-step process that includes: capture of CO2 from power plants, transport of the captured and compressed CO2 (usually in pipelines), and injection of the CO2 in deep underground rock formations EPA. The large scale use of this technology remains unproven, and its use is considered to have major risks in achieving permanent greenhouse reductions SR15 SPM p.34.

Greenhouse gas emissions can also be offset by enhancing earth’s land carbon sink to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO2 beyond current naturally occurring levels. Forest preservation, reforestation and improved forest management are some principal means of accomplishing this. Soils can also sequester large quantities of CO2, and soil management on croplands and grasslands can be another effective mitigation technology [ WRI 2019]. As with renewable energy technologies, barriers here can often be addressed with the appropriate policies SR15 SPM p.16, Ch. 4.3.2. Further global warming may also reduce the effectiveness of the forest and agricultural soil carbon sinks Citation needed.

There are also a number of actions that individuals can take to reduce their carbon footprint - these include driving an EV or other energy efficient car; reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or biking; adopting a plant based diet, limiting consumption of goods & services, and foregoing air travel Cool Climate Calculator, C2ES, BBC, Our World in Data.

Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2C SR15 p.109, most scenarios and strategies envision a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions Citation needed. They typically include some or all of the following elements:

Overall Energy Systems - Renewable energy would become the dominant form of electricity generation, rising to 85% or more by 2050 in some scenarios. The use of electricity for other needs, such as heating, would rise to the point where electricity becomes the largest form of overall energy supply by 2050 UNEP Table ES.3, UTS Figure 5. Investment in coal would be eliminated and coal use nearly phased out by 2050; reductions in the use of other fossil fuel resources would follow a more gradual schedule SR15 Fig. 2.15 & p.131, Chapter 9.5 & Table 9.2.
Transport - Transportation changes include a sharp increase in the market share of Electric Vehicles, low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping, and changes in transportation patterns to reduce overall demand, for example increased mass transit. SR 15 Ch.2.4.3.3, UNEP Table ES.3 & p.49, AR5 WG3 pp.72-74, Ch. 8.3.
Buildings - Reductions in this category include decarbonizing energy use in buildings through additional electrification with the use of technologies like heat pumps, as well as energy efficiency improvements achieved via low energy building codes. AR5 WG3 p.23, pp.78-81, Ch. 9.3.
Industry - Gains here can be realized by increasing the energy efficiency of production processes (such as the use of cleaner technology for cement production BBC 2018, designing and creating less energy intensive products, increasing the lifetime the products we produce, and developing incentives to reduce product demand. AR5 WG3 pp.81-85, Ch. 10.3, IRENA p. 49.
Forestry & Agriculture - Carbon stocks in forests can be enhanced through reforestation/aforestation, sustainable forest management, and forest preservation. Enhanced soil carbon measures include uptake by using plant varieties that have deeper roots, agroforestry, adding organic materials to soil, and changing crop rotations AR5 WG3 pp. 86-89, Table TS.3, Ch. 11.3, NAP 2019 Table S.1, WRI 2019, SRCCL Ch.2.6.1.3 p 192.

Like with the technology section I edited the policies and measures section in line with the outline I posted. I moved some of the text from that section into the technologies section.

Policies and Measures

There are a number of legal and policy approaches used to reduce greenhouse gases. Carbon pricing mechanisms include carbon taxes and Emissions Trading systems UCS-Carbon Pricing. As of 2019, 57 national and subnational jurisdictions have instituted some form of carbon pricing. These mechanisms cover about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions World Bank 2019 Box1 p.12. Phasing out of fossil fuels subsidies, currently estimated at $300 billion globally (about twice the level of renewable energy subsidies) REN2019 p.34, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5-6% IISD. There are also proposals to swap fossil fuel subsidies for investments in renewable energy IISD. In terms of regulatory controls, adopting world class vehicle efficiency standards in G20 countries could reduce CO2 emissions by 50% ICCT p.iv. Regulatory measures to control air pollution, and related greenhouse gas reductions, are closely intertwined Commission 2010.

As the use of fossil fuels is reduced, there are Just Transition considerations involving the social and economic challenges that arise. One of the key concerns is the employment of workers in the affected industries, along with the well-being of the broader communities involved UTS-p.413. Climate justice considerations are also an important part of mitigation policies.

I created a new costs and benefits section, and added text in line with the outline I posted.

Costs and Benefits

The costs of achieving the greenhouse gas reductions necessary to limit global warming to 2C have a high degree of uncertainty, partly due to the ongoing reduction in the cost of renewable energy Fig. ES.5 p.XXIV, and difficulties with estimating other reduction costs LSE 2018. In 2019, the "One Earth Climate Model" showed how temperature increase can be limited to 1.5 °C for 1.7 trillion dollars a year OneEarth.

There are a number of environmental, economic and social co-benefts, as well as some adverse side effects, associated with limiting global warming AR5 WG3 Tables TS 4,5,6,7,8. The WHO estimates that meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The overall air quality related health benefits were estimated to be approximately double the cost of greenhouse gas reduction at the global level; this benefit-to-cost ratio was even higher in countries such as China and India WHO 2018. Other studies support these estimates Sampedro 2020. IRENA estimates the overall global benefit-to-cost ratio at between 3:1 and 7:1 IRENA p.33.

Any suggested edits or other improvements would be much appreciated.Dtetta (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work. I think this is too much in total, but maybe the sources blow it up visually. Don't have arms to give good feedback at all (RSI), but a few things:

Thanks @Femkemilene: for those suggestions. I am responding separately to each of your bullets.

@Femkemilene: I made several changes to address your comments. Please see individual responses below. I will be posting a full revision with references later today or tomorrow.Dtetta (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology section seems bloated, but most paragraphs are good. #1-First paragraph unsourced. #2-The bullet points partially repeat text above and don't add much in my opinion. #3-claim that policy is there to overcome barriers doesn't have cite.

I added numbers to your comment to facilitate a response. #1 I thought it was better to have wikilinks rather than citations in the first paragraph, as I think this information is somewhat common knowledge. But I can add cites if necessary. #2 I agree there is a little redundancy between the bullets and the technology/method descriptions, but mainly for the ag/forestry items. The objective was to describe the technologies/methods first, along with some discussion of merits/issues, and then to have the bullets reflect specific plans that are included in the major international organization reports on how these technologies/methods can be used/combined/implemented to get to the needed reduction goals. Specific suggestions on editing these bullets would be appreciated, but I think they are important and deserve coverage.#3 will add a cite.

Left the first paragraph as is for now. Changed the forestry bullet point to clarify and reduce redundancy. Added cite to policy barriers language.Dtetta (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regulatory control is jargon. I'm pretty sure vehicle efficiency standards don't reduce 50% of all CO2. Not sure just transition is sufficiently wide-spread to warrant inclusion in this top-level article. No cite for climate justice.

Revised the regulatory control language. Eliminated the 50% specific language. Added cite for climate justice.

Not sure what other words to use for the term “regulatory controls” (but coming from a regulatory background that might just be me), would welcome any suggestions for replacing the wording. I reviewed the ICCT reference, and their numbers seem to be well documented, but I will adjust the wording to leave out the specific 50% figure. I can eliminate the just transition sentence if needed, and will add a cite for climate justice.

Slightly revised the regulatory control language. Eliminated the 50% specific language. Added cite for climate justice.Dtetta (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

subsections should never be in title case (Costs and benefits, not Costs and Benefits.)

Will make that change

DoneDtetta (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that section title is correct/sufficiently international. Papers related to climate change policy often state that C&B is only/mostly done in US/GB, but other countries often have a more broad policy appraisal method, which is multi-dimensional, instead of converting everything into one unit (money). As this section describes lifes saved, that doesn't fall under the Anglo-Saxon C&B analysis.. EU often talks more about risks, and sometimes opportunity.

Not sure how to respond on this. Key references here include IPCC, UNEP and WHO which seems pretty international to me. I agree there are more nuanced/complete ways of describing these issues, but was also striving for brevity. I think the WHO report on lives saved, and associated economic valuation, is a powerful way of making the point about what the minimum level of benefits is. Realize you are busy, but again, specific suggestions would be helpful when you have a chance.

I edited some of the language and references here, but could not find any guidance related to significantly different kinds of analyses used in the EU. I see that a recent EU climate change draft study seems to use pretty traditional C/B wording.Dtetta (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite any academic papers now, which will be a problem when we submit to a Wikijournal. The old version was significantly better in that aspect.

I can rework to include a larger percent of academic citations, but I have a concern with this. I no longer have the access to academic journals that I used to, and personally, I feel somewhat hoodwinked when I click on a WP link that takes me to an abstract only academic website that requires a subscription for the full article. I don’t think this is consistent with the WP mission to “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain”. I imagine this issue has come up before, but I would suggest the following for academic cites that link to abstract only versions. In the footnote, include a short statement saying either “abstract only, full article available at: (location of free version of paper)”, or “abstract only: subscription required for full access”. This may not be needed if the abstract fully supports the statement in the WP article text, but my experience is that is often not the case. Very interested in other perspectives on this...did not see any specific WP guidance.

I added four academic papers -Berrill, Moorthy, Oh, and Gillingham. Kept Sampedro and Rauner. These are in the references section associated with the revised text. I thought Bednar and Hagmann didn’t seem to support the current texts they are associated with, and I couldn’t figure out a useful spot for them. Bertram would make sense if the text got into a more detailed discussion of policy approaches and their costs, but I couldn’t see a way of getting it to fit with the text I wrote.Dtetta (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to put Bertram at the end of the policies section as an example of a combined pricing/subsidiy/control approach.Dtetta (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "other studies support these estimates" can be dropped, by not using in text attribution. Facts don't always need attribution. This is edge-case. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I included the Sampedro reference because it is in the current version of the article, I but can delete that sentence.Dtetta (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dtetta

I see you have been working hard on this. I have several comments - both positive and negative:

Thanks for those helpful suggestions Chidgk1!...My responses are below.

Chidgk1, I noted the further edits I have made in response to your comments below. I will be posting a full revised text later today.Dtetta (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mitigation" and "Costs and benefits" sections

I am struggling with the economics so I asked for help from the economics project but no reply so far. I now think my previous criticism was wrong and agree with you that subsidies for RE should stay in the article for now - as 2020 is so volatile I guess we will not know for sure until RE auctions next year or the year after whether RE subsidies are still needed. Without the help of an economics expert I am against adding that 1.5C could cost 1.7 trillion a year without any estimate of the benefits to balance it. Re 2C economics unless we can get the help of someone who really knows economics I think the text should stay as it is now. My understanding was that 2C benefits had already been proved to exceed costs - but not being an expert whether new info from 2020 changes that I have no idea.

I am certainly not an econ expert, so I was looking for sources/reports that seem well researched. I took the OneEarth report reference from the full Climate Mitigation article, where it seems to be the main cost reference. The other reference i had considered is AR5 WG3 Table TS2, which references a wide range of 2030 and 2050 costs. Another option would be to just qualitatively describe the types of costs involved, without putting a specific monetary figure on them. Happy to consider other options as well. When you say the 2C economics text should stay as is, are you just referring to keeping the statement associated with the Sampedro cite “globally the benefits of keeping warming under 2 °C exceed the costs”, or are there other statements you think should stay?

Added a wiki link to Economics of global warming based on your earlier comments.I did not see a good way of adding to the RE subsidies text, so was not able to incorporate the information on this that you had mentioned in an earlier comment.Dtetta (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

I added numbering to the para. below to facilitate the response.

Hedgehoque has a point about this being before policies - so I withdraw my suggestion. #1-Re CCS I feel strongly that "fossil fuel power plants" is out of date and should be replaced so the sentence should read something like "Carbon capture and storage is a method of reducing CO2 emissions from heavy industry. CCS is a three-step process that includes: capture of CO2 from point sources such as chemical plants, transport of the captured and compressed CO2 (usually in pipelines), and injection of the CO2 in deep underground rock formations. (if you need a cite I can likely find one from UKCCC) #2-And I think the sentence following that should be removed as out of date and too negative. #3-Hydrogen is now important enough to have a link in my opinion. If you like I can draft a sentence or clause. For example we don't know yet how the split between heat pumps and hydrogen boilers will turn out, or whether big ships will be hydrogen or ammonia or electric or hybrid. #4-Are you sure the statement implying that the world can still burn a fair amount of oil and natural gas after 2050 is right? Maybe I should dig into the cites as it seems implausible, certainly for oil?

Re:#1 - Understand, I will change the language to what you propose. Re:#2 - Not sure I agree, but I am ok with deleting that language. Re:#3 - If you could suggest some language on hydrogen I would appreciate it. Re:#4 - I think you are referring to the “Overall energy systems” bullet, and the statements and associated cites at UNEP Table ES.3, & UTS Figure 5, correct? I did not attempt to verify those statements other than to note there seemed to be a good amount of research behind them. When I look at similar statements from AR5 WG3 I note that they are assuming increased carbon capture in the ag/forestry sector, or implementation of some level of CCS by 2050. Long way of saying that: no, I am not sure, but am going with what the major reports on this seem to state. Let me know if you have a different take on what those three reports are saying. It's not exactly the same message amongst the three, but it seems fairly consistent.

Changed the CCS language to what you proposed. I ended up finding some more neutral language to describe the barriers and limits to CCS, and included a very recent study that demonstrates its potential. I thought some description of the barriers associated with it was appropriate from an NPOV point of view. Have not gotten hydrogen language from you, and in looking at the SR 15 and REN21 reports, it seems that hydrogen from renewable resources is not considered a viable technology at this point, at least not in the same sense that the other technologies in this section are. So I did not add any language on renewably derived hydrogen fuels.Dtetta (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and measures

I disagree with Femkemilene and think a link to "just transition" is important enough to be included. Because as I understand it the lack of it is often what causes policies to fail (e.g. Iran subsidy reform) and having it causes them to succeed (e.g. Germans paying lots of money to coal regions for phase out).

Good argument for keeping "just transition" in...let’s wait to see if Femkemilene has any additional insights on this.

Cites

Re your discussion would it make sense if a cite (e.g. academic) is behind a paywall to have that and also a non-paywall cite too? Or would that be too much work?

That is a good option. It would actually be nice to have a WP policy on this. I went through the first 20 of the academic cites and saw restrictions on a little less than half, mostly Science, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. For the few academic cites I have done elsewhere in the article I have included url’s that go to free versions of the paper, and have been able to find free versions most of the time even for citations from the three periodicals I mentioned above.

Info in current version which is not in new

There seems to be some useful stuff in the current version which is not in the new - I can make a list if you like. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great - I was trying to keep as much of the original as I thought worked in this version, so I would appreciate it if you could list the items you think I left out inappropriately. Dtetta (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I brought in more text from the current version into the introductory paragraph and into the policies section.Dtetta (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dtetta,

unfortunately my impression is that the condensed current version provides a better reading and straightforward flow of thoughts. For my understanding, the central issue in the technology section is: Wind and solar are becoming competitive enough to outcompete fossil fuels but require storage and large-area-grids. This is the currently the main obstacle. If we extend the length, I would rather add some dimensions: Which storage concepts are being discussed? What is the potential of grids? How can a combination of wind/solar/biomass/load management work? Which area for solar PV farms would be needed for 100% primary energy (roughly 1000 x 1000 km total)? Which capability would be needed for a global grid to minimize storage requirements (speaking of Terawatts)? Another issue is the low efficiency of Power-To-X. What would be a fair carbon tax compensating the damages (suggested 180-560 €/tCO₂)? And I am not happy with a C&B section though I can understand the motivation. However, these estimations, even if scientific, are extremely complex and almost impossible. The proposed new structure would be fine though. Hedgehoque (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback Hedgehoque - I am assuming your concerns are about the paragraphs describing technologies, as opposed to concerns with the later paragraphs referencing the IPCC, UNEP and One Earth studies and dealing with how RE and other methods could specifically be implemented to meet 2050 targets. Please let me know if I’m wrong on this point.

I think I understand your point about the current text being more focused on the issue of wind and solar now being competitive enough to outcompete fossil fuels, but needing storage and large area grids. But I disagree that this concept should be the main focus of the section, mainly because of NPOV concerns, but also from the standpoint of helping an average reader get familiar with what the available technologies are.

Here are my main concerns with the current section (with apologies to whomever the author is): 1)There is no introductory paragraph for a general reader as to what mitigation technologies, including wind and solar, are available. I think the opening paragraph assumes a level of reader sophistication that may not be there for many people. 2)The sentences vary from supportive, in the case of solar and wind, to somewhat negative, in the case of bioenergy, to neutral in the case of energy efficiency. To me this presents both NPOV issues as well as clarity or writing problems. Re: NPOV, i would think that biofuels, nuclear energy, and CCS supporters would object to the one sided nature of the sentences describing those technologies, while a number of conservation groups like WRI or IUCN would contend that reforestation and regenerative agriculture deserve more complete and positive coverage, given how solar/wind are described. In fact, I think even my proposed text falls short in this regard, as I was trying to match the positive RE focus of the current text. From a clarity of writing perspective, those tone differences in describing the different technologies are confusing, and make the paragraphs seem disjointed. For me this current ”flow of thoughts” is actually very confusing. 3)The SuperGrid reference, while interesting, seems to be a somewhat futuristic concept, perhaps one of several others that could be mentioned. I would think distributed grids are a more “ready for prime time” item to be discussing here, for example. 4)Food waste is included as along with deforestation, which strikes me as a non sequiter. 5)There are a couple of other concerns, but I think you get my point. These are things I was trying to correct in the technologies paragraphs that I wrote.

I can see that in my original outline I wasn’t very clear on what I was proposing to write on the principal mitigation technologies. So here is what I think should be covered, and what was guiding me when I wrote the text.

- Briefly mention the principal mitigation technologies available.
- Describe what they’re able to do in terms of either moving us away from fossil fuel usage, lowering GHG emissions, or lowering GHG concentrations.
- Describe their downsides and potential barriers to their usage, and briefly mention measures that can minimize those downsides.
- Give each option relatively equal treatment.

I’m sure I was not completely successful in this, but those were the features I was striving for.

Also, I moved the footprint-related text to the technologies section because I think of it as more a measure/action that can be taken, like like stopping deforestation, or eliminating food waste (or putting solar on your roof/purchasing green energy, which should probably be added to the footprint list). From this perspective it really does not fit in the the policies section it’s currently in.

I’m close to having a next draft, with improved citations, ready to post to this page, but am concerned about your comments. I’d like to know your opinion of the concepts above that I suggested to guide the structure of the paragraphs (brief general intro, potential of each tech, downsides/barriers), as well as the principle of equal treatment. That might help me figure out a solution that might work for you. Look forward to your response.Dtetta (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dtetta, I understand your thoughts and you spent hours checking all these sources. I would have no problem if you add some aspects. I like the bullet points. But the main text – if approved by the community – should be straightened. With the honourable approach to be as NPOV as possible, the reader will end up confused with the impression that there are all sorts of approaches without getting a clue what could really make a change. I cannot see any alternative to rapidly scale up wind and solar installations in order to substitute fossil fuels. Nuclear power is risky and expensive for new installations, CCS could just help to gain some time. Biofuels land-use is 30-200 times less efficient (see Cleantechnica). Reforestation is good, but it does not fight the cause, just the symptom. So there is reason to have PV and wind in focus. How else could you ever produce the required annual 160 PWh of primary energy? Technologies are ready. You mention OneEarth. If you read the 100% RE article you can get an idea of what I mean. I wonder about their 1.7 trillion $ estimation though – per year how long? PV panels producing 320 PWh/year (the double world energy demand) would cost 5 trillion $ at current prices. Build a super grid for another 5T$ and we're done :-) Super grids are less futuristic than it might seem. Low-loss HVDC is developing rapidly – take a look at China. I would like to start with extensions there and the key question how to balance production and demand with these fluctuating sources. Hydrogen should be added. And at least a short mention that storage means loss in efficiency – leaving only 30% of the energy after reconversation in some cases. My (bold) approach to add some details about all of this was rejected some while ago - so maybe I am a bit sensitive about extending the text without really adding condensed, additional information... Hedgehoque (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hedgehoque. You make some good points here, I am just not sure how to resolve them. What I think I will do is put the next version of the text below and note in the Technologies section your concerns and my perspective on them, in italics just above the text, and ask for feedback from other editors. Please add any comments you feel are necessary to clarify how I presented the issue.Dtetta (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene: , @Hedgehoque:, and Chidgk1: Below is the next version of the text. I tried to address as many comments as possible, but I imagine I missed some things. Would appreciate folks giving this another review. I added proper citations/footnotes and a list of references at the bottom to aid your review. The references that are not in the current article are indicated with a + sign after the bullet. Current word count is around 1370, I believe.

@Femkemilene: - thanks for the thoughtful comments and kind words that you provided below. I was going to wait a couple of days to see if @Hedgehoque:, @Chidgk1: or any other editors had any additional comments to make, and then make edits. I provided individual responses to your comments below. I was also going to do an underline / ~~strikeout~~ of the text in each section to address everyone's comments. I’ll put a ✅ next to comments I think I have addressed. As a first step, both you and Hedgehoque have expressed ongoing concern with the length of the text in the technologies section, so that’s probably the first thing I will work on. As I asked Hedgehoque, I would ask you to let me know your thoughts on whether the technologies section should cover at least the following: 1)briefly mention the principal technologies available; describe their potential to move us away from fossil fuel usage, otherwise lower GHG emissions, or lower GHG concentrations; 2)describe their downsides and potential barriers to their usage (and means to mitigate them); and 3)give each option relatively equal treatment. Dtetta (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MitigationV2

Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or by enhancing the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. In order to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C with a high likelihood of success, the IPCC estimates that global GHG emissions will need to be net zero by 2050 ^[11], or by 2070 with a 2°C target. This will require far-reaching, systemIc changes on an unprecedented scale in energy, land, cities, transport, buildings, and industry:^[12]. To make progress towards that goal, UNEP estimates that, within the next decade, countries will need to triple the amount of reductions they have committed to in their current Paris agreements ^[13].

Technologies, and nature based methods, and individual actionsV2

Currently there are different perspectives on how this portion to the text should read. Hedgehoque would prefer briefer, more focused text that clearly indicates that solar/wind are really the only viable approach for achieving the needed GHG reductions. I think the text, while it can use facts to point out the advances made in solar/wind, should provide a relatively equal treatment of the different technologies, and provide a brief general intro, the potential of each tech, and the downsides/barriers. I am not sure how to resolve this, and would very much appreciate any thoughts on how this could be resolved.

Made a number of edits today in ~~strikeout~~/underline format to this section.Dtetta (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:, @Hedgehoque:, and @Dtetta: I believe I have finished addressing people’s comments on the technologies/nature based methods section, and have shortened it as much as makes sense to me. It’s worth noting that the section does not mention energy efficiency technologies, and that is a flaw. But probably best to save for another day. Please let me know if you have any additional suggested edits.Dtetta (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the underline/strikeout so that interested folks could read the proposed text a little easier.Dtetta (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—————————————————————————-

Long-term scenarios all point to rapid and significant investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency as key to reducing GHG emissions. ^[14]These technologies include solar and wind power, bioenergy, geothermal energy, and hydroelectricity. Combined, they are capable of supplying several times the world’s current energy needs.^[15] Solar PV and wind, in particular, have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years,^[16] such that they are currently among the cheapest sources of new power generation.^[17] Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. ^[18]. However, fossil fuels continue to dominate world energy supplies. In 2017 fossil fuels produced 79% of the world’s energy, with "modern" renewable sources, including solar PV and wind power, accounting for around 2%.^[19]

There are obstacles to the rapid development of renewable energy. Environmental and land use concerns are sometimes associated with large solar, wind and hydropower projects.^[20] Solar and wind power also require energy storage systems and other modifications to the electricity grid to operate effectively,^[21] although several storage technologies are now emerging to supplement the traditional use of pumped water/hydroelectric power.^[22] The use of rare metals and other hazardous materials has also been raised as a concern with solar power.^[23] The use of bioenergy is often not carbon neutral, and may have negative consequences for food security,^[24] largely due to the amount of land required compared to other renewable energy options.^[25] There are also institutional, regulatory, financial and social barriers involved in significantly increasing renewable energy supplies,^[26], but a variety< of policies and programs can be developed to overcome them.^[27].

For certain energy supply needs, as well as specific CO2 intensive heavy industries, carbon capture and storage may be a viable method of reducing CO₂ emissions. Although ongoing high costs have been a concern with this technology,^[28] recent work indicates that, by mid-century, it may be able able to play a significant role in limiting atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.^[29]

Greenhouse gas emissions can be offset by enhancing earth’s land carbon sink to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO₂ beyond current naturally occurring levels. ^[30]. Forest preservation, reforestation and tree planting on non-forest lands are considered the most effective forestry methods, although they present sustainability and food security concerns. Soil management on croplands and grasslands is another effective mitigation technique. For all these approaches there remain large scientific uncertainties with implementing them on a global scale.^[31]

Individuals can also take actions to reduce their carbon footprint. These include: driving an EV or other energy efficient car and reducing vehicles miles by using mass transit or biking; adopting a plant based diet; reducing energy use in the home; limiting consumption of goods and services; and foregoing air travel.^[32]

————————————————————————————

Still I believe it to be too much, completely out of balance with the adaptation section. Did small ce, can you do rest + other sections?.

Forgetting the individual actions paragraph, which is just relocated from another section in the original article, this text now has about 400 words, compared to about 200 for the current text for this section.Dtetta (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I can get you on board with deleting major points, so I'm making smaller suggestions. Again RSI, so I should shut up, but addicted.

Made a number of edits today, ✅ indicates those where I think I have addressed your comments. Dtetta (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edited forestry/soil management paragraph, and believe I have now shortened the text in this section as much as makes sense. Please let me know your thoughts when you have a chance. ✅Dtetta (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the first sentence, two thoughts: 1) As I mentioned, I will work on editing for brevity, as Hedgehoque also thinks this section is too long. But I would appreciate your input on the issue I mention in the italicized text at the beginning of the section dealing with what the text, at a minimum, should cover. ✅ - made a number of edits that included significantly shortening the section. Dtetta (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 2) I’m not convinced that the comparison itself is justification for shortening this section; I could interpret it just as easily as justification for expanding/strengthening the adaptation section. Re: second and third sentences - not sure what you mean, could you restate?[reply]

(edit conflict) Second: I did a small copy-edit, could you do the rest. Specifically, make sure to bundle short-cites (there should be only one number after each full stop/comma), put the refs after the full stop/comma, write CO₂ instead of CO2.

Will do.Dtetta (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third: I have tried to not ask very big changes, as I'm not not owning this article. I would like the article to stay manageable (or at least what I consider manageably small), but I'm easy going if the rest agrees.

I love you have language skills. Jealous.

Thanks:) Took me a long time!

remove individual action from title

Will do.✅

REN21 does not say 10% renewable, but 10% modern renewable. Traditional biomass is big still.

Good point. Will revise accordingly.✅

Phys.org is referring to a primary source, a single study. I'd rather not have it unless it's clear that this is the scientific consensus position. If we keep it, make it singular.

Agree - that was a bit rushed. Will check for corroborative studies, and if not make the language reflect the fact that it’s just one study.

Added a further citation supporting this.✅Dtetta (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about whether CCS will be viable on a big scale is a controversial one and open question. These popular science blogs are the lowest type of sources we're allowed, but I think this statement could use a secondary science source (review paper, discussion part of normal paper, report..). Your sentence seems to imply (to me at least) that support may have increased recently, and I'm not sure that's true. I think the recent work part can be remove entirely, or it will need better sourcing. The new source is mostly about techniques that aren't mature enough for big roll-out. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. Will continue to look for more high quality sources, and revise the text accordingly.Dtetta (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the language of the paragraph slightly, and added the Bui reference, which indicates on page 1068 that that IAMs used in the IPCC SR 15 reports show significant CCS usage by mid-century in the both the 1.5C and 2C scenarios (something that seems to be hard to discern from the IPCC reports themselves). I kept the term “work” to reflect both the modeling information cited by Bui as well as the capacity and progress information included in the Zahasky study, but would welcome specific suggestions on better wording. I changed the article from Phys.org to ScienceDaily because ScienceDaily actually has a link to the Zahasky study, but describes the results in a more understandable way than the actual research article.✅Dtetta (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that support has significantly increased; I did read a couple of articles on this, but I'm not convinced about their neutrality. I think some of these papers have just clarified some specific facts and aspects that point to at least some role for it by mid century.Dtetta (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never like the individual action paragraph we've had, as it relies on newspapers instead of a high-quality thing, but that may be for another day.

Based on personal interactions, I think footprint awareness is something a lot of readers care about, so to me that makes it important. From my experience with footprint calculators, I’m guessing that by following the general recommends listed in this text, or the current version in the article, the average G20 household could easily reduce their footprint by 1/3 or more, which collectively is a huge amount..another reason it's important to keep.

That is the reason I've always kept it in.. Maybe I just don't like the sourcing and the fact we have collected sources (risking tiny OR by selecting those and not others) instead of having one overview source for individual action. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I can understand that. I will look for some more academic references.Dtetta (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✅ I changed the footprint citations to limit the web references to just one NY Times article. I also added an academic reference for further support the text.Dtetta (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concern with rare metals isn't that they're hazardous right? They are rare and their extraction can be pollution. Didn't read source.

Unfortunately, the concern is also that there will be major hazardous waste problems associated with large scale solar panel deployment once they are beyond their useful life, in addition to the precious metal and related mining concerns. It seems like the text conveys that, but specific suggestions for improvement are appreciated.

I see. Today I've Learned. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(usually in pipelines) is unnecessary detail. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will delete. Dtetta (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)✅[reply]

Hi Dtetta. It looks much better now after today’s edit. Bioenergy could have a remark on the much higher land-use compared to PV (see link before). I miss the reference to super grids. They are not in the focus of most discussions but technology is ready and has a large potential – see the references. What would you think about a short mention of the most important storage techniques (hydrogen, power-to-gas, power-to-heat, Li-On, pumped hydro and compressed air) and their efficiency losses? We could also add a sentence about the difference between CSP (advantage: storage for some hours, but more expensive) and PV. The nature based methods would be another caption for me. The „scenarios“ section mentions some important issues. I can also go with the policies and the modified C&B section. Btw I did not write that wind and solar are the „only viable approach“ but I cannot see any serious zero-emission scenario in the near future that comes without massively upscaling these.Hedgehoque (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think it's an improvement,Hedgehoque, and I apologize for not accurately capturing your position in the introduction. I could not get the bioenergy link to work, but have found a few other articles that emphasize the same point, so I will edit to add that clause you requested. I will also work to include a mention of the storage techniques you've described. I think the CSP/PV idea may be a little detailed, given concerns about the length of the text. The only issue I see with adding a nature based methods stand-alone section is that it leaves the footprint reduction paragraph a little stranded.Dtetta (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC) ✅ did not get into detail re:efficiency losses due to need for brevity.Dtetta (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about the link. I have repaired it above. It refers to this UCSB release: Photovoltaics beat biofuels at converting sun's energy to miles driven. The access to the study seems to be restricted except for the abstract, charts and maps. Please allow one stylistic remark: Maybe you can find a better intro than There a a number of... for the policies - just like you have done for technologies. Hedgehoque (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I will also make the change in the policies section you are suggesting when I get to editing that section.Dtetta (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtetta: Sorry I have not looked at this article recently, basically because I want to spend the time on my specialist subject (the articles related to Turkey and the environment) because I don't think anyone else is going to spend very much time on them. Also improving a featured article like this takes a lot of brainpower because it is so great already thanks to you guys. When I need a break from working on my specialist subject I find it more relaxing to improve articles where the changes needed are pretty obvious and don't need lots of consultation. I probably should not have made my criticisms of your proposed change in the first place now I am not following up on what I said I would do. But at the time I did not realise before how time consuming it would be to get the specialist subject articles I am working on rated as "good". Of course my non-reply has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that now we are allowed out I realise I need to get my bike fixed :-) Chidgk1 (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understand @Chidgk1: Thanks for the helpful comments you have made.Dtetta (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scenarios and strategies for 2050V2

I added this heading to clarify that the following text is intended to show how the technologies and methods mentioned in the section above are packaged to arrive at overall scenarios that achieve the 1.5/2C goal.

Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2C ^[33], most scenarios and strategies envision a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions ^[34]. They typically include some or all of the following elements:

Overall Energy Systems - Renewable energy would become the dominant form of electricity generation, rising to 85% or more by 2050 in some scenarios. The use of electricity for other needs, such as heating, would rise to the point where electricity becomes the largest form of overall energy supply by 2050 ^[35]^[36]. Investment in coal would be eliminated and coal use nearly phased out by 2050; reductions in the use of other fossil fuel resources would follow a more gradual schedule ^[37]^[38].
Transport - Sharp increases in the market share of Electric Vehicles, low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping, and changes in transportation patterns to reduce overall demand, for example increased mass transit ^[39]^[40]^[41].
Buildings - Decarbonizing energy use in buildings through additional electrification with the use of technologies like heat pumps, as well as energy efficiency improvements achieved via low energy building codes. ^[42].
Industry - Increasing the energy efficiency of production processes (such as the use of cleaner technology for cement production ^[43], designing and creating less energy intensive products, increasing the lifetime the products, and developing incentives to reduce product demand^[44]^[45].
Carbon dioxide removal - Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5°C generally anticipate the large scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods to augment the greenhouse gas reduction approaches mentioned above^[46] Forestry measures include preservation and reforestation/aforestation, while farming methods include using plant varieties that have deeper roots, agroforestry, adding organic materials to soils, and changing crop rotations ^[47]^[48]. In some scenarios carbon capture and storage also plays a significant role ^[49]^[50]

Still think this subsection is waaay too big. I'd like all bullet points to be reduced to about 2 words in a single sentence. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying for a solution - please respond to the following. I am ok with reducing the size of this subsection, but I think it’s important that there be a specific heading for this part, and that the text do two things: 1) help readers understand what is the thinking of the leading international organizations (IPCC, UNEP) on this, i.e. what could a 1.5C or 2C compliant world look like in 2050 in terms of how energy is generated/used, and 2) help readers understand the gist of IPCC SR 15 - Ch.2 Figure 2.15 & Table 2.6, UNEP 2019 - Table ES.3, and One Earth - Figure 5 (and their related texts), which strike me as three of the most authoritative recent depictions of the 2050 future. Will try to make edits to shorten this section while still meeting those two goals. Please let me know if you agree/disagree with this approach, or have other thoughts/suggestions. Dtetta (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's really important, and that UNEP and IPCC are the most authorative sources (not familiar with One Earth, and link doesn't seem to work for me). I think I can live with a shortened version, and trust your judgement here on specifics. If it comes up in the FAR that the article is too long, I will start thinking about this again.

Before shortening, you may want to include it as a new section in climate change mitigation. That article is a mess though :(. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about editing climate change mitigation as first step, but it seemed too daunting. Based on what the this portion of the GW article ends up looking like, I will try to figure out how to do some constructive edits there. Dtetta (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The One Earth Executive Summary is worth reading when you have a chance - it captures the gist of the various Teske references. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-030-05843-2%2F1.pdf. Dtetta (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and MeasuresV2

Note: divestment from fossil fuel resources could also be mentioned here.

There are a number of legal and policy approaches used to reduce greenhouse gases. Carbon pricing mechanisms include carbon taxes and Emissions Trading systems ^[51]. As of 2019, 57 national and subnational jurisdictions have instituted some form of carbon pricing. These mechanisms cover about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions^[52]. Renewable portfolio standards are another approach to reducing fossil fuel use that has a market component. Phasing out of fossil fuels subsidies, currently estimated at $300 billion globally (about twice the level of renewable energy subsidies)^[53], could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%^[54]. Subsidies could also be redirected to support the transition to clean energy^[55]

Technology controls that can reduce greenhouse gases include vehicle efficiency standards^[56], renewable fuel standards (although the effectiveness of these has been questioned)^[57], and air pollution regulations on heavy industry, which are also connected with greenhouse gas reductions^[58]. Policies that combine carbon pricing, RE support and a moratorium on burning coal could also be an effective measure.^[59]

As the use of fossil fuels is reduced, there are Just Transition considerations involving the social and economic challenges that arise. One of the key concerns is the employment of workers in the affected industries, along with the well-being of the broader communities involved ^[60]. Climate justice considerations are another important aspect of mitigation policies^[61].

ce: cites ofter full stops and commas.

Will edit accordingly.

ETS either fully capitalized or not. I prefer not.

Will edit.

Renewable portfolio standards are another approach to reducing fossil fuel use that has a market component. -> Don't understand, can leave out the words market component, as this is the less 'market-driven' approach / smart regulation approach?

Confused-need more info. If you take a look at the wikipedia entry, I think you’ll see that these standards work similarly to the way ETSs work. That’s all I’m trying to say in the sentence. Open to other ways of saying it. BTW, in California, these are seen as being more effective than the state’s ETS program in getting electric utilities to move away from fossil fuels. Suggestions for alternative wording appreciated

My reading (OR of course), is that it's less market-driven than ETS, because CCS is necessarily excluded from the mix. More importantly, we need a source if we wanna say it has a market-component. My opinion: All policies have a market component. Regulatory instruments often drive innovation, whereas price-controls (possibly including RTS) are possibly better for scale-up. If I understand correctly, it only works as a ETS if it is combined with energy credits.. It's annoying that this policy instrument has many different names; I was fully aware the EU was doing something like that, but because of the name I only associated it with the US, never linking the 20-20 (20% renewable energy in 2020 EU policy) with that term... To summarize, indeed leave out the marking component? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with leaving out the marketing component - will look for another brief way to distinguish them.Dtetta (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology controls -> jargon. Rephrase sentence without

Confused-need more info. Revised this once - I am trying to draw a distinction between the methods in this paragraph, which are prescriptive (you must do a,b or c), and the more “market based” methods in the first paragraph, which are seen as giving companies more flexibility as to how to reduce GHGs. Can you think of a better phrase that would draw out this distinction? I could just say “other methods”, but that doesn’t really capture the difference between the two approaches/paragraphs.

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. Glancing from Market-based environmental policy instruments, it seems that regulatory instruments may be an appropriate term, which is more intuitive to me, but may have negative connotations in the US? Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Regulatory instruments” still seems like jargon. I think I will play with trying to describe them just like I explained them to you - as more prescriptive approaches.Dtetta (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leave out the (although efficacy has been questioned) detail

Will do

(...) an effective measure -> Cite Mercure study (or other study)

Thanks for noticing that. My mistake, I had meant to include the Bertram cite, which is what that text is referring to, and which is in the list of references. I added that (currently showing as footnote #61) to the text yesterday.

Climate justice -> give example?

Will do

For the sake of brevity, fossil fuel divestment shouldn't be mentioned I believe. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. Dtetta (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Costs and benefitsV2

In the comments to the earlier version of this text, there were clear concerns about having this as a full section, and about the value of C/B analyses. It may be that this section will not be included in the final edit, and a simple sentence like the one at the end of the policies and measure section will be used. Thoughts on this would be helpful.

Determining the costs and benefits of achieving the greenhouse gas reductions necessary to limit global warming to 2C have a high degree of uncertainty, partly due to the ongoing reduction in the cost of renewable energy ^[62], and difficulties in predicting other costs ^[63]^[64]. The IPCC’s most recent overall estimates for limiting warming to 1.5 °C range from 1.38 to 3.25 trillion dollars annually through 2035 ^[65]; a recent estimate by the One Earth organization calculates the cost at $1.7 trillion per year ^[66].

There are a number of environmental, economic and social co-benefts, as well as some adverse side effects, associated with mitigating greenhouse gas emissions ^[67]. Health benefits alone are estimated to exceed costs^[68]^[69], with the WHO estimating that meeting Paris Agreement goals could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reduced air pollution, with health benefits estimated to be double the costs.^[70]. Dtetta (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CBA analysis terminology still quite prominent. Costs -> investments? Benefits -> Opportunities?

Some concern-additonal info would be helpful - I can try some alternative wording, but would love to see any large scale, widely supported work that uses a significantly different approach. Again, the recent EC C/B study for their 2030 plan, and a related EC page, seem to be talking in pretty traditional c/b terms, so am curious about the justification for alternative language.

If you click the link to the actual EC document, you'll see it contains a multidimensional impact assessment instead. At one point, it talks about costs and opportunities (which implies a dynamical economy), not benefits (typically assumes a roughly static economy). The word investment is mentioned 10 times, whereas costs are only mentioned five times. In section C, you see that the impact assessment is multi-dimensional. The documents talks about path-dependence ("towards a more sustainable path"), which is also typical of a dynamical understanding of the economy. When the word benefit is mentioned, it's often 'plain english', isntead of the technichal meaning. If it's the technical meaning, it's mostly in the sense of co-benefits. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I see what you’re talking about. Will work on revised language...I like the term “investments”, and will figure out how to restate “benefits”.Dtetta (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely cut One Earth sentence. Falls within the previous range, and is single study.

Will do.

with health benefits estimated to be double the costs. Pricing human lifes in quite Anglo-centric. EU has multidimensional way of looking at this, making this sentence somewhat riduculous. Cut clause after comma Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)?[reply]

Will do, but please note previous EU study I mention, with seems to show a fairly traditional C/B approach. The clause doesn’t seem ridiculous to me. Dtetta (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

IPCC (2018). "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC SR15 2018. pp. 3–24.
United Nations Environment Programme (2019). Emissions Gap Report 2019 (PDF). Nairobi. ISBN 978-92-807-3766-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
++ Teske, Sven (2019). "Renewable Energy Resource Assessment". In Teske, Sven (ed.). Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals. Springer International Publishing. pp. 161–173. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2_12. ISBN 9783030058432. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
IPCC (2014). "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC AR5 WG3 2014.

*++IEA (2019). World Energy Investment 2019 (Report). Paris. Retrieved 10 May 2020.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

++"New renewable energy capacity hit record levels in 2019". BBC. 26 April 2020. Retrieved 25 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
++REN21 (2019). Renewables 2019 Global Status Report (PDF). Paris: REN 21 Secretariat. ISBN 978-3-9818911-7-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
++Berrill, P.; Arvesen, A.; et al. (2016). "Environmental impacts of high penetration renewable energy scenarios for Europe". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (1). Retrieved 15 May 2020.
++"Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies". Union of Concerned Scientists. 5 March 2013. Retrieved 15 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
++"Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies". Union of Concerned Scientists. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 17 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

++ Roberts, D. (20 September 2019). "Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?". Vox. Retrieved 28 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

de Coninck, H.; Revi, A.; Babiker, M.; Bertoldi, P.; et al. (2018). "Chapter 4: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response" (PDF). IPCC SR15 2018. pp. 313–443.

++Geyer, R.; Stoms, D.; Kallaos, J. (2013). "Spatially-Explicit Life Cycle Assessment of Sun-to-Wheels Transportation Pathways in the U.S." Environmental Science Technology. 47 (2): 1170–1176. doi:10.1021/es302959h. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

++Moorthy, K.; Patwa, N.; Gupta, Y. (2019). "Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy". Heliyon. 5 (1). doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01166. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
++Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 (2019 edition) (PDF) (Report). IRENA. 2019. Retrieved 15 May 2020.

*++"Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration: Overview". Environmental Protection Agency. 17 January 2017. Retrieved 15 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

++Bui, M.; Adjiman, C.; Bardow, A. (2018). "Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward". Energy & Environmental Science. 11 (5): 1062–1176. doi:10.1039/c7ee02342a. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

++"World can likely capture and store enough carbon dioxide to meet climate targets". ScienceDaily. 21 May 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

++Levin, Kelly (8 August 2019). "How Effective Is Land At Removing Carbon Pollution? The IPCC Weighs In". World Resources institute. Retrieved 15 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Jia, G.; Shevliakova, E.; Artaxo, P. E.; De Noblet-Ducoudré, N.; et al. (2019). "Chapter 2: Land-Climate Interactions" (PDF). IPCC SRCCL 2019. pp. 131–247.

*"Reducing Your Transportation Footprint". Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Retrieved 18 December 2019.

++Ritchie, Hannah (24 January 2020). "You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local". Our World in Data. Retrieved 15 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

++Borunda, Alejandra (11 June 2019). "How can city dwellers help with climate change? Buy less stuff". National Geographic.

~~++"Climate change: Should you fly, drive or take the train?". BBC. 24 August 2019.~~

++Albeck-Ripka, Livia (1 January 2020). "How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint". New York TImes. Retrieved 31 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

++Druckman, A.; Jackson, T. (2016). "Understanding Households as Drivers of Carbon Emissions". In Clift, R.; Druckman, A. (eds.). Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology. Springer, Cham. pp. 181–203. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_9. ISBN 978-3-319-20571-7.

Rogelj, J.; Shindell, D.; Jiang, K.; Fifta, S.; et al. (2018). "Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development" (PDF). IPCC SR15 2018. pp. 93–174.
++Teske, Sven, ed. (2019). "Executive Summary". Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals: Global and Regional 100% Renewable Energy Scenarios with Non-energy GHG Pathways for +1.5 °C and +2 °C. Springer International Publishing. pp. xiii–xxxv. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2_12. ISBN 9783030058432.
Rogelj, J.; Shindell, D.; Jiang, K.; Fifta, S.; et al. (2018). "Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development" (PDF). IPCC SR15 2018. pp. 93–174.
++Teske, Sven (2019). "Trajectories for a Just Transition of the Fossil Fuel Industry". In Teske, Sven (ed.). Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals. Springer International Publishing. pp. 403–411. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2_12. ISBN 9783030058432. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
++Creutzig, F.; Cruz-Núñez, X.; D’Agosto, M.; Dimitriu, D.; et al. (2014). "Chapter 8: Transport" (PDF). IPCC AR5 WG3 2014.
++Lucon, O.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Ahmed, A.; Akbari, H.; et al. (2014). "Chapter 9: Buildings" (PDF). IPCC AR5 WG3 2014.
Rodgers, Lucy (17 December 2018). "Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about". BBC. Archived from the original on 17 December 2018.
++Fischedick, M.; Roy, J.; Abdel-Aziz, A.; Acquaye, A.; et al. (2014). "Chapter 10: Industry" (PDF). IPCC AR5 WG3 2014.
++"Carbon Pricing 101". Union of Concerned Scientists. 8 January 2017. Retrieved 15 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
++State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019 (PDF) (Report). Washington, DC: World Bank. June 2019. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1435-8.
Raising Ambition Through Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform: Greenhouse gas emissions results modelling from 26 countries (PDF) (Report). Geneva: Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. June 2019.
++Miller, J.; Du, L.; Kodjak, D. (2017). Impacts of World-Class Vehicle Efficiency and Emissions Regulations in Select G20 Countries (PDF) (Report). Washington, DC: The International Council on Clean Transportation.
++Schillaci, William (26 June 2019). "RFS Has Only a Small Impact on GHG Emissions". EHS Daily Advisor. Retrieved 15 May 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

++Oh, I.; Yoo, W.; Yoo, Y. (2019). "Impact and Interactions of Policies for Mitigation of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Korea". International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health. 16 (7): 1161. doi:10.3390/ijerph16071161. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Bertram, Christoph; Luderer, Gunnar; Pietzcker, Robert C.; Schmid, Eva; Kriegler, Elmar; Edenhofer, Ottmar (2015). "Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach". Nature Climate Change. 5 (3): 235–239. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..235B. doi:10.1038/nclimate2514. ISSN 1758-6798.

++Yeo, Sophie (4 Jan 2017). "Clean energy: The challenge of achieving a 'just transition' for workers". Carbon Brief. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
++Adams, B.; Luchsinger, G. (2009). Climate Justice for a Changing Planet: A Primer for Policy Makers and NGOs (PDF). UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS). ISBN 978-92-1-101208-8.

++Gillingham, K.; Stock, J. (2018). "The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 32 (4): 53–72. doi:10.1257/jep.32.4.53. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
++"How much will it cost to cut global greenhouse gas emissions?". London School of Economics and Political Science. 8 May 2018. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
++"One Earth Climate Model". One Earth Climate Model. University of Technology, Climate and Energy College, German Aerospace Center. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; Kadner, S.; et al. (2014). "Technical Summary" (PDF). IPCC AR5 WG3 2014.
++"Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals". World Health Organization. 5 December 2018. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
Sampedro, Jon; Smith, Steven J.; Arto, Iñaki; González-Eguino, Mikel; et al. (2020). "Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply". Environment International. 136: 105513. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105513. ISSN 0160-4120. PMID 32006762.

Rauner, Sebastian; Bauer, Nico; Dirnaichner, Alois; Van Dingenen, Rita; Mutel, Chris; Luderer, Gunnar (2020). "Coal-exit health and environmental damage reductions outweigh economic impacts". Nature Climate Change. 10 (4): 308–312. Bibcode:2020NatCC..10..308R. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0728-x. ISSN 1758-6798.

Adding effects to the summary at the beginning of the article

Craig and I would like to get effects visible earlier in the article, to try and present why the subject should matter to people. One option is shown here on the right hand side, which is transcluding the effects galleries into a sidebar gallery that we could put in the introduction. I currently have it showing the images in randomized order.

The gallery would fit beneath the temperature chart on the right hand side in desktop mode. In mobile view, the first 4 images of the slideshow would be shown immediately after the effects paragraph. The gallery would not replace the expanded effects galleries down below in the artile, it is simply putting the content of that gallery earlier in the article. As part of this change the greenhouse effect graphic would move down to physical drivers.

While sizing isn't perfect, it's pretty good, and one good thing is that the markup is simple even though it took a lot of trial and error to figure it out. Edit this page to review it.

Thoughts on making this change? Efbrazil (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work EfBrazil and RCraig09! This is a wonderful graphic, and it will be a nice touch to have an interactive feel at the start of the article. Just as a note, with the iPad I have that runs iOS 12 (mobile Safari browser), I can’t see the graphic at all in this post, even though I can see other right hand side graphics that are on this talk page. But in the iPad that now runs iOS 13, which Apple seems to have set up to run the full (desktop) Safari browser and not the mobile version, the graphic shows up fine. I’m guessing you both have tested this aspect, but thought I would let you know how it’s looking to me.Dtetta (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All kudos go to Efbrazil for the final idea and this implementation of a slideshow, which I think is preferable over my 21 April idea of a GIF. An extended dialectic has yielded an excellent result! Wikipedia makes inadequate use of multimedia, methinks, and this idea may, and should, spark new standards on the website, especially if the article becomes Featured.

• My iOS 13.4.1 / Safari browser shows and executes the slideshow fine in "desktop view" but it is invisible in "Mobile view"—same results for two iPads born in 2011 and 2016. Desktop: my old OSX 10.11.6 / Chrome 81.0 displays and executes it fine.

• Enlarging to width=25em makes the images more visible, with the same outside frame width as the existing upright=1.35 images at the top of the article. It also reduces the wasted space in the 'frame' of the slideshow.

• A downside is that the citations do not seem to appear to have survived the transclusion. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement!

It's a shame that citations are lost. I imagine that's intentional since content can be transcluded from other pages, so reused references may not be defined on the current page.

For platforms, I'm trusting how wikipedia chooses to handle transclusion galleries, and it looks like they are hidden on mobile. I think it is OK for it to be hidden since the content is still on the page, just further down. It is a shame that this will be a desktop-only experience, but it would be hard to get right on mobile anyhow- should the user see all 10 images at once, before the rest of the article, and then see them a second time down in the effects section? The odd thing is that the code says that the transclusion is supposed to show the first 4 images on mobile, but it doesn't, so maybe that's a bug somewhere.

Thanks for checking ipad, it's good it works on iOS13. iOS12 ipad is niche and fading so I'm not worried about that.

For the width, changing to 25em does bring it out of alignment with upright=1.35 images, for me at least. Craig- please double check that on your side- the width definition I'm using above is for the frame, so changing it takes it out of alignment with thumbnails. The way to zoom the contained image content without altering the frame width is by altering the left and right margins. Currently I have them set at -5, which I thought looked best. You can zoom content more by bumping left and right margins to something like -10 (zooming the content without impacting frame width), but then the image captions start to touch and overflow the frame border.

Keeping the caption narrower while the image zooms is difficult because the template doesn't provide customization mechanisms, not even the ability to use custom classes on the template. That means a fix requires doing something hard core, like making a universal change to the code for this widely used template or creating a new template version. Given that we're only talking like 5 pixels on either side of the image, I figured it wasn't worth the bother, but maybe if we want this to become popular site wide then the investment would be worth it. Thoughts?

So, good job immediately finding the issues I was hoping wouldn't be noticed :) Anything here you think we should push further on before making this change? Efbrazil (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that older iOS versions are increasingly becoming niche situations. I don’t have much experience with Android devices, but I looked at a few articles, and it seems that Android tablets are also moving towards full desktop type browsing in Chrome. So the mobile browser limits on tablets should become less of an issue over time for this kind of graphic gallery.Dtetta (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... when I replace the the GHEffect svg with the entire 22.4em sidebar code and view the preview, the outer edge of the frame displays a bit narrower than the two top images. Increasing to 25em puts them into alignment for me, including when I enlarge or reduce the view with Apple's Command+ and Command- and Command0 key combinations. (Edit the entire page, not just the lead, to avoid a "No image found" error message in preview.) I think exact framing thickness etc. is secondary to large image size; I think it's best to proceed boldly on the presumption that if there is a minor presentation problem, someone will find a solution. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, yeah, trying to match thumbnail sizing is really ugly. It's based on a combination of your preferences and screen resolution. They say it's usually 220px width, but I never changed my settings and my values were (very) different from that- I was defaulting to 180, but now I see 220 after resetting to defaults. Maybe preferences get locked when you create an account on wikipedia? To see your values, go to "Thumbnail size" under Preferences → Appearance → Files. Do a reset on all preferences and see what Wikipedia now looks like to new users! Then there's the issue of screen resolution scaling on top of that.

So, I implemented a hackaround- I insert an image, hide it, and then size the gallery to the hidden image. The trouble then is that if you click another image in the page and then use the right / left directional arrows to go through all images, you'll see the image that was hidden. To work around THAT, I stuffed in a fallback image in the hidden location. Take a look at right for the complete effect, which is better for the user but significantly further into the hacker world.

Maybe we post this version into the article, then I reach out to the template authors and see if they (or I) can't fix the template to work more elegantly in the sidebar? Efbrazil (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand basically what you did (though I wouldn't know how!). Regardless, now the lead images are perfectly aligned on my desktop (without my changing any defaults), and the photos themselves are altogether decently sized. Result: success!

(Sad-face) Things are upright=1.35 rather than the old 1.5; maybe for the lead there could be 1.5 but keep 1.35 in the body to prevent crowding problems. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Regarding little sad face thing, 1.35 is the largest allowed size for images in the summary section, so I think we keep things 1.35 everywhere- particularly after resetting my defaults and seeing the Wikipedia now defaults to larger thumbnail sizes. Efbrazil (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Efbrazil: were you ever able to incorporate this gallery into the article? Dtetta (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! On desktop it's the third thumbnail, last in the summary section, next to the table of contents. It is invisible on mobile devices last I checked. Efbrazil (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Looks great! And, it’s visible on both my ipads running ios 13, though not the iphone.(I was mistakenly looking in the effects section)Dtetta (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Coral Reef Risk Outlook". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 4 April 2020. At present, local human activities, coupled with past thermal stress, threaten an estimated 75 percent of the world's reefs. By 2030, estimates predict more than 90% of the world's reefs will be threatened by local human activities, warming, and acidification, with nearly 60% facing high, very high, or critical threat levels.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Carbon Brief, 7 January 2020.
^ Cite error: The named reference Turetsky 2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ IPCC AR5 WG2 Ch28 2014, p. 30:Within 50 to 70 years, loss of hunting habitats may lead to elimination of polar bears from seasonally ice-covered areas, where two-thirds of their world population currently live.
^ "What a changing climate means for Rocky Mountain National Park". National Park Service. Retrieved 9 April 2020. A greater number of mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) survive the winter season, contributing to a longer and more severe pine beetle outbreak that is changing the landscape on trails and in campgrounds throughout the park.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Serdeczny et al. 2016.
^ Porter, J.R., et al., Section 7.5: Adaptation and Managing Risks in Agriculture and Other Food System ActivitiesIPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014, pp. 513–520
^ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "What is nuisance flooding?". Retrieved April 8, 2020.
^ Kabir et al. 2016.
^ Van Oldenborgh et al. 2019.
^ IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, pp. 13–15
^ IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, p. 15.
^ United Nations Environment Programme 2019, Table ES1.
^ United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 46
^ Teske 2019, p. 163, Table 7.1
^ IPCC AR5 WG3 Summary for Policymakers 2014, p. 20
^ United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. XXIV, Fig.ES.5
^ The Guardian, 26 April 2020
^ REN21 2019, p. 31, Fig.1
^ Environmental Research Letters, 27 Jan 2016
^ United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 46
^ Vox, 20 September 2019
^ Union of Concerned Scientists, 5 March 2013
^ IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 324–325
^ Geyer, Stoms & Kallaos 2013
^ Union of Concerned Scientists, 20 December 2017; IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 324–326, Table 4.11; Moorthy, Patwa & Gupta 2019
^ IRENA 2019, pp. 48–49
^ IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 326–327
^ Bui, Adjiman & Bardow 2018, p. 1068; ScienceDaily, 21 May 2020
^ World Resources Institute & August 2019: IPCC SRCCL Ch2 2019, pp. 189–193
^ IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 327–330
^ New York Times, 1 January 2020; Druckman & Jackson 2016, Fig.9.3
^ IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help)
^ Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals 2019, p. xxiii
^ United Nations Environment Programme 2019, Table ES.3
^ Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals 2019, p. xxvii, Fig.5
^ IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 131, Figure 2.15 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help)
^ Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals-Chapter 9 2019, pp. 409–410
^ IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, pp. 142–144 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help)
^ United Nations Environment Programme 2019, Table ES.3 & p.49
^ IPCC AR5 WG3 Ch8 2014, 613-616
^ IPCC AR5 WG3 Ch9 2014, pp. 686–694
^ BBC, 17 December 2018.
^ IPCC AR5 WG3 Ch10 2014, pp. 753–762
^ IRENA 2019, p. 49
^ IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, p. 17.
^ World Resources Institute & August 2019
^ IPCC SRCCL Ch2 2019, pp. 189–193
^ IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, p. 14
^ IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 326–327.
^ Union of Concerned Scientists, 8 January 2017
^ World Bank, June 2019, p. 12, Box 1
^ REN21 2019, p. 34
^ International Institute for Sustainable Development: Subsidy Reform 2019, p. iv
^ International Institute for Sustainable Development 2019.
^ ICCT 2019, p. iv
^ EHS Daily Advisor, June 2019
^ Oh, Yoo & Yoo 2019
^ Bertram et al. 2015
^ Carbon Brief, 4 Jan 2017
^ UNCTAD 2009
^ United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. XXIV, Table ES.1.
^ Gillingham & Stock 2018.
^ London School of Economics, 8 May 2018
^ IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, p. 373
^ One Earth Climate Model 2019
^ IPCC AR5 WG3 Technical Summary 2014, Tables 4,5,6,7 & 8
^ Sampedro et al. 2020
^ Rauner et al. 2020
^ WHO, 5 December 2018
^ Kevin E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo (5 October 2016). "Insights into Earth's Energy Imbalance from Multiple Sources". Journal of Climate. 29 (20): 7495–7505. Bibcode:2016JCli...29.7495T. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0339.1.

add WaPo RSs, since 2020 Pulitzer items?

Staff of The Washington Post; For a groundbreaking series that showed with scientific clarity the dire effects of extreme temperatures on the planet Pulitzer.org 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting

X1\ (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

new research on heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance spreading, add?

Jonathan Lambert, Deadly temperatures expected to arrive later this century are already here; Global weather station data show dangerously hot and humid days are becoming much more common 8 May 2020 Science News
"The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance". Science Advances. 6 (19). 8 May 2020. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw1838. Retrieved 9 May 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/08/hot-humid-extremes-unsurvivable-global-warming
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/08/climate-change-global-heating-extreme-heat-humidity
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/weather/killer-heat-climate-change-study/index.html
Tim McDonnell Potentially lethal heat waves are more common than scientists thought May 8, 2020 Qz.com
Jan Wesner Childs Unsurvivable Heat Was Predicted to Blast Earth in the Future. Instead, It's Happening Now. 7 May 2020 Weather.com

X1\ (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture candidate for lead image

I submitted the lead picture as a featured picture candidate here, upvotes appreciated: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Change in average temperature over the last 50 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efbrazil (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A shame it didn't make it. Hope we can get some other picture featured. Picture has improved further though, thanks! Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Jesus. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

In the third graph, please replace the unclear title

"Global temperature in the Common Era"

with the clear title

"Global temperature since AD 1"

Likewise in the figure legend, please replace the unclear text

"Global surface temperature reconstruction over the last millennia using proxy data"

with the specific text

"Global surface temperature reconstruction since AD 1 using proxy data"

In the longer term, please justify why the Wikipedia climate graphs start with the birth of Christ. More pertinently, the temperature graphs shoud start with the end of the last ice age 11,500 years ago.

Thank you. 86.161.81.81 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Powell2019-1] Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.

[WMO-FAQS-2] "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.

[3] Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)

[4] Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[5] Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[6] Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[7] Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[8] "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.

[9] Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.

[10] The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.

[11] "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.

[12] Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.

[13] The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.

[14] "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link]}

[15] Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.

[16] Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.

[17] Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.

[18] Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.

[19] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[20] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[21] Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[22] Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[23] Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[24] Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[25] Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[26] Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.

[27] Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.

[28] "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.

[29] Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

[FOOTNOTENASA:_The_Causes_of_Climate_Change2019-30] NASA: The Causes of Climate Change 2019.

[FOOTNOTENCA4:_Climate_Science_Special_Report2017-31] NCA4: Climate Science Special Report 2017.

[FOOTNOTEIPCC_SROCC_Summary_for_Policymakers20196-32] IPCC SROCC Summary for Policymakers 2019, p. 6.

[FOOTNOTENASA:_The_Study_of_Earth_as_an_Integrated_System2016-33] NASA: The Study of Earth as an Integrated System 2016.

[34] "Coral Reef Risk Outlook". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 4 April 2020. At present, local human activities, coupled with past thermal stress, threaten an estimated 75 percent of the world's reefs. By 2030, estimates predict more than 90% of the world's reefs will be threatened by local human activities, warming, and acidification, with nearly 60% facing high, very high, or critical threat levels.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[35] Carbon Brief, 7 January 2020.

[Turetsky_2019-36] Cite error: The named reference Turetsky 2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[37] IPCC AR5 WG2 Ch28 2014, p. 30:Within 50 to 70 years, loss of hunting habitats may lead to elimination of polar bears from seasonally ice-covered areas, where two-thirds of their world population currently live.

[38] "What a changing climate means for Rocky Mountain National Park". National Park Service. Retrieved 9 April 2020. A greater number of mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) survive the winter season, contributing to a longer and more severe pine beetle outbreak that is changing the landscape on trails and in campgrounds throughout the park.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[39] Serdeczny et al. 2016.

[40] Porter, J.R., et al., Section 7.5: Adaptation and Managing Risks in Agriculture and Other Food System ActivitiesIPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014, pp. 513–520

[NOAAnuisance-41] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "What is nuisance flooding?". Retrieved April 8, 2020.

[42] Kabir et al. 2016.

[43] Van Oldenborgh et al. 2019.

[44] IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, pp. 13–15

[45] IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, p. 15.

[46] United Nations Environment Programme 2019, Table ES1.

[47] United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 46

[48] Teske 2019, p. 163, Table 7.1

[49] IPCC AR5 WG3 Summary for Policymakers 2014, p. 20

[50] United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. XXIV, Fig.ES.5

[51] The Guardian, 26 April 2020

[52] REN21 2019, p. 31, Fig.1

[53] Environmental Research Letters, 27 Jan 2016

[54] United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 46

[55] Vox, 20 September 2019

[56] Union of Concerned Scientists, 5 March 2013

[57] IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 324–325

[58] Geyer, Stoms & Kallaos 2013

[59] Union of Concerned Scientists, 20 December 2017; IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 324–326, Table 4.11; Moorthy, Patwa & Gupta 2019

[60] IRENA 2019, pp. 48–49

[61] IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 326–327

[62] Bui, Adjiman & Bardow 2018, p. 1068; ScienceDaily, 21 May 2020

[63] World Resources Institute & August 2019: IPCC SRCCL Ch2 2019, pp. 189–193

[64] IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 327–330

[65] New York Times, 1 January 2020; Druckman & Jackson 2016, Fig.9.3

[66] IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help)

[67] Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals 2019, p. xxiii

[68] United Nations Environment Programme 2019, Table ES.3

[69] Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals 2019, p. xxvii, Fig.5

[70] IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 131, Figure 2.15 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help)

[71] Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals-Chapter 9 2019, pp. 409–410

[72] IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, pp. 142–144 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help)

[73] United Nations Environment Programme 2019, Table ES.3 & p.49

[74] IPCC AR5 WG3 Ch8 2014, 613-616

[75] IPCC AR5 WG3 Ch9 2014, pp. 686–694

[76] BBC, 17 December 2018.

[77] IPCC AR5 WG3 Ch10 2014, pp. 753–762

[78] IRENA 2019, p. 49

[79] IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, p. 17.

[80] World Resources Institute & August 2019

[81] IPCC SRCCL Ch2 2019, pp. 189–193

[82] IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers 2018, p. 14

[83] IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 326–327.

[84] Union of Concerned Scientists, 8 January 2017

[85] World Bank, June 2019, p. 12, Box 1

[86] REN21 2019, p. 34

[87] International Institute for Sustainable Development: Subsidy Reform 2019, p. iv

[88] International Institute for Sustainable Development 2019.

[89] ICCT 2019, p. iv

[90] EHS Daily Advisor, June 2019

[91] Oh, Yoo & Yoo 2019

[92] Bertram et al. 2015

[93] Carbon Brief, 4 Jan 2017

[94] UNCTAD 2009

[95] United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. XXIV, Table ES.1.

[96] Gillingham & Stock 2018.

[97] London School of Economics, 8 May 2018

[98] IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, p. 373

[99] One Earth Climate Model 2019

[100] IPCC AR5 WG3 Technical Summary 2014, Tables 4,5,6,7 & 8

[101] Sampedro et al. 2020

[Rauner_2020-102] Rauner et al. 2020

[103] WHO, 5 December 2018

[104] Kevin E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo (5 October 2016). "Insights into Earth's Energy Imbalance from Multiple Sources". Journal of Climate. 29 (20): 7495–7505. Bibcode:2016JCli...29.7495T. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0339.1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]