Jump to content

Talk:Climate sensitivity

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

Did you know

[edit]

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

[edit]
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

[edit]

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]

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]
 Done, and also clarified sentences that were tagged. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

[edit]

Background section?

[edit]

I am always a bit wary when I see a section in any of our climate change articles that is called "Background". I feel that a "background" section could become too big - where to start and where to stop - and overlap or be repetitive with other articles. In this case here, is "background" really the ideal title? Perhaps rather call it "Fundamentals", "Theoretical basis", "Rationale" or something like that? EMsmile (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've changed it now to "Fundamentals". EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readability issues with the lead

[edit]

I came here to make some quick improvements to the readability of the lead. However, as the article is a GA article, I hesitate to jump straight in. Is anyone who was involved in the earlier GA review still here and open to readability improvements? Currently the entire third paragraph and almost the entire first paragraph lights up in dark red with the readability tool. Also, I find the caption for the image in the lead is rather long and complicated. Pinging User:Jonesey95 and User:Femke. - I am happy to give it a go but don't want to step on anyone's toes (and might also not get it perfectly right on the first go as it's not my area of expertise). EMsmile (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not stepping on my toes. Many of the changes since my copy edits in 2020 are clear improvements; some of them make me wince a bit that I missed them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to step in here. I've rephrased the 3rd paragraph. The sentences are still long, but they should be much clearer now. If in doubt about whether your suggestions change the meaning, feel free to ping me again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you to both of you for your quick replies. I'll do some cautious editing for readability tomorrow or otherwise when I get back from holidays in a week from now. Thanks for working on the 3rd paragraph, too. The readability tool now shows a light red instead of a dark red for the first sentence of the 3rd para. So that's progress. Of course this readability tool is not the "be all and end all" but overall I find it very useful. It "punishes" multi-syllable words though, so with the 5-syllable word "sensitivity" it won't be easy to get the reading ease score up. EMsmile (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of work on the reading ease and the structure of this article (see details in my edit summaries). I hope everything is correct. I'll add some questions below in separate sections. EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the last sentence of the lead still has a low readability score but I don't know how to improve on that: Estimates of climate sensitivity are calculated by several methods: by looking directly at temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations since the Industrial Revolution (so around 1750 onwards), by using indirect measurements from the Earth's distant past, and by using climate models to simulate the climate. EMsmile (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That shows that these readability tools should not be blindly believed. The sentence is easy to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly easy to understand, yes, but someone trained in science communication could probably improve it further. Anyhow, happy to live with it like this. - I find the tool a wonderful helper just to point out those sentences that are (potentially) difficult to understand. EMsmile (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "doubling" integral to the definition?

[edit]

I see the wording of "doubling" mentioned a few times, e.g. in the first sentence of the lead, as if it's part of the definition. However, the IPCC definition does not include "doubling". Are there different trains of thought here? Do we need to emphasise the "doubling" aspect by having it in the first sentence of the lead? If so, this should be clarified in the "definition" section. EMsmile (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Look at any definition of any type of climate sensitivity and you will see a doubling as part of it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IPCC definition does not include "doubling" though? And why should it. Doubling is just an arbitrary figure. Also, why did you remove the whole section on definition that I had added (here)? It is not duplicated content. I think a section on "definition" is important and should be in a place where the reader can easily access it. At the moment it is hidden in other sections. It's mentioned in the lead but not in the main text. EMsmile (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the content that you removed (I would agree to removing the second definition if you think it's not good but the IPCC definition is useful, in my opinion):
=== Definition ===
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report defines climate sensitivity as follows: "The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing."[1]: 2223  It further distinguishes between (see below for more details):
Another definition of climate sensitivity is as follows: climate sensitivity is the average change in global mean surface temperature in response to a radiative forcing, which drives a difference between Earth's incoming and outgoing energy.[2]
EMsmile (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
  2. ^ PALAEOSENS Project Members (2012-11-29). "Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity". Nature. 491 (7426): 683–691. doi:10.1038/nature11574. ISSN 0028-0836.

EMsmile (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the types of climate sensitivities by the IPCC use the doubling, as does the Met Office definition, the NASA definition, the Carbonbrief explainer.. that's simply what this is. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am slow on this but so the IPCC def of sensitivity does not include doubling ("The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing.") but the def of the individual types of sensitivity does include doubling? EMsmile (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about main headings

[edit]

There are two main level headings that for me don't make sense as main level headings: "Sensitivity to nature of forcing" and "State dependence". Could we move them to be within either "Fundamentals" or "Measures"? I don't understand how they fit into this article otherwise. The other main level headings are quite clear. We have now:

Well, neither are a type of climate sensitivity (which is renamed into measures), and neither are fundamental concepts to climate sensitivity. Not that fundamentals is a good section heading (it's too vague). I've renamed contributors, as that word usually refers to humans who contribute, not to things. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not clear to me what those two sections are doing there as main level headings. Would prefer more generic main level headings, like the other ones are. The current TOC structure is now (in bold the two that don't fit well in my opinion):
  • Fundamentals
  • Factors that determine sensitivity
  • Measures (should this rather be "types"?)
  • Sensitivity to nature of forcing
  • State dependence
  • Estimates
  • Methods of estimation

As a lay person it is fairly intuitive to know what is under "estimates" or "methods". But what is under "state dependence"? Unclear. EMsmile (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does "dependence on Climate state" help? Sensitivity to nature of forcing is clear to me. I don't expect a pure lay audience to this article, given it's a theoretical concept within climate science. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True but the concept of climate sensitivity is up and coming. So if at all possible we might as well try to make it lay person friendly by ensuring that at least the main level headings are understandable. I am a lay person on this topic and I struggle with these two main section headings (the others are fine).
I find it also odd that these two sections are actually very short compared to the other main level sections - this can sometimes indicate that something is not quite right with the structure.
"Sensitivity to nature of forcing" is not clear to me (and by the way, that section consists of just one long paragraph; should be broken in two somewhere).
Can you maybe think of a generic section heading that both these sections could fall under? This might help with clarity. Perhaps "Factors that determine sensitivity", or "Factors that sensitivity depends on", or "Boundary conditions"? Again, my apologies for not grasping this better. EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factors that determine sensitivity: hidden comment

[edit]

At the end of the section that is now called "factors that determine sensitivity" there is a hidden comment as follows:

"Do we need this section? If so, why? It seems to be out of place with the rest of the article >> Although the term "climate sensitivity" is usually used for the sensitivity to radiative forcing caused by rising atmospheric CO2, it is a general property of the climate system. Other things can cause a radiative imbalance. Climate sensitivity is the change in surface air temperature per unit change in radiative forcing, and the climate sensitivity parameter[note 1] is therefore expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). The measure is approximately the same, whatever the reason for the radiative forcing (such as from greenhouse gases or solar variation).[1] When climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature change for a level of atmospheric CO2 double the pre-industrial level, its units are degrees Celsius (°C)."

I don't know when it was added and by whom. Is there something we ought to do to address this? EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Modak A, Bala G, Cao L, Caldeira K (2016). "Why must a solar forcing be larger than a CO2forcing to cause the same global mean surface temperature change?" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 044013. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d4013M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044013.

EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning IPCC explicitly or not?

[edit]

Hi Femke, I used to mention IPCC explicitly quite often but was told by you not to (see here discussion from 2 years ago). This made sence to me and ever since then, I have mentioned IPCC only sparingly (like in a section on definition of a term). But now my edit to remove the IPCC mention was reverted by you here. With the justification "restore IPCC in-text. Scientists say is much weaker than a consensus statement".

Does that mean you no longer avoid the explicit IPCC mentions? I think lay persons have no clue what IPCC is so it might be better to use different wording. Like "The scientific consensus in 2022 is xxx". (rather than "scientists say" and rather than "The IPCC literature assessment estimates" or "The ocean heat uptake estimated by the IPCC AR5 as" or "The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that"). EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cite the IPCC inline when you're dealing with facts (ice is melting, temperature has risen 1.2 degrees, i.e. most of the time). Do cite them when they make an assessment. Avoid "scientists say", as it's vague. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about “scientists agree” or “scientists generally agree” or “most scientists agree” in some places where we would like a simpler word than “consensus” Chidgk1 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:weaselly. And probably also not quite accurate, as each scientist will have their own best estimate of ECS. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too sure what the difference between "facts" and "assessments" is here. The amount of ice melting is an assessment but also a fact (or estimated fact), isn't it? When does an assessment become a "fact".
Also, do you agree that these sentences are not overly lay-person friendly?: "The IPCC literature assessment estimates" or "The ocean heat uptake estimated by the IPCC AR5 as" or "The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that". The topic of "climate sensitivity" should be up and coming so I think we would do a better service to our readers if we make it layperson friendly.
So instead of "The IPCC literature assessment estimates that the TCR likely lies between xxx", how about "Current estimates found that the TCR likely lies between xxx".
And instead of "The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that ECS is within the range of...", how about: "In 2022 the ECS was found to be within the range of" (in my opinion, these are facts; it's a fact that the estimates are xxx). An estimate (or "best estimate") is still a fact. EMsmile (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The study about 7-14 degree temperature rise if CO2 level is doubled

[edit]

I have published in the section "Using data from Earth's past" the next text:

"In 2024, a group of scientists used sediments from the Pacific Ocean for checking the climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration, and found that a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause an increase in temperature of 7-14 degrees."

This is the link.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240624125500.htm

It was deleted as "single study of a small area".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_sensitivity&oldid=prev&diff=1233134102

I do not think it is correct. I am not sure that the others studies in this section are bigger. Also I think that considering the importance of the issue even if you think that it is still express a minority view in the scientific community, you can not ingnore it. You can write like "These findings contrast sharply with the 2.3 to 4.5 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" like did Earth.com when it wrote about it:

https://www.earth.com/news/atmospheric-co2-could-push-temperatures-much-higher-than-expected/


But I think you can not ignore it.

Especially as many scientists are consistently plaign that the warming is going faster than their models. This can explain it. If for example after the appearence of this study other scientists have said " that is false we do not agree" than it will be other thing. But I do not see an overall negative reaction to this study.

Except this study used more exact methode than previouse studies at least this is what is written in the earth.com:

" Invaluable resource for the study

The researchers used a 45-year-old drill core from the Pacific Ocean floor to gather their data. The core preserved organic matter due to the lack of oxygen, making it an invaluable source for studying historical climate conditions. “I realized that this core is very attractive for researchers, because the ocean floor at that spot has had oxygen-free conditions for many millions of years,” said senior author Jaap Sinninghe Damsté, a scientist at NIOZ and professor of organic geochemistry at Utrecht.

The experts were able to construct a unique time series of CO2 levels over the past 15 million years from a single location, a feat that had not been achieved before.

They used the TEX86 method to determine past seawater temperatures, a technique developed at NIOZ 20 years ago that analyzes the chemical composition of archaea membrane lipids.

Additionally, they developed a new method to estimate past atmospheric CO2 concentrations using the chemical signatures of chlorophyll and cholesterol from algae. This approach is the first to use cholesterol for quantitative CO2 estimates and to apply chlorophyll data to this time period. "

So I think it should be mentioned. If you want, you can add that this is not what the IPCC think, that it is a small study and so on. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more extreme a statement is, the higher quality the source must be. This is quite an extreme statement, so a single primary study is not suited to this. WP:SCIRS gives more information. So much is published on this topic that we don't need to rely on primary sources really. They're are a few old primary sources in the article now that can be deleted instead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_sensitivity&oldid=1245866322"