Jump to content

Talk:Extreme event attribution

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Seav (talk) and Chidgk1 (talk). Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk) at 05:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: No - Safad El Battikh
Overall: Article was created recently and is not a stub, barely over the prose limit. There are no plagiarism issues in the article and QPQ done, however, the hook is not interesting at all and frankly is WP:EGGish. Please create a new hook and ping me when done. Beyond using the actual article name in the hook, I'd suggest something that utilizes the first sentence of the article, or something from the sentence that begins "While extreme weather events have occurred in the past...". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93 ALT1? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: That's still more or less the same as the main one you previously submitted, and it isn't very interesting. My suggestion is the following. Please let me know if that is agreeable for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 2: ... that extreme event attribution looks to determine if extreme weather events can be explained by a warming atmosphere and not natural variations?

Favre1fan93 Sorry no I don't agree with ALT2 for the following reasons: it repeats "extreme" and "event" but not in an interesting way, and it misses the main point of the science which is to determine how much particular extreme events are due to humans. The reason I would like that particular heatwave in the hook is that many readers will be in North America, and because it seems to be the most attributed event. It is no news to me and may not be interesting to you, but it seems from public opinion surveys I have read that there are many Americans who will find it surprising. I'll try a couple more but if we are not able to agree perhaps the creator of the article Seav would like to take over as requestor and/or a different reviewer?

Chidgk1 My issue with all these hooks is the emphasis is seemingly put on the 2021 heat wave, which is not your article, when we should be featuring your article. You are still WP:EGGing your title, and the inclusion of "human" is a bit suspect since that is never indicated in the prose of the article. If you want to feature the 2021 heat wave in the hook how about the following then (or something along these lines)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I find ALT5 wishy washy. I can easily amend the article to include the exact wording of the hook once we agree it if that is what you are saying. But it seems to me we are not going to be able to agree on a hook. Do you think one or both of us need to hand this over to other(s) who might be able to agree? If I try and find another proposer will you try and find another reviewer? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 How so? I feel that is a good direction to move in for a hook that addresses my concerns of actually seeing the title in the hook and describing what "extreme event attribution" actually is, while also connecting it to the 2021 heat wave which I felt was what you were advocating for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93 Thanks for adding that heatwave but I still think ALT4 is better (assuming it is correct US English - please tell me if you don't use "to confirm" like that) as is ALT1. I don't think the title needs to be in the hook, and I think a hook does not have to explain everything. Like a fish does not understand everything about a hook otherwise it would not be caught. I think my hook is more punchy and more hooky. It seems we are not going to agree (maybe like USA news headlines are almost always longer than UK ones) so I have asked for someone else to take over from me as requestor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#New_article:_attribution_science By that time maybe they will have done a study on Hurricane Ida - hope you did not get too flooded Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who has largely written the article on that heat wave, I suggest that you reject ALT4. Hooks must be true; DYK is not a tabloid to stretch the truth. What has been determined as regards this heat wave (at least as far as we are speaking of this analysis, as I'm not yet aware of another one), is that but for the climate change, the probability of the heat wave this strong would have been at least 150 times smaller. Which is, it's almost certain that human-induced climate change caused such strength but that almost (or virtually) is key here. We cannot fully exclude random chance here, though we can say that the chance climate change had no influence here is minuscule. Even that, say 0.1% chance, does not let us says that it's certainly the case without any modifier to the word "certainly". What's more, ALT0, ALT1, ALT3 and ALT4 suggest that this heat wave would not have occurred at all if it were not for climate change, but we have no evidence for that, 'cause even 42 degrees Celsius in Lytton, BC for 2-3 days is certainly a heat wave, it's just nowhere as strong as the one we have here. Heat waves, like any unusually hot spells of weather, occur regardless of the climate; but their intensity may vary substantially, the frequency of the heat wave of the same or stronger intensity may increase (which seems to be the case), and what was exceptional about this one is not that it occurred at all but that it was so strong.
Consider proposing a hook which is not as tied to the heat wave. ALT5 is IMHO pretty good. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: Thank you for this. I had suggested ALT2 initially to not even tie the hook the the 2021 event so we focused on what extreme event attribution actually is. ALT2 is still my preference and what I will lean toward accepting if/when we get to that point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find ALT2 acceptable, though ALT5 is better because it provides a specific example where such attribution comes in handy (and it is a relatively recent example). We don't need to absolutely avoid the 2021 Western North America heat wave, but we shouldn't stick to that one as if we were making a hook on that heat wave and not on the attribution science, either. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with ALT5, so if that works for you Szmenderowiecki, I will pass this with that hook. Adjust that one if you feel the need too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate decision is up to you, and if you ask for my endorsement for ALT5, you have it, just convince the nom. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: I wish to pass this nomination using the ALT5 hook. Does that work for you? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki: Thanks for your contribution. Favre1fan93 Perhaps we can compromise with ALT6/7/8 or 9?

Pass with ALT6. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - before I read this and after a good night's sleep an alternative twist occurred to me which includes the title but does not reveal all and would be clickbait for a lot of lawyers:
I am still passing this with ALT6. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way re QPQ I get a DYK credit for each village because the proposer of the QPQ article had to pay 3. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT6 to T:DYK/P3

Washington Post article

[edit]

For those interested, The Washington Post published this article on 11 September. I'm not sure how reliable a source it would be considered to be here, but it does link to several specific studies. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this as a stand-along article?

[edit]

If "extreme event" refers to "extreme weather event" then couldn't this article rather be merged into extreme weather? Or otherwise perhaps it should be merged into Attribution of recent climate change? See also discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#What_does_this_article_currently_achieve? EMsmile (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme event attribution is the broader, generic term. It's not limited to weather events. Example: extreme life events. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the first sentence of the lead is wrong as it clearly limits the scope of the article to extreme weather events (bolding added by me): Extreme event attribution, also known as attribution science, is a relatively new field of study in meteorology and climate science that tries to measure how ongoing climate change directly affects recent extreme weather events.. EMsmile (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the first sentence now but I think we need to find other refs for this, as the two refs provided refer to extreme weather events (in their title at least). Which other rare events do you have in mind, e.g. earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis? EMsmile (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Extreme_event_attribution&oldid=1201881259"