Talk:Climate sensitivity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconEnvironment GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-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

Did you know

I'm quite confident the article will pass the GA nomination (or in the worst case, the next one), so will start preparing for a WP:Did you know.

  1. ... that climate scientist can estimate climate sensitivity to CO2 by studying how much climate changed in Earth's past.[1]

Please leave a comment if you'd like a different fact or a rewording.

References

  1. ^ McSweeney, Robert (2015-02-04). "What a three-million year fossil record tells us about climate sensitivity". Carbon Brief. Retrieved 2019-09-28.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Climate sensitivity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stingray Trainer (talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I will take on the GA review for this article.

Stingray Trainer (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Criteria:


A) Well written:

There is no doubt that the article is very well-written. I have found no issues with spelling and grammar, it is suitably concise given the wide remit of the article and is suitably divided into sections that facilitate understanding. However, the article is pitched at a highly technical level and cannot be said to be accessible or probably understandable to a broad audience - I can't see it currently being in line with Wikipedia guidelines on making technical articles accessible, specifically that the lead section does not give a suitable overview of what the article entails, and the 'rules of thumb' are not met (WP:MTAU). It really needs someone with a good understanding of the topic to make it more accessible to the average reader - this does not need to over-simplify what is clearly a technical subject, but does need to make it accessible enough so people don't abandon reading after the first paragraph. FAIL.
  • I agree that the lead can be improved and have found some other sources doing a better job at introducing the topic than me. I will improve the lede in the next couple of days. Were there particular topics outside of the lede that you think might be made more accessible? I've had User:Chidgk1 help already by identifying various difficult to understand bits, and with some pointers, I'm sure we can do even more! Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


On the whole the article appears to be compliant with WP:MOS, with the exception of the lead sections. The opening section does not comply with the lead paragraph guidance and is not really and introduction and overview of the article. It starts by identifying the topic, but doesn't then really establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarise the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It really needs to be restructured to be more of an introduction, with the current text moved into the proper body of the article. Fail.
  • I agree. I will make it more accessible and have some ideas how to do this. Bear with me, should be fixed before the end of the week.
  • Femkemilene & Chidgk1 I feel that the changed lead section/intro now makes the article topic more accessible to the casual reader who has dug this deep. I am now content that it is compliant as far as my knowledge goes with WP:MOS. PASS


B) Verifiable with no original research:

One of the best and most comprehensibly referenced articles I have read. Clearly an academic approach to the writing. Citation is consistent and comprehensive. One dead link on the IPCC(2013) source needs correcting. Probably well on the way to FA standard. PASS.
See above. PASS.
I see no sign of original research, just well-cited academic sources. PASS.
I see no signs of obvious plagiarism or copyright violations. The Wiki tools indicate plagiarism is unlikely @16%. If I was being cynical I would suggest that the article reads like extracts from a book or journal, but that might just be because it was written by someone with a comprehensive knowledge of the subject. PASS.

C) Broad in its coverage:

# The article remains within scope and does not drift into other outlying areas of the topic - if anything it is too 'within scope' and therefore technical. However, the scope could be better articulated in the intro (see point A) 2). There is no Wiki 'out of scope' policy that has been agreed, so these currently is not a reason to fail. PASS.
I recently found some article linking climate sensitivity to the Paris agreement, and will add this to the last section. I will try and think of other aspects to add. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article remains focused on the topic. It is a detailed account of the subject, but not one that feels too long or detailed for the interested party - However this probably falls under the 'technical' issue as well and a better intro would be a bonus and summarise the knowledge for the casual visitor. It does not need to be divided into sub categories and feels an appropriate division of the 'radiative forcing' page. PASS.

D) Neutral:

  • It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
It is a scientific article. I can't imagine there is a viable contrary view to this knowledge. PASS.

E) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article is edited by registered members and clearly has active engagement. PASS.

F) Illustrated; If possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The charts are clearly marked with copyright and free to use information. PASS.
Media is relevant and useful to illustrate the information. If anything, simpler and more images would add to the value and make it more accessible. PASS.
I've made a third figure in which I try to capture climate sensitivity in a simple way. Any feedback is welcome. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

  • This article fails to meet the criteria for GA status. It fails the well written category of the GA criteria (WP:GAFAIL])
  • It is a very well written article and is clearly the passionate work of a number of authoritative figures on the subject. The failures are slightly pedantic (on my part) and relate to the technical nature of the writing and the lack of accessibility.
  • Relatively minor work on the structure and introduction would make this article exceed GA status.
  • Much of the research, writing and citation is of FA quality - sterling effort in my opinion.
  • However, I will be asking for a second opinion as the failure is of a technical nature and not totally clear. Another opinion would add value and validate (or disprove) my points. I will mark the article for a second opinion and they will pass judgement. Good luck.
Thank you for your detailed review. Alternative to asking for a second opinion, you could put the article on hold. You made it very clear which points need addressing, and I agree with you that they need addressing. I will be able to do so within a week. Possibly it isn't necessary to ask some other volunteer's time. Of course, it is your call and I don't want to pressure you in making a decision you are not comfortable with. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Stingray Trainer (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stringray Trainer: I'd recommend that this article be put on hold. Failing is generally only an option with extreme situations, and most articles aren't 100% GA-ready at the start of the review. The issues with this article aren't so massive that they are not readily fixable, and the nominator has expressed a desire to fix the issues. I'd recommend placing it on hold for a week or so to give the nominator a chance to get it up to standards. Hog Farm (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stringray Trainer and Femkemilene: As Femkemilene is one of the subject experts, if it is OK with you both as a layperson I can take on most of the work of fixing this if you like - with Femkemilene just responding to any scientific questions I may have and doing a final check to make sure I have not messed up any of the meaning.Chidgk1 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, that works for me. I think with the new figure added, the most important part is getting information from the first paragraph of the lede to the first section of the article and replacing it with normal-people speak. I would like to have the last section of the article further extended, but I'm not sure with what information.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As there is clearly an active community of editors I have changed the status to on-hold. I'm fairly new to the whole GA review thing and more than happy to work with people to get this over the line. If the article could just be made a little more accessible it would be excellent - I'm pretty familiar with the subject matter but even so found it hard going at times. In my opinion the perfect article is one that helps the high-school student answer their homework question by reading the intro, and gives the university student the starting point for more detailed/technical research. Stingray Trainer (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). And I agree about accessibility, and often make that one of the more important points of my reviews. Apart from the introduction, were there any other specific sections or sentences you found difficult to follow? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'Using industrial-age data' paragraph could use some simplification. There is always the balance between too little information and too much. Personally I think the equations and examples worked through will bamboozle 95% of people who read them (and arguably people who can do the maths/need to do it probably are not reading the Wiki). However, given the technical nature of the whole article I would not say that it is a problem if it cannot be simplified easily, especially if the lead paragraph makes up for it and gives the casual reader what they need. Stingray Trainer (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1, I can rewrite the industrial-age data section. As that is quite technical, maybe best if I have a shot at simplifying first?
Yes you are right, from a few minutes browsing it seems that a high school geography homework question for an older student might well ask for a simple explanation of climate sensitivity.

So I guess I should:

1) Draft a new lede focusing on CO2 and feedback and avoiding using the term "radiative forcing". Correct me if I am wrong but I understand the common (school) use of the term is the one measured simply in degrees C so I guess the lede should concentrate on that for people who only read the lede.

2) Move the current first paragraph down to make a new first section titled "Definition".

3) Merge the current second paragraph into the "different forms of climate sensitivity" section.

4) Merge the current third paragraph into the "estimating climate sensitivity" section.

5) Think about the body of the article.

If that sounds right no need to reply.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes! The recent addition of the Paris agreement could be added into the lede for instance for context.
2) Yes!
3 & 4) I think that those paragraphs are sort of essential, as a big part of the article is about this and therefore the lede should summarize it. My feel is that more minor simplification might be enough, but the reviewer here is of course the person to ask.
5) Yes! Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have written some text in my sandbox which might begin the lede.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. Much of the science is a bit too approximate for my taste (and one or two mistakes).. Maybe it would be better if I do the first attempt and for you to adjust the sentences? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the current lede. I really believe the concept of Value of information is over-the-top difficult to include in a lede. I also haven't included a sentence in the direction of: "As of 2020, estimates for the total temperature rise after a doubling of carbon dioxide, that is the climate sensitivity, range from 2.6 °C to 4.1 °C", which I can't quite place, but I suspect comes from an individual study. I'm okay with other aspects being added later. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is better than my sandbox version and also better than the original. But I have some questions/suggestions:

1) I checked the cite for the statement lower down the article that "Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6 to 4.1 °C ..." and it is dated 2008. I think an estimated figure should be included in the lede - presumably the 1.5 to 4.5 °C IPCC figure?

2) The cite for: "If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of what scientists estimate, it will likely be impossible to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2.0 °C." only has the abstract for free. In case the hypothetical high school kids don't want to pay 9 euros to read the whole paper is it allowed to quote the relevant sentence in the body of this article with more explanation? Or maybe there is some already and I missed it. Perhaps something to do with timelags in the feedbacks? Or maybe to do with overshooting causing feedbacks before CO2 removal - if so maybe there should be a link to carbon budget and full explanation there? If we are really sure that statement relates to the 4.5 figure and can solidly cite it then it could be good for "did you know".

3) Would it be a good idea to change "associated with" to "caused by"?

4) "and is not very well known" will of course no longer be true once this article is good!

5) I like that you added a clause to explain "radiative forcing". I wonder if it would be oversimplifying to change "the difference between incoming and outgoing energy on Earth" to "the sunlight that hits the Earth and is trapped as heat rather than returning to space". Maybe I should keep that for a new "Simple English" article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)

1) We could add the IPCC range, I don't mind either way. I've deleted the 2008 estimate from the historical estimates section. Later in the article the current range is already mentioned (1.8 - 5.7 or smth).
2) I will rename the last section (socio-economic implications) into something like 'background', 'climate change' or 'climate change policy' and add from your sandbox the information about how much CO2 has risen so far. It'll then make sense to have this as the first section. I'll add a line of extra information about two studies, the Paris one and the one about value of information.
3) I've thought about it. For me, adding 'caused by' makes it less clear that climate sensitivity is a number.
4) Haha, that sentence was ambiguous. I meant that the value of climate sensitivity was not well known. I'll add some information about feedbacks and clarify.
5) I don't like spending too much time on that definition in the first paragraph of the lede. There is a section about radiative forcing in the article. Maybe we can simplify that one instead? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK great I will read it again once you have edited to see if I understand how it is possible we might have already overshot (or inevitably overshoot) the 2 degrees Paris limit if the sensitivity is large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)

Stingray Trainer and Chidgk1: I've finished editing for now. Please tell me whether there are still things too difficult, or unclear. @Chidgk1: about overshooting, the paper doesn't explicitly say so, but it's a combination of technological inertia, feedbacks in the carbon cycle, the ocean now working as buffer and climate feedbacks that may become more destabilizing over time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene I have had a look and re-wrote a bit of the intro. I wanted it to be really clear what Climate sensitivity is and felt that it was still not clear, and a little over the top for the intro. I added in a Met office website source, which was a lot more accessible for the casual reader. Have a look and see what you think. I now feel the intro nicely covers the topic for both casual and more scientific viewer, and is WP|Lead compliant. I also removed the last sentence from the intro - I don't think it adds value there and really needs to be in the more detailed parts later. Please check that my simplification has not made any incorrect points. I will have a read through the rest when I can find more time. Stingray Trainer (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've further expanded on your work. I agree that last sentence wasn't needed per se and quite difficult. The level of informality you introduced was a bit too much, with the word 'we' being quite off-limit, so I reversed those additions. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene I have altered the decision of the WP:MOS point to a Pass. The changes to the lead now make it more accessible. However, I am still concerned that the rest of the article is rather technical. I appreciate that this is a fairly technical subject by itself (and is a 'deep' or graduate article within climate change (i.e. an average reader probably wouldn't end up here)), but it still needs a bit of work to be easily understandable. Specifically it still struggles with WP:MTAU points on 'put technical bits up front, 'write one level down' (I think you may be - but you're a PhD researcher...), 'explain' the formulae in English' and 'avoid overly technical language'. However, I am also conscious of not trying to 'over-simplfy' the subject. My environmental years are some way behind me and I may be a little rusty at reading technical subjects (and the maths was never my strong point!), but I feel it just needs a little more development. However, as previously stated I may be marking hard and over-doing it for GA status. So many bits of this are of FA standard it feels i'm being a little picky and blurring the lines between the two somewhat. Happy to discuss and seek others inputs as always. Stingray Trainer (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried adding an example+picture in the more difficult section of 'state dependence', and simplified the text around the equations, so that people don't really have to follow the maths anymore. Aiming for a first year undergraduate at university is probably appropriate for most of the article. Which sections or sentences do you feel are not yet of this level? Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another read through from start to finish and this has given me a much better chance to really see the changes and actually grasp what is being said. Specifically I have just a couple of points for refinement:
  • The unit (W/M2) is referred to in the third paragraph and then again quite a bit in 'using industrial age data'. I had taken this to mean warming per m2, but is it actually temperature change per M2? Firstly, I don't think it is actually stated in the text what the W stands for. Later on there is a negative W/M2, and then again comments about solar irradiance being 0.9W/M2 brighter during solar maximum - maybe just clarify what W is and the language used here to avoid confusion.
  • I agree that the maths in the 'using industrial data' adds value , but think that minor tweaks to the layout will make it better. Personally I prefer it to be more clearly defined as to what everything means - a good examples is at the section MOS:FNOF (either style would work for me). Minor tweaks will really improve the accessibility of this section.
  • The last sentence in 'other strategies' lost me. I assume inertia is in reference to the time lag before change is seen, and lower bound refers to lower estimates of W/M2 in TCS, but could you please just confirm and maybe make this sentence more clear.
  • The second paragraph of the 'Climate models' gets very specific to the paper referenced. Not a problem, but please clarify '1.8–5.6 K across 27 GCMs and exceeding 4.5 K in 10 of them' - what is K (kelvin??) and what are 27 GCMs?
  • In the final section on constrained models you refer to bottom-up modelling. Is this what you describe in the following section ('using an ensemble of the best models;)? If so, maybe move the first sentence to the end and conclude with: 'this is known as bottom-up climate modelling'. Again, if I got the wrong end of the stick then please clarify.
I think those are really my only remaining points. I think the article is now very accessible to at least undergraduate level and includes enough in the intro to satisfy the lay-person. One last push to make those final changes and it should be there. Good luck. Stingray Trainer (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've explained the unit in three different locations. From your other comment I gathered that this was really essential to get across.
  • The explanation was largely in that style, right? I added the abbreviation for ocean heat uptake.
  • Tried to explain better. Is it clear now?
  • The paper reviews a worldwide community effort of developing these models. Made clear it's not just a single paper, wrote out the easier (albeit less used) of the two things GCM can be an abbreviation for and changed kelvin into celsius. Also removed unreferenced consequence of high ECS + small error.
  • The word bottom-up wasn't necessary, so I removed it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Ver.2.0

Following the extensive modifications that have been made to this article I am pleased to report that it has PASSED the GA review. Rather than create a new page I will summarise the final review below - that way anyone linking to the GA review will be able to see the original, and then this summary together without issues of version control:

A) Well written:

There is no doubt that the article is very well-written. I have found no issues with spelling and grammar, it is suitably concise given the wide remit of the article and is suitably divided into sections that facilitate understanding. The article is now accessible to a broad audience at undergraduate level, and has a suitable introduction for those of a lower knowledge who stumbled here. The changes made make the flow of the article much better. PASS.
On the whole the article appears to be compliant with WP:MOS, including the lead section which has been widely improved. PASS.

B) Verifiable with no original research:


One of the best and most comprehensibly referenced articles I have read. Clearly an academic approach to the writing. Citation is consistent and comprehensive. Probably well on the way to FA standard. PASS.
See above. PASS.
I see no sign of original research, just well-cited academic sources. PASS.
I see no signs of obvious plagiarism or copyright violations. The Wiki tools indicate plagiarism is unlikely @16%. If I was being cynical I would suggest that the article reads like extracts from a book or journal, but that might just be because it was written by someone with a comprehensive knowledge of the subject. PASS.

C) Broad in its coverage:

# The article remains within scope and does not drift into other outlying areas of the topic. It is tied in well with other sub-topics and areas around climate change. PASS.
  1. The article remains focused on the topic. It is a detailed account of the subject, but not one that feels too long or detailed for the interested party. PASS.

D) Neutral:

  • It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
It is a scientific article. I can't imagine there is a viable contrary view to this knowledge. PASS.

E) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article is edited by registered members and clearly has active engagement. PASS.

F) Illustrated; If possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The charts are clearly marked with copyright and free to use information. PASS.
Media is relevant and useful to illustrate the information. The addition of extra media and the improve captions have made it more accessible. PASS.

Conclusion

  • This article PASSES the criteria for GA status. The wide ranging improvements addressed all the concerns made.
  • It is a very well written article and is clearly the passionate work of a number of authoritative figures on the subject.
  • Relatively minor work on the structure and introduction would make this article exceed GA status.
  • Much of the research, writing and citation is of FA quality - sterling effort in my opinion.
  • Congratulations to Femkemilene and all the others involved for their hard work. I have altered the required headers to GA status. By the powers invested in me by myself as the GA reviewer, I nominate all authors to use the GA Topicon for Climate Sensitivity as they desire. Stingray Trainer (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Femkemilene (talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • reviewed:Not needed
  • Article being actively worked on; see talk page. HLHJ (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And article work is now finished (other round of copy-edit + removal of jargon). Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed now that the article work has been completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking hook with too many "climates" in it. Yoninah (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a new GA, it's is long enough, it is well sourced. At the time of its nomination it was new enough. I am okay with the hook. There is no QPQ. --evrik (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is my second DYK, I don't need a QPQ yet, I don't think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but several paragraphs and one overlong caption need citations, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, and also clarified sentences that were tagged. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Restoring tick per evrik's review. Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What should the short description be?

I think this is tricky because there seems to be more than one definition of "climate sensitivity" so should it include both?Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The two most common definitions (TCR and ECS) are about doubling of CO2. ESS is sometimes defined for doubling as well, but can be used generally as well I believe. The climate sensitivity parameter, however, is any increase of forcing. Maybe stick to the more general definition? Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

Requested copy edit

A copy edit of this article was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests on February 19. I accepted the request and worked on the citation templates and convert templates, but I decided to wait on a full copy edit while other improvements were discussed and implemented. The article has been improved significantly, and since it has been pretty quiet around here for a few days, I am going to begin a full copy edit of the article. Please bear with me and discuss here if I change something that you don't like; if you change it back right away, we will no doubt have edit conflicts, which are no fun for anyone.

I will post here if I have any questions and when I am done. Thanks for your patience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. I see some of my Dunglish being polished away. We now have two section with definitions however (measures of climate sensitivity & definitions), and possibly the most important words 'equilibrium climate sensitivity' disappeared from the lede. I think having those two terms (ECS/TCR) in the lede was better before. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I will revisit the lead after I get through the rest of the article. With long articles, I find it easiest to edit the lead after I have seen the whole text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted a shorter version of the definitions in the lead. As with all leads, it is best to save the details for the full article, but if I have left out anything crucial, please modify as you see fit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and questions from copy editor

Questions for talk page watchers:

  1. Was "Applications" the right title for the section immediately under "Background"? I changed this section heading and put the two sections in a more logical order, since radiative forcing is explained in one section and then referred to in the other.
  2. In general, are the section heading titles reasonable? I sometimes had trouble justifying the titles after reading the sections, but I didn't want to change all of them.
  3. I have commented out a section under "Contributors to climate sensitivity". Do we still need it? If so, it is not well explained. Maybe it belongs in a footnote or in a different part of the article.
  4. I did not find the section "Effective climate sensitivity" to be informative at all. I read the definition of it in the Annex III Glossary, and I was left similarly unenlightened about the meaning or usefulness of this measure. Do we need to include it? If so, we should provide at least one example of why we are mentioning it at all.
  5. Re Sensitivity to nature of the forcing: This section says that aerosols are "more effective" than CO2 at warming, but what does that mean? More effective per ton emitted into the atmosphere? This section needs a more thorough explanation of what it is trying to communicate.
  6. I have removed the block of text immediately below the heading "Estimating climate sensitivity"; it appeared to be redundant. If there is some nuance that I missed in that section, the ideas in it should probably be incorporated into another relevant section instead of being restored wholesale.
  7. I have left behind some {{clarify}} templates. Do whatever you like with them. If I am just missing a clearly stated point in a particular case, feel free to remove the corresponding template.
  8. James Hansen's estimate for climate sensitivity is provided, but I was unable to locate a source or a year for his number in the article. A citation should be provided.

More to come. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my copy edit. I put in a couple more {{clarify}} templates and maybe one or two other questions. I will watch this page for a while in case any of you have questions about my editing choices. If I made any clear errors, jump right in and fix them. If you think I made an error but you want my reasoning about a specific change, ask here, and I will attempt to explain my choices. Thanks for an informative article! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, I finished clarifying, rewriting and removing per all the tags in the article.
  1. I don't like the old title, but the newer one also didn't fit. I've changed it again, splitting the subsection into two.
  2. Yes? Which one do you think is the most akward?
  3. Yes, I believe this was an essential paragraph, but definitely in the wrong place. I put it in the merged 'measures of climate sensitivity' paragraph
  4. I've tried to clarify with introction and extra sentence. The eECS is the standard way of approximating ECS, so it is essential in my opinion. I agree I wrote it down horribly before.
  5. I've tried to make clear that this is per radiative forcing they cause.
  6. That's fair I think
  7. I think I solved most of them adequately.
  8. I've opted not to provide his 1984 paper. It would be five your after the Charney report that his paper got published, so I reckoned it would only cause confusion.
Thanks again for doing such a thorough copy-edit. I didn't really believe this article could be made this accesible. Undoubtedly, there are still things that can improve, but I'm happy with it now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more meaningful to readers to also include ECS for land and for water as well as just the mean

ECS and TCS can be confusing to general readers. The mean temperature is useful as an index of general warming, but the ECS for land is more relevant to people's experiences. These are available [1].

It may help to include a section which addresses this, and gives some typical values.

I have not yet examined the IPCC AR6 WG1 report to see if they say anything about these. 

 EcoQuant (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Schmittner, Andreas, Nathan M. Urban, Jeremy D. Shakun, Natalie M. Mahowald, Peter U. Clark, Patrick J. Bartlein, Alan C. Mix, and Antoni Rosell-Melé. "Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum." Science 334, no. 6061 (2011): 1385-1388.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_sensitivity&oldid=1038657812"