Talk:Climate change

Skip to table of contents

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

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.

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 written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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, and on October 31, 2021.

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
March 26, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2021	Featured article review	Kept
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 level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

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

Climate change 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
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

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

Effective Altruism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism 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.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Geography 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

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

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Climate 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

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.
"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.
"The guardians of Wikipedia's climate page: An intensely devoted core keeps a bastion of climate science honest". Mashable. November 11, 2020.
"Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC. November 18, 2021.
Marco Silva (December 24, 2021). "Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia". BBC.
Olivia Steiert (September 9, 2024). "Declaring crisis? Temporal constructions of climate change on Wikipedia". Public Understanding of Science. {{cite news}}: Wikipedia Library link in |url= (help)
Margaret Talbot (March 4, 2025). "Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 4, 2025.

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.

Other talk page banners

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 article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Global warming
Climate change

Discussions:

RM, Global warming → Climate change, Not moved, 11 June 2018, discussion
RM, Global warming → Climate change, Moved, 21 August 2020, discussion

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2008.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened:

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.

On 3 August 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Global warming to Climate change. The result of the discussion was moved.

Section sizes

Section size for Climate change (48 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	15,180	15,180
Terminology	3,669	3,669
Global temperature rise	70	26,344
Temperatures prior to present-day global warming	2,663	2,663
Warming since the Industrial Revolution	10,830	17,391
Differences by region	6,561	6,561
Future global temperatures	6,220	6,220
Causes of recent global temperature rise	2,597	30,429
Greenhouse gases	8,363	8,363
Land surface changes	3,727	3,727
Other factors	22	15,742
Aerosols and clouds	4,570	4,570
Solar and volcanic activity	5,030	5,030
Climate change feedbacks	6,120	6,120
Modelling	4,013	4,013
Impacts	290	28,908
Environmental effects	4,588	4,588
Tipping points and long-term impacts	6,076	6,076
Nature and wildlife	7,139	7,139
Humans	1,903	10,815
Health and food	2,908	2,908
Livelihoods and inequality	3,051	3,051
Climate migration	2,953	2,953
Reducing and recapturing emissions	4,954	21,210
Clean energy	8,135	8,135
Energy conservation	1,719	1,719
Agriculture and industry	3,483	3,483
Carbon dioxide removal	2,919	2,919
Adaptation	7,773	7,773
Policies and politics	2,381	16,202
Policy options	1,616	3,663
Climate justice	2,047	2,047
International climate agreements	6,798	6,798
National responses	3,360	3,360
Society	14	9,948
Denial and misinformation	2,541	2,541
Public awareness and opinion	5,548	7,393
Climate movement	1,845	1,845
History	61	12,860
Early discoveries	6,198	6,198
Development of a scientific consensus	6,601	6,601
References	35	109,085
Sources	366	109,050
IPCC reports	5,383	5,383
Other peer-reviewed sources	49,198	49,198
Books, reports and legal documents	30,524	30,524
Non-technical sources	23,579	23,579
External links	1,161	1,161
Total	286,782	286,782

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, 96

/Terminology section /General discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Proposed replacement of graphic in "Impacts" section

A. Existing graphic: The sixth IPCC Assessment Report projects changes in average soil moisture at 2.0 °C of warming, as measured in standard deviations from the 1850 to 1900 baseline.

B. Proposed replacement: Climate change's increase of water temperatures intensified peak wind speeds in all eleven 2024 Atlantic hurricanes.

C. Second proposed replacement: Times series of Category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes

I've long questioned the value of the "soil moisture" graphic in the short, crowded, under-emphasized "Impacts" section.

The existing graphic's content is not discussed in article text. Also, soil moisture's broader implication on the impacts affecting humans is speculative and indirect, perhaps even suggesting that things'll get better and better for sub-Saharan Africa. (Aside: I speak out against captions that merely repeat what's in the graphic's own legends/text.)

Meanwhile, the impacts on humans of progressively more intense hurricanes is immediately and intuitively evident (see also ). I realize Graphic B is not global and is only one year's hurricanes, but I think the graphic speaks to a more striking and immediate impact of climate change.

Please comment below, on your preference. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm open to replacing that graph, I'm not a fan of adding another US-focused one in its place. Is it possible to do something similar for tropical cyclones in general? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Atlantic focused, not "US" focused per se. I've searched for CC-intensified (Pacific) typhoons but references applying extreme event attribution to specific hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons are nearly non-existent. This chart was a rare discovery in how it makes CC's effects be concretely evident. If anyone finds similar references for the Pacific, let me know.. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The soil moisture graph was added by User:Efbrazil three years ago. I think we could probably remove it (or move it?) but I am a bit concerned that we don't mention "soil moisture" content anywhere in the text (or is it mentioned under a different term?). I was going to suggest to move it to effects of climate change but I see it's already there. - I think my suggestion would be to remove it but to not replace it with another fairly complicated, wordy schematic (such as graph B.). Either remove it without replacement or replace it with something very visual (a photo?). In general, we do have a lot of graphs, schematics and images already in this article. Perhaps one less is actually a good thing. EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droughts are mentioned. Bogazicili (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have this image chosen for the replacement than the other file. I do not believe using an image for one season restricted in one basin would reflect climate change's general impact on tropical cyclones. I'm a bit cautious on replacing the existing image, but I want to see more people discussing before I issue my final verdict. _ZZ^Z 'S 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Temperature, soil, precipitation are the 3 graphs in B. Future Climate Change, Risks, and Long-Term Responses in AR6 SYR SPM (page 14). We already have temperature in the article. Bogazicili (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RCraig09, I'd recommend here for image B: Effects_of_climate_change#Extreme_storms Bogazicili (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting input from more editors on this topic (superseding "soil moisture" graphic). —RCraig09 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to replace the soil moisture graphic with Graphic B which introduces attribution in an intuitive example. In graphic B I have reduced the font size for hurricane names (EMSmile's objection), and I have not been able to find a statistical analysis of attribution for all tropical cyclones (Femke's preference). Graphic C (Zzzs's suggestion) is just "one more example" of worsening CC effects and doesn't introduce the increasingly important concept of attribution. Graphic , discussed below re attribution, is more abstract and difficult for our readers to understand than B.. Bottomline: I plan to replace the soil moisture graphic with graphic B. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC's AR6 Fig. TS-22 etc.

@RCraig09 have you considered these figures?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary/figure-ts-22 DecFinney (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DecFinney: I think that Fig. TS-22 is far too complex and detailed for a layperson encyclopedia, especially in a high-level article such as this. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt imagining the whole thing. e.g. perhaps just the top right quarter. That seems like a really neat summary in lay terms of the kind of impacts different regions of the world could expect. It doesnt rely on the rest of the figure for understanding so I would assume its fine to crop it to make a new figure (but I am new-ish to wiki so am not sure of cropping policy).

Such a figure seems much more relevant to any person in the world. Meanwhile figures based on the atlantic seem more like a token representation of impact (i.e. just one example) as well as introducing a regional bias and thereby limiting the interest for the wider global population. I appreciate you will not being trying to illustrate all impacts. Nevertheless, the figure I propose does do a pretty job of covering bases in the a concise manner. DecFinney (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DecFinney: I appreciate that Fig. TS-22(b) has a lot of information, a huge amount in fact: five values for each of 35 categories. Especially for a high-level article such as this, this micro-categorization would be overwhelming for lay readers. FYI: Generally there is no general prohibition on cropping as such (every edit involves selection of material from a larger-content publication), but I seem to recall that some organization, not sure if it's the IPCC, licensed things only if presented in their entirety. I wish I had a hurricane-intensification reference for both Atlantic and Pacific, but since the main point of Graphic "B" is climate change's intensification of hurricanes rather than hurricanes themselves, I think "B" is more than adequate for purpose. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09 ok. the only multi-basin figure i can find that seems relevant to your aim is fig5 in https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/101/3/bams-d-18-0194.1.xml

this shows the consistent projection of increased TC intensity (and rain rate) in every basin. DecFinney (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DecFinney: Thanks for the research. I like the global extent of the AMS datasets but the error ranges are, like, totally_outtasight_dude! I'll have to consider the various drawings in the AMS reference... I lean toward something like Figs. 3b and 4b more than the global map. A major advantage of

is that it's not a long-term prediction (it's about climate change attribution), and concrete values are provided in the context of peak winds and hurricane categories. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09 i agree 3b and 4b are better multi-basin figs to consider.

there is a part 1 to that paper which is about attribution. when i glanced at it, i didnt spot any suitable figures. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/100/10/bams-d-18-0189.1.xml

attribution with TCs is still pretty statistically limited. i have to admit that fig1f probably justifies a focus on NAtlantic if you want to stick to an attribution based figure.

thats my last input. thanks for the discussion. im happy with whatever you decide. DecFinney (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I haven't been able to conjure a graphical approach to represent multi-basin attribution/changes that's more elegant than separate bar charts with distracting and divergent error bars scattered around a world map. I think that

already captures predicted impacts quite well, and that an example of Extreme event attribution (Graphic "B", above) deserves space in this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Underemphasis on extreme event attribution

The preceding discussion brings out the point that Extreme event attribution is not even mentioned in this article. I think it's very important because, more and more, the intensification of specific current events are being presented to the public as being caused by global warming. This attribution is distinct from projections of future intensification such as that shown in . Though attribution science is not yet fully developed, and is statistical in nature, I think that something should be added to the "Impacts" section. Agreement? Suggestions? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09 sounds reasonable to me.

i think most good science comms would say that the chance of event is made more likely by climate change. it may go as far as to say it was basically impossible before, i.e. 1 in a million year event or something but the message can get a bit lost in that. of course one can odten say there's no precident in the records.

im not sure about the plot. its not obvious to me exactly what the x axis means or what information helps determine it. what is the source of the figure? DecFinney (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DecFinney: Welcome to Wikipedia! Sources can usually be found on the Wikimedia Commons file description page (click through image itself), or in captions of charts placed in Wikipedia articles. Here the source is Lindsey, Rebecca (15 December 2016). "Extreme event attribution: the climate versus weather blame game". Climate.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Archived from the original on 9 June 2024. Graphic adapted from Figure 4.7 in NAS 2016.. The x-axis means the degree to which models can accurately represent or predict real-world events. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09 cheers, sorry. phone app doesnt let me follow an image link.

image is ok. I'd change caption "more generally" to "in addition" as this is listing the other two bullets from the article that gives the necessary conditions for confidence in attribution. they are not more general than the point the graph is illustrating. id actually suggest they are more specific.

i think youve edited the image a bit? it now looks like the colours have some meaning red/green/blue. but i dont think they did in the article, where each impact had a different colours? what do the colours mean here?

the image also has removed the word "extreme" from quite a few impacts compared to the article. i would consider this to be substantive change. "extreme rainfall" (if meaning e.g. 99th percentile, short timescales) is affected by climate change differently to longer timescale averaged rainfall, which is how i would interpret the term "rainfall" on its own. i would say that scientific understanding for extreme rainfall is possibly better than mean rainfall change, and therefore i think it might not be appropriate to change that terminology in the plot. DecFinney (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DecFinney: Thanks for the feedback. The colors merely categorize the events (blue for cold, green for water-related, red for heat-related) to make the graphic more intuitively meaningful for a lay reader. The graphic's title includes "...extreme events..." so that the graphic can avoid needless repetition in the various individual elements. I'm not quite following your suggestion re the caption, but editors can change textual captions through ordinary editing. Here is a link to the image description page. Separately: I'm hoping for more participation from others about adding new content to the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09 I see you're points regarding the image edits. regarding caption, i will make edits when the image is in the article then, if it still seems appropriate. DecFinney (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09 I see you're points regarding the image edits. regarding caption, i will make edits when the image is in the article then, if it still seems appropriate. DecFinney (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input from more editors on this sub-topic. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

Depending on the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#Keeping under 1.5 degrees is now politically impossible I propose to change

“According to UNEP, global warming can be kept below 1.5 °C with a 50% chance if emissions after 2023 do not exceed 200 gigatonnes of CO2. This corresponds to around 4 years of current emissions. To stay under 2.0 °C, the carbon budget is 900 gigatonnes of CO2, or 16 years of current emissions.”

to something like

“UNEP estimated in 2024 that emitting 900 billion tonnes of CO2eq (less than 15 years at 2023 rates) after 2023 would give an even chance of keeping global warming under 2.0 °C.”

But if anyone objects I don’t mind waiting a few weeks to see whether China pledges an amazing Nationally determined contribution in February. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep the existing content for now because it conveys higher urgency. Humanity should still be aiming for it because ending up at 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.9 degrees is a lot better than 2 degrees. I'm curious to see how other publications are changing the way they talk about 1.5 degrees, and if they are starting to talk about it less. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot OK to convey the same urgency I think (not sure would need someone to check I understood the table on page 29 right) it would be correct to simply replace 1.5°C with 2°C and 50% with 90% to give:

“According to UNEP, global warming can be kept below 2 °C with a 90% chance if emissions after 2023 do not exceed 200 gigatonnes of CO2. This corresponds to around 4 years of current emissions.“ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/atmospheric-greenhouse-gas-concentrations talks about 67% - that sounds more reasonable to me than writing about 50% or 90%. Umm now I just need to find where an authoratative source says how many years of current emissions correspond to a 67% chance of keeping below 2 degrees. Actually the percentage could go in a footnote and the corresponding IPCC word in our text.

How much of humanity would aim at an impossible target and acheive a better result and how much would just give up trying and achieve a worse result I don’t know. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thinking about it further what I would like as a reader would be the chance of staying below 2, so something like:

If all countries honour their climate pledges as of 20xx the world has about a y% chance of warming less than 2 degrees. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's some advanced modelling, it would probably come with lots of caveats, limitations, and a confidence interval. Bogazicili (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental decision we need to make is what temperature targets to talk about. There are ways to avoid talking about 1.5 degrees but that doesn't mean we should avoid talking about 1.5 degrees. 1.5 degrees, and "well below 2 degrees" have been a large part of the climate conversation for nearly a decade and these targets are critical to understanding another large part of the conversation, which is "net zero by mid-century". Readers need information about what these concepts mean.

So far the only argument I've heard to support mass erasure of 1.5 degrees is that it is politically impossible. I don't believe this is a good reason to write as if 1.5 degrees doesn't exist. As Costa Samaras said, “If we were going to say, ‘Well, 1.5 is likely out of the question, let’s put it to 1.75,’ it gives people a false sense of assurance that 1.5 was not that important,”[1] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 1.5°C target conveys a greater sense of urgency, and that even if it is ultimately not fully achieved, it is still important to strive to come as close to it as possible. According to the IPCC report, every 0.1°C increase in temperature brings significant environmental and social impacts. Therefore, the 1.5°C target is not only a scientific consensus, but also an important benchmark to inspire global action. Regarding other publications Reducing the discussion of 1.5°C may be due to the increased difficulty of achieving this goal, but it does not mean that we should abandon this goal. SelimKarissa (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least "According to UNEP" should be dated to note it is historical, otherwise "if emissions after 2023" feels very dated. It would also help date "current emissions". CMD (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CMD. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

United States' Withdrawal from Climate Compensation Fund: The U.S. government announced its withdrawal from the Loss and Damage Fund, an international initiative established in 2022 to provide financial assistance to countries severely impacted by climate change. This decision has sparked criticism from climate analysts and international advocates, as it may undermine efforts toward climate justice, particularly affecting the world's poorest nations that have contributed least to the climate crisis. 2402:4000:13CC:E041:4992:DDFE:EC8E:F338 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to the topic, but this page does not go into that sort of detail. CMD (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You or anyone could edit Loss and Damage Fund Chidgk1 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Context on Corporate Influence in Climate Science

Hey all, I’ve got a niggle about this article’s scope. It’s laser-focused on the scientific consensus (rightly so, it’s solid), but it’s dead silent on how corporate interests shape that science. Readers deserve the full picture, not just the polished bits. Take Sareen and Haarstad’s 2023 paper in Energy Policy (DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113514)—it’s peer-reviewed, reputable, and digs into how fossil fuel and renewable energy firms funnel cash into climate research and policy agendas. They’re not saying it’s all a hoax, but they show lobbying sways what gets studied and published. Think ExxonMobil’s old funding tricks or green tech’s push for carbon credit hype. It’s not fringe; it’s cited in policy debates. Why’s this missing? The article’s got room—sections like “Mitigation” or “Scientific Consensus” could handle a paragraph like:

“Research has highlighted corporate influence on climate science, with studies like Sareen and Haarstad (2023) noting that fossil fuel and renewable energy industries shape research priorities and policy narratives through funding and lobbying, raising questions about potential bias in the broader scientific discourse.”

It’s sourced and neutral. Thoughts? 85.195.11.93 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The existing § Society section seems largely sufficient; perhaps consider one of the relevant subarticles, like Politics of climate change? Though, if you do make contributions, please refrain from using an LLM to write them for you, like you seemingly did with this post. Remsense ‥ 论 21:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense, thanks for the pointer! Politics of climate change is a good shout, but I’m sticking here—‘Society’ already covers fossil fuel lobbying under ‘Denial and misinformation,’ so it’s a natural spot to tie in corporate influence on the science itself. Sareen and Haarstad (2023, Energy Policy, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113514) show fossil fuel and renewable energy firms channeling funds into climate research, shaping what gets prioritized—doubt from oil, carbon credit buzz from green tech. It’s peer-reviewed, reliable, and slots right in. How’s this for ‘Denial and misinformation’:

“Corporate influence extends beyond misinformation, with studies like Sareen and Haarstad (2023) showing fossil fuel and renewable energy industries funding research to steer scientific agendas.”

It’s concise, sourced, and neutral. On the LLM bit—yep, I used one to refine my thoughts. No rule against it in WP:RS or WP:OR, so let’s focus on the meat: does this stick the landing or need more juice? Ready to roll? 85.195.11.93 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. Consider that article in the context of the preference for secondary sources over primary sources. Report back.

Stop using LLM so much. It makes it seem like you have a creepy agenda. LarryAfner (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ChatGPT/LLM on this article

Hello Wikipedians and editors,

I need your help! I am conducting research for my master's degree in environmental communication and I'm interested in the learning more about the use of LLMs during the editing/writing process of Wikipedia articles. In true Wikipedia fashion, I am entering this inquiry from a neutral standpoint - I neither support nor oppose the use of LLMs on Wikipedia articles. I am writing here in hopes of reading your anecdotes on how LLMs have been used or even encountered on Wikipedia articles within the WikiProject Environment.

You may see this topic a few times in your notifications, but please don't dismiss it as spam! I am posting the same topic on the WikiProject Environment talk page, as well as the Earth, Climate Change and Tesla Model S talk pages - because they are the only three Wikipedia articles that are both of FA quality and of Top importance according to the WikiProject Environment Article Assessment table. I am open to hearing experiences with using or encountering LLMs in the editing process of other Wikipedia articles as well, but I do want to remain within the limits of articles under the WikiProject Environment umbrella.

It is understandable if you want to remain anonymous to other Wikipedians in this discussion. If so please feel free to reach out to me via the "Email this user" feature on my User page! Otherwise, I encourage a conversation to take place on this Talk page so that it may inspire others to contribute.

Finally, I am only in the design/digging around phase of this research. If anything that is said will be used in my actual research, all contributors will remain anonymous (unless requested otherwise). Consent forms can be made available at any time for anyone involved in further research that may be published to the public.

Some questions to inspire your storytelling:

- How have you encountered the use of LLMs on editing/writing Wikipedia articles within WikiProject environment?

- What impact has it had on article quality?

- Where do you stand on the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles dealing with environmental topics?

- What about the use of LLMs in editing/writing on other topics in Wikipedia articles?

- Do you have a community on Wikipedia that you communicate with about the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles? If so, please mention which one(s)!

All the best,

Wikipistemologist (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipistemologist: I've never encountered a single use of LLMs in direct editing. One editor has said she uses an AI tool to suggest how certain sentences or paragraphs can be simplified grammatically, but she only takes that as a suggestion. My stance is that AI may be used to generate suggestions for content—in place of a human colleague—but that humans should apply human judgment in all final, substantive edits. As an aside: Wikipedia already uses various bots, probably not qualifying as AI, to automatically carry out low-level changes such as formatting. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipistemologist, article talk pages are not the right place to pose this sort of question, as they are intended to be focused on the improvement of their attached article. As for this particular page, it was developed long before llms became widely accessible. You can view relevant dates in the Article history template at the top of this page. CMD (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change a more appropriate spot? I think it's a discussion worth having for the community. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMD and RCraig09, I have actually already posted this topic to the WikiProject Environment talk page incase some felt the discussion wasn't appropriate here. But I would like to at least say that I am quite interested in the thoughts, or experiences of those using or dealing LLMs in their editing or writing processes on this Wikipedia article specifically - which is my reasoning for posting the topic here as well. I wonder if the post can remain here, since it is arguably relevant to the improvement or transparency of how this article has been edited? ChatGPT was released to the public on November 30, 2022 and while that way long after the creation of this the Global warming/Climate change Wikipedia article, many many edits have been made since that day... presumably with the help of LLMs by both humans and Wikipedia bots. I adore the Wikipedia editing community, so I am not here to step on any toes. Just would like to learn more from my peers on the ever-growing topic in Wikipedia editing. Wikipistemologist (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article became a featured article so long ago that I very much doubt anyone used any LLM on it Chidgk1 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Wikipistemologist! What about the use of LLMs in editing/writing on other topics in Wikipedia articles? English is my third language, and I very often ask ChatGPT to correct or smoothen my English. Or, when addressing another editor, I can ask: "How to say this just a bit more friendly?" It is extremely helpful. (Written without help from ChatGPT) Lova Falk (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Lova! Thanks for your input. A few follow up questions to your response: When did you start using ChatGPT in the ways you explained above? Do you remember what made you decide to start using ChatGPT for these cases? Finally, can you think of/cite any specific examples of Wikipedia article text that ChatGPT helped you write? Wikipistemologist (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When did you start using ChatGPT in the ways you explained above? I am a returning editor, and the moment I returned (Feb. 2025)
Do you remember what made you decide to start using ChatGPT for these cases? I already used ChatGPT a lot in my daily life. It just felt natural.

Finally, can you think of/cite any specific examples of Wikipedia article text that ChatGPT helped you write? Betwa River, Child sexual abuse. Neither of them is environmental science though... Lova Falk (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wikipistemologist

I suppose you have already noticed there is a lot of info at Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence but not specifically about environmental topics.

Why do you think LLMs would be any different for environmental topics, than any other articles on Wikipedia? Or is it just that you need to limit your research to a manageable scope? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I'm limiting my research to environmental science topic editors and writers! Wikipistemologist (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember clearly but I think I've seen LLM use a couple times at most, and only because I went through Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts. As for community, definitely WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup. I definitely don't think ChatGPT should be used whatsoever on Wikipedia, although I don't do much environmental editing (got here by a list of talk pages mentioning AI on the WikiProject Talk). Mrfoogles (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solar radiation modification

I propose to add a subsection on solar radiation modification (SRM), which is receiving increasing attention despite its limitations and controversy. There are currently only two outdated sentences.

Where should this go? Those two sentences are under "Reducing and recapturing emissions", which is definitely not right. One option is under "Adaptation". Another is to create a new, short section of its own. TERSEYES (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TERSEYES. Normally, when we discuss whether it's due to expand on a topic, we try to compare this to other overview sources. What percentage of space does the IPCC dedicate to SRM? Is that much more than we do? You're right it doesn't quite fit under the current heading, but I'm not sure it's sufficiently important to rename the section. I've never heard of it being considered part of adaptation. Which sources group it there? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply @Femke. It makes sense. SRM remains a minor topic within climate change. Looking at IPCC AR7 outline bullets, the topic is around one per cent. This page here is around 11k words. This suggests around 100 to 125 words on SRM. There are currently 31. May I draft a few sentences? Should I put it in a sandbox first? I would draw from the lead of the SRM page.

In terms of where, this is a perennial issue with SRM. Although it might fit within a creative interpretation of the IPCC's definition of adaptation ("the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities"), SRM has not been formally considered as such and that does seem like pushing a square peg into a round hole. In AR6, it was covered in WG1 in the chapter "Future Global Climate: Scenario-based Projections and Near-term Information" and in a cross-WG box. In AR6, it will largely be in WG1 in the chapter "Earth system responses under pathways towards temperature stabilization, including overshoot pathways." Following that logic, the case could be made for putting it here in Modelling.

Other options are Reducing and recapturing emissions, Adaptation (as noted), and Policies and politics. None are admittedly a great fit. I don't have a particular preference.

In all cases, I propose that SRM has a subsection heading to distinguish it from the other text of whichever section. TERSEYES (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a sub-section heading for SRM is warranted for this high level article, as SRM is certainly not on par with the other sub-headings (with regards to importance at the present time). We already have a sentence on it which I think is fairly good and not outdated: Solar radiation modification (SRM) is under discussion as a possible supplement to reductions in emissions. However, SRM raises significant ethical and global governance concerns, and its risks are not well understood.^[1]. If you look at the archive of this talk page you can see the previous discussion about this sentence (December 2024): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_96#Mentioning_SRM_under_%22Reducing_and_recapturing_emissions%22 (pinging User:1HumbleB as she's the one who had started this discussion). - I do think it (more or less) fits under "mitigation" / "Reducing and recapturing emissions" because it is a "possible supplement to reductions in emissions"; not under "adaptation". EMsmile (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 347–352

Thanks EMsmile for bringing the recent discussion to my attention. I should have searched the archive! Tagging @Rcraig09 who was part of that conversation.

I see four or five things wrong with the current SRM text:

As noted, it is too short relative to the attention given to it by the IPCC.
It should at least be its own paragraph, not joined with CDR.
It should define SRM and say a bit about what is known about its efficacy.
The citation should be updated, preferably to AR6.
I am not keen on "under discussion", which implies to my ears that it is being considered for use. Currently, it is "being researched."

I proposed to give it a sub-section heading not in order to increase its prominence but to create a visual and conceptual 'fence' between it and whichever highly imperfect section heading under which it is placed. TERSEYES (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what is due: this article is not 11k words, but 9k words. In the outline you shared, it's mentioned in 2 bullet points. With 20 chapters x 3 reports x ~5 bullet points per chapter, that would be around 1/150th of the overall reports. That would give us a rough proportion of 60 words. Our shortest subsection now is 130 words, which is a good argument not to put it as a separate subheading. Note that we use space to talk about history of climate change, which the IPCC does not do. I'm very happy to you to sketch a short paragraph here of around 50-70 words in the direction you sketched above. Given it's a controversial topic, might be good to get explicit consensus on talk for any new text, rather than boldly adding it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. My draft text is (65 words) (updated 2 April, now 84 words):

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method. Scientific studies have concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and many of its impacts, but imperfectly. It poses environmental risks as well as political, social, and ethical challenges. Significant uncertainties remain. SRM is controversial but is receiving increasing attention.

Sources are AR6 WG1 Ch 4 and WG3 Ch 14. I welcome comments from @RCraig09 @Femke @EMsmile TERSEYES (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put in the exact page you base each part of the paragraph on? It sounds relatively positive; is that the same tone as IPCC? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. I detail here two aspects:

The definition was discussed here by @EMsmile and me based on reports from the IPCC, UNEP, and US National Academies. I shortened it for here, and changed "limit" to "reduce" because (following another exchange between EMsmile and me, we agreed that "limit" implies a specific cap while "reduce" more accurately suggests a continuum.

The single clearly positive phrase is "Scientific studies have concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and many of its impacts." This is based on these passages from the IPCC:

Modelling studies have consistently shown that SRM has the potential to offset some effects of increasing GHGs on global and regional climate, including the melting of Arctic sea ice (Berdahl et al., 2014; Moore et al., 2014) and mountain glaciers (Zhao et al., 2017), weakening of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC; Cao et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2017; Tilmes et al., 2020), changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation (Curry et al., 2014; Ji et al., 2018; Muthyala et al., 2018), and changes in frequency and intensity of tropical cyclone (Moore et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2017). [WG1 p. 625]

A closer reading of this leads me to now suggest "Scientific studies have consistently concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and some of its impacts." TERSEYES (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TERSEYES: I generally favor brief and concise mention of SRM. However, the last half of your 19:52 proposed text (starting with "but imperfectly...") contains descriptions that are vague and non-illuminating. I would replace the vague half with a sentence distinguishing SRM from mitigation as usually understood. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a distinction from mitigation would help. However, the text from "but imperfectly" emphasizes SRM's risks and limitations, while @Femke above is concerned about an unduly positive tone. I believe that these risks and limitations should be stated.

As a compromise, I propose to add: "SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations, but could be a supplement." TERSEYES (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where on page 350 does it say that SRM is not mitigation? And which source supports the last sentence (which may be a prime one to cut, if we want to limit the word count). The last sentence is not cited either. FYI: the convention on Wikipedia is to not alter text people have responded to. A second proposal should be posted separately, so the flow of conversation is clear. I would also appreciate links to the cited sources, for ease of checking text-source integrity. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologize for editing a previous post. I have reverted it to the original ('version 1') and here is what I wrote about 12 hours ago ('version 2'), with additions in italics.

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations, but could be a supplement. Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method.[SR15 p. 350] Scientific studies have consistently concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and ~~many~~ some of its impacts, but imperfectly.[AR6 WG1 p.625] It poses environmental risks as well as political, social, and ethical challenges.[AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495] Significant uncertainties remain.[AR6 WG1 pp.624-625] SRM is controversial but is receiving increasing attention.

For cleanliness, I will address your questions in a separate reply. TERSEYES (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second, to address your questions on version 2.

I did not provide a citation for "SRM is not mitigation," assuming that it was self-evident. But I can and do, below.

IPCC AR6 does not quite say that SRM is controversial, only "The plausibility of many SRM scenarios is highly contested." And it does not say that interest in SRM is increasing. Other authoritative reports, such as those from the EU and UNEP, suggest this but do say so explicitly. I am therefore fine with removing that final sentence.

Here is version 3 (77 words):

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations [AR6 WG1 p.619], but could be a supplement. [AR6 WG1 p.624] Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method.[SR15 p. 350] Scientific studies have consistently concluded that SRM could reduce global warming and some of its impacts, but imperfectly.[AR6 WG1 p.625] It poses environmental risks as well as political, social, and ethical challenges.[AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495] Significant uncertainties remain.[AR6 WG1 pp.624-625]

TERSEYES (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to talk about risks more specifically (is the hydrological cycle risk the most prominent one, in addition to risks of abruptly stopping it)?

Style-wise, Wikipedia rarely says things like "studies have consistently concluded that". Instead, use Wikivoice and say it directly.

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. SRM is not mitigation, since it does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations [AR6 WG1 p.619], and therefore does not solve ocean acidification.[AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495]^{(page number needed)} Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most-studied method.[SR15 p. 350] SRM can reduce global warming and some of its impacts, but imperfectly.[AR6 WG1 p.625] There are risk and uncertainties, for instance the effect it would have on regional weather patterns / hydrological cycle (whatever is most appropriate), and the risk of abruptly stopping.[AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495]^{(page number needed)}

(The prose is not yet up to FA levels, with the sentence lenght being too similar). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Version 4 (79 words):

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposal for reducing global warming by reflecting some sunlight away from Earth. It does not directly limit greenhouse gas concentrations and is therefore not considered mitigation [AR6 WG1 p.619], although it could be a supplement. [AR6 WG1 p.624] The most-studied approach is stratospheric aerosol injection.[SR15 p. 350] SRM could reduce global warming and some of its impacts, but imperfectly.[AR6 WG1 p.625] It poses environmental risks, such as changes to precipitation patterns, as well as political, social, and ethical challenges, such as how to govern it.[AR6 WG3 pp.1490-1495] SRM would not address ocean acidification.[AR6 WG1 pp.767-768]

I did not include the risk of abruptly stopping SRM because this is both an environmental risk and a political/social challenge. The "directly" is important because SRM would indirectly reduce [GHG] by increase plant C uptake. TERSEYES (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having not heard from Femke or others for about a week. I implemented the above, and squeezed in a few words on potential termination. TERSEYES (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have been busy, so feedback on the current version:

It feels very academic still, it's not meeting WP:MTAU.
- It could be a supplement is a bit unclear. I think we know it should only be a supplement because of the related risk, including of rapid warming after an abrupt cessation.
- I don't understand what "prevent its sustained termination" means. Why do we want to prevent that?
- The sentence on ocean acidification should be next to the sentence that it doesn't limit GHG emissions, as it's out of place at the end
- There are long page ranges, which should ideally be single pages, given how extremely dense the IPCC reports are.
- When trying to make something less academic, avoid abstractions (political, social, ethical challenges). Instead, name the challenge (who gets to decide for instance).

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Femke again for the helpful tips. I polished and improved the paragraph, per your suggestions . Note that the three-page reference is for a paragraph in AR6 that is split across two pages with a full-page figure between. TERSEYES (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Climate Change" related enough for a see also mention on Climate change?

On List of notable media in the field of meteorology, there is a well-known iconic photograph literally titled "Climate Change" (taken by Sergio Pitamitz), which Life Magazine considers in this article to be one of the "most important photos ever". I boldly added the list to the see also section. However, RCraig09 reverted the see also addition saying, "Sorry to revert, but weather is one step removed from climate, and weather people are a second step away from climate change". So, let's have a discussion. As crazy as it sounds...Is Climate Change related enough to the climate change article for the list of media to be in the see also section? (What a sentence to say!..Is Climate Change related to climate change.)

Also a small P.S., Climate Change is also listed at List of photographs considered the most important. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the fact that weather is distinct from climate, you will note that the sole mention of "climate change" in the List article that you link (pertinent version) is in reference to the Sergio Pitamitz image that is not even shown in the List article. You will further note that the content of that copyright-protected image is a polar bear on ice, which is cumulative to File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear (cropped).jpg which has long been present in this CC article's "Impacts" section. Accordingly, the linked external image is not only excluded from Wikipedia itself and a small fraction of the List article but is cumulative to existing article content. On my User Talk Page, you slapped me with a trout and frame the issue there and here as, "Is Climate Change related to climate change", when the issues, obviously, are weather versus climate, cumulativeness of content, and overall relevance. It's nice you claim that you are not officially trolling me, while "smiling and laughing", and tell me to "feel free to discuss it" here, but I ask you to consider that not everyone wants to spend the time to read or deal with your misunderstanding, not-trollings, and amusements. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misunderstanding anything. You actually just admitted to misunderstanding. Weather is distinct from climate. Absolutely. The list is not about the weather. The list is about meteorology, which is the study of the atmosphere of Earth. Clearly it is relevant, given the National Weather Service has a related branch called the Climate Prediction Center. You point blank just claimed weather is not related to the climate. You are absolutely wrong. I will go ahead and revert since you are the one with the misunderstanding. Also, the Life Magazine list does indeed have the photo. You did not do enough research. That cropped photo is not the same as the copyrighted photo. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been removed again by William M. Connolley with the reasoning "sorry but no". William M. Connolley, can you kindly explain how Climate Change is not related to climate change? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You User:WeatherWriter are engaging in an edit war, which after your 32,000 edits you should know is wrong in view of WP:BRD. You have ignored my 05:43 post, which shows how you are falsely framing the issue. Now you continue wasting more editors' time. Stop. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging in an edit war. Please do not falsely accuse me of that. I did not ignore anything you said. Here is exactly how I understand the issue:

I want to know if an image of a polar bear on ice, titled Climate Change, is related enough to the climate change Wikipedia article for inclusion in the see also section.
Per MOS:SEEALSO, Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. That means my question in general is valid.
Two editors, RCraig09 and William M. Connolley dispute the idea that climate change is related to meteorology, which therefore means the list of notable meteorology photos, which includes Climate Change, is not related enough for the climate change Wikipedia article.
I then take that literally, saying a polar bear on ice is not related/relevant enough for the climate change Wikipedia article.
That additional photo removal is reverted and I am accused of engaging in an edit war and ignoring previous statements.

Clearly, I am not ignoring you or William M. Connolley, who I am still waiting for a better explanation than "sorry, but no" from. Two editors disputing the topic means one should not rerevert the addition, which I never did. You also took a friendly gesture (i.e. the trout slap) way to seriously. I was laughing at a sentence I stated and you seem to have taken it like I was laughing at you. RCraig09, you are engaged in disruptive and uncivil behavior. Please be more civil towards this discussion. Since three editors are now involved, a 3rd opinion is out. I do not accept William M. Connolley's sole opinion in this dispute (literally "sorry, but no"), which means the only other options are an RFC or WikiProject talk page discussion. Given your uncivil accusations here, I shall be opening a new discussion soon to help solve the issue, as crazy as it sounds, if a polar bear on ice is related to climate change. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-introduction of disputed content at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&diff=1283752122&oldid=1283648073 shows you have violated WP:BRD. You repeatedly twist what I "D"iscuss here in compliance with WP:BR"D".

I never claimed a polar bear on ice was irrelevant to climate change. Clearly, what I said was that a weather list that does not even show the polar bear image is steps removed from CC.

You removed a different polar bear on ice image with the false statement " Removing polar bear on ice. That related too much to meteorology, which per the talk page, is not related to climate change." Obviously it is your list that is irrelevant, not polar bears on ice.

Another editor and I did not "dispute the idea that climate change is related to meteorology". They are related. But they are distinct. Your statement is false.

How old are you? Many people here are working professionals who do not have time to spare. Stop. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Age is not relevant (reminding of WP:AGEISM) and several other editors on here know who I am in the professional workforce. I do indeed have a meteorological job and I do not have a ton of time to contribute to Wikipedia myself. I am not some random troll or kid. Now, I would like to continue this conversation calmly, where both myself and you work to focus on the content of the article and not each other’s past statements/behavior. Do we have a deal RCraig09? I am asking for a WP:MUTUAL sort of redo to the discussion if you are up for it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, compare:

Climate change --> Weather LIST --> one external link --> copyright protected polar bear/ice pic
Climate change <--> existing Wikimedia image of polar bear/ice pic

Do you see the difference in WP:Relevance, and cumulativeness issues? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:SEEALSO, Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. It is editorial discretion, which is perfectly ok to manage, but sadly creates debates like this. The articles should be tangentially related topics. The article has images, including a similar image to the one in the list article. It is clear, based on this article’s usage of a similar image, there is indeed a tangential relationship between the articles. Whether the article is already using a similar image, bluntly, has no barring whatsoever on the see also section, since the only thing being mentioned is a literal Wikilink to a tangentially related article. So, if I may ask, what is your direct objection (preferably a MOS:SEEALSO objection) to the article being included in the see also section? Do you not think there is a tangential relationship between the articles? That is more or less my direct question. I am trying to understand why an image in the article automatically means there is no clear relevance to a list with a similar article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to my point, Migrant Mother is also listed in the notable photo list, sourced with an article explaining the climate connection to the iconic photo. So, for reference, if you exclude the extreme weather events (which NASA links to climate change), then there is two photos in that list, sourced by reliable sources, which have some link to climate change. I am wanting to point that out since there is indeed one additional photo besides the polar bear photo that is relevant for this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are countless "tangentially related" topics! However, a list of 28 weather-related images is not even a topic and is not in MOS:SEEALSO's "same defining category" as climate change. Applying MOS:SEEALSO's "editorial judgment and common sense":

Only 12 of the 28 images are even shown (!). You argue the bear pic is relevant because of the photo's name and Migrant Woman because of a background source that "links" the woman to a "climate connection". However, the unshown polar bear pic is cumulative to what has long been in this article by consensus, and Migrant Woman obviously concerns the Great Depression and Dust Bowl and not climate change. Readers arriving at this Climate change article will not come here seeking a link to an image that's similar to an already-included image, or a picture of a worried woman. Some of the Wikimedia Commons images might be of interest to editors in weather-related articles, but the copyright-protected bear is not available for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia, and a worried-looking woman is not seriously relevant to this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion is about whether this article: List of notable media in the field of meteorology should be under "See also", I would say it should not. In my opinion it is not that important that it ought to be in the See also list. I think we should perhaps delete the "See also" section altogether. I'll start a separate entry for that just below. EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to remove the "See also" section?

I think this article does not need to have a "See also" section as it could be way too difficult to decide what should be in there and what shouldn't. We have a nav box at the bottom of the article which should be sufficient. At the moment, the "See also" list contains:

Climate change portal - the portal could be moved to somewhere else; as an aside, the icon with that Earth + Fire seems a bit childish; there is so much more going on than just heating and wildfires.
List of climate scientists - could be accessed through the navbox. Is it really that important? Why is the List of climate activists of lesser importance? Show either neither list or both lists?
Charney Report - how is this so important? If it is, mention it in the "history" section rather and also in History of climate change science (it's not in there yet)? EMsmile (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Charney Report is now incorporated into narrative text; problematic entries are removed. This reset doesn't preclude adding links in the future, but the extensive side bars and bottom templates seem to cover the field of relevant related topics. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! EMsmile (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning public support for climate action in the lead section

I wrote a sentence about public support for climate action and divided information about impacts and climate change mitigation in the lead section, but it was deleted. Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&oldid=prev&diff=1287298561

In my opinion it is important to mention in the lead section that climate action has broad public support.

@Remsense deleted it writing:

"rv as clearly WP:RECENTIST, and reads quite tendentiously starting a paragraph privileging a particular data point over broad distillation of the topic. the paragraph break's unneeded also, full paragraphs are fine and needn't be chopped up like on a news site"

Firstly, the study that I refer to, was published in September 2024, so it is not recentism.

Secondly, it is true that it is better to not refer to only one study. In the article I refer to there is at least 6 links to different studies which proves the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/spiral-of-silence-climate-action-very-popular-why-dont-people-realise

Here also there are 2 studies showing that 80%-89% support climate action.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/apr/23/climate-action-public-support

So, in my opinion, it is neccessary that we will put in the lead section the phrase: "The vast majority of human population support climate action" or "80% - 89% of human population support climate action" putting those links as a source. There is a lot of content about it in the page, so, it should be mentioned in the lead section also.

Also, in my opinion, it will facilitate understanding if we will divide the information to a paragraph about impacts and a paragraph about climate action as I did. What do you think?

@EMsmile @Sadads @RCraig09 Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

was published in September 2024, so it is not recentism.

Please take a moment to at least skim WP:RECENTISM, which was linked in the edit summary, so you're aware of what it actually says.

So, in my opinion, it is neccessary that we will put in the lead section the phrase

You didn't make a substantive argument here, though. Yes, there being multiple sources potentially supports the case that the prominent placement of a claim within the article would be proportionate to its attestation in the body of reliable sources. What's more, potential references like Andre et al. (2024)^[1] and Bergquist et al. (2022)^[2] are actually really popular as far as research articles go, both among their peers, secondary news outlets, and the general public.

However, the problem with your particular demand is outlined clearly in the abstract for Andre et al. (2024):

Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action. Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. Countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute. Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act. This perception gap, combined with individuals showing conditionally cooperative behaviour, poses challenges to further climate action.

If you decide to pluck only the 89% statement from this summary, and privilege it as uniquely vital and important for readers, you divorce it from its original context and place it on its own in the most valuable and highly visible part of the article. Sorry, but I don't know what to call that other than egregious cherry-picking, and ultimately POV-pushing, given how different one's impression of the 89% figure alone is, compared to that of the full abstract, where the datum is more properly contextualized and issues of how to interpret it are explicitly addressed.

I would fully support mentioning that there is widespread support for climate action worldwide in the lead, but anything more incisive or specific than that is clumsy at best and actively dishonest at worst. That's what the article body is for—readers can learn more where there is space for the details of scholarship to be properly expressed. Remsense ‥ 论 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exellent. I agree to write "there is widespread support for climate action worldwide" in the lead. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Andre, Peter; Boneva, Teodora; Chopra, Felix; Falk, Armin (2024). "Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 14 (3): 253–259. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3. ISSN 1758-678X.
^ Bergquist, Magnus; Nilsson, Andreas; Harring, Niklas; Jagers, Sverker C. (2022). "Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws". Nature Climate Change. 12 (3): 235–240. doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01297-6. ISSN 1758-678X.

Climate Change Affects Snow: An In-Depth Look

Climate change has a significant impact on snow patterns, especially in regions that rely on consistent snowfall for ecosystems, water supply, and recreation. As global temperatures rise, many areas experience warmer winters, which leads to less snow and more rain. Even small shifts in temperature can have a big effect, turning what would have been snowstorms into rain events. This not only reduces the total amount of snow that falls but also shortens the length of the snow season. In mountainous regions, snow is arriving later in the year and melting earlier, which affects both the natural environment and human activities like skiing and snowboarding.

The early melting of snow due to higher temperatures also disrupts the natural water cycle. Snowpack in many regions acts like a natural reservoir, slowly releasing water into rivers and streams during the spring and summer. When snow melts too early, it can lead to water shortages later in the year, especially in places that rely on snowmelt for agriculture, drinking water, and hydroelectric power. Additionally, the shift from snow to rain can increase the risk of winter flooding, as rain runs off frozen or saturated ground more quickly than snow would.

Climate change also affects the quality and type of snow. Warmer temperatures can lead to heavier, wetter snow instead of the light, powdery kind that many ecosystems and ski resorts depend on. This changes the structure of the snowpack, making it less stable and more prone to avalanches. Wildlife that relies on deep, consistent snow cover—like lynx or snowshoe hares—also struggle to adapt, which can impact entire food chains. In the long term, these shifts in snowfall patterns are signs of a changing climate that touches both natural systems and human ways of life. Babreweruci (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, all that you're saying there makes sense, but please be aware that article Talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article. Do you have a specific proposal for doing so? Also be aware that any new content must be supported by reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of Geophysics sidebar template from Climate change

Discussion copied from my User Talk Page. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you justified removing Geophysics sidebar template from Climate change with "not even the best summary of what this high-level article pertains to . . . . see extensive navigation footers" (diff) I did check out the footers and everything else - thanks. I was correct indeed: climate change is a subfield of geophysics, which is why the American Geophysical Union has eight sections dedicated to studying climate. Besides, the article is already in (the Climate Change category as a subcategory of the Climate variability and change subcategory of) the Geophysics category. The template obviously helps provide more complete information and education to the visitor. Tinterest (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinterest: There has been a strong consensus developed over years regarding what should be included in this high-level article, especially the lead. Physical space in the article—especially in the lead—is at a premium. Any template pushes ensuing graphics out of place (away from their intended sections) while adding only speculative relevance: almost all the links in the Geophysics template are to subjects at a different level than climate change, and the template doesn't even include a link to Climate change. It is irrelevant that Climate variability and change—which after long discussions was made purposely distinct from the Climate change article which deals with present-day climate change—is in the Geophysics category. Re the AGU: be aware that climate and climate change are distinct concepts at entirely different levels. I agree with User:Bogazicili's exclusion of the template. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for additional info. However, it seems you missed my reply to him: Wikipedia is not paper because it aims to educate online visitors (whose interfaces come in countless shapes and versions), not impersonate paper encyclopedias. Your "premium physical space" sounds like relic typography journalism. Seriously, who in their right mind would/should care if a Wikipedia article's layout "looks impressive" on a specific device/browser/version... like yours, given that it won't/can't look that way on the next person's device/browser/version...? Tinterest (talk)

@Tinterest: It's not about looking impressive. It's about editorss' consensus over years, which underlies all the reasons listed above. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinterest: Now I see you are posting the same template across multiple article pages. You are new, and should wait until you understand how Wikipedia works before proceeding. You can continue discussion here if you like. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from incivil behavior by patronizing and instead read my argument offered in good faith: Wikipedia is not paper, so spoiling the looks of an article on a device is not a criterion for content removal. Tinterest (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded squarely to a single fact or policy or guideline or explanation of consensus that I have made. In true Straw man form, you pretend my argument is about "looking impressive" or "not spoiling the looks". Instead you again point to an essay vaguely describing what Wikipedia is not, an essay that is not a even a policy or guideline. Two editors experienced in this article's history have removed your post here. Further, you have experienced at least another editor removing the template from still another article, as being tangential, which is central to the template's problem here and other places. It is not patronizing to state that you are new; it is an objective fact that is corroborated by the number of reversions that have been performed against your posts. If you were proceeding in good faith, you stop to understand what the rest of us are talking about and stop repeating the same behavior in other articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal, as it pushes images down, disrupting flow. With the current skin (Vector 22), there is less variation in how people on Desktop see this article. Everybody with a slightly smaller and bigger screen than me will encounter the same problem. There are quite a few of these templates that could be added, but I see little value in any of them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tinterest, Wikipedia is not paper is just an essay. It's not part of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If you are looking for an actual policy regarding your edit, see WP:ONUS.

If others are not objecting, maybe we can add Template:Geophysics navbox at the end of the article, with other navbox's. The navbox wouldn't disrupt the article layout. Bogazicili (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an idea, although I don't see why we should be shy about the fact that climate change is primarily a natural process and not sociological (or else only sociologists would be studying it and geophysicists would never even touch it). Tinterest (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogazicili: I'm not seeing the relevance of the Geophysics navbox—any more than countless other science-related navboxes out there (Template:Weather, Template:Renewable energy sources...) that are much more directly relevant to this article's content than geophysics. There has been no showing of why any further sidebars or navboxes should be included. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sidebar template is not just any navbox - the fact that so many geophysicists (including at least eight sections of the American Geophysical Union) study climate (and its change, as studing properties and processes/changes is what science is all about) implies that climate change is primarily a natural process rather than manmade. So your stubborness seems politically motivated. A matter of fact of such fundamental importance to the society should not be hidden in an encyclopedia. Tinterest (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That climate change is of interest to many geophysicists, does not mean that readers will benefit from a geophysics sidebar or navbox that points to barely-related articles. The myriad links in the text of the article show that nothing relevant is being "hidden". You do not understand that the present article is about current climate change, which is no longer "primarily a natural process". "Political" motivation? Just stop. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You Tinterest will note that no one here agrees with you re a sidebar. No one. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it means exactly that: the box has links to basic stuff, not myriad, as encyclopedias are for general public, not experts (so this milelong article with a ton of links should really be a stub at the most). I have no idea what "current climate change" is (as I said, science studies processes, meaning the changes that occured at any time, not just recently and not just in the distant past - that's what the word process means, so processes are always observed at all times, without bias). You should also read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and ease off on people with your consensus mantra. Tinterest (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here, "current climate change" means the anthropogenic climate the planet has been experiencing as a result of humans' greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution. You were, and possibly still are, unaware that prior consensus has determined that—as already explained—that is what this article is about. You continue to weasel out of accepting what has been explained to you by your using vague references, including the latest: you will note that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY describes "decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus" that you discount. Above, you have spewed straw man arguments, and accuse someone else of stubbornness, imply political motivations—anything but squarely responding to, or possibly even understanding, what has been repeatedly explained to you by editors experienced in this article's content and its established editorial consensus. Just stop. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. What fraction of the following articles are directly relevant to anthropogenic climate change as explained here?

2. Which articles would readers be interested in after coming here to learn of anthropogenic climate change?

3. If these Geophysics links are included, how many dozen other templates should be included??? Template:Physical chemistry? Template:Renewable energy? Template:Psychology? Template:Weather? Template:Motor fuels? Template:Oxides? Template:Glaciers? Template:Industrial Revolution?

Mineral physics Petrophysics History Computational Electricity Ionosphere Polar wind Thunderstorms Fluid dynamics Atmospheric science Magnetohydrodynamics OceanographyTurbulence Geodynamics Climate Earth's mantle Exoplanetology Geochemistry Glaciology Planetary science Plate tectonics Tectonics Volcanism Gravity Gravity of Earth Geodesy Geoid Physical geodesy Magnetism Earth's magnetic field Geomagnetic reversal Magnetosphere Paleomagnetism Solar wind Waves Seismology Spectroscopy Vibration Scientists Aki Alfven Anderson Benioff BowieDziewonski Forbes Eotvos Gilbert Gutenberg Heiskanen Hotinevon Humboldt Jeffreys Kanamori Love Matthews McKenzie Mercalli Molodenskii Munk Press Richter Turcotte Van Allen Vanicek Vening Meinesz Wegener Wilson

—RCraig09 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of those eight AGU sections that study climate (change), only one studies paleoclimate (change), so geophysicists obviously (by a large majority, in fact) do study your "current" climate change. Sociologists do not, practically not at all. So answer this if you would: what does that tell you? Come on, it is not that hard! Or just stop. (Though I am amused by the tactics you cultists use in justifying owning your little privatized corners of Wikipedia like this article - all that ranting over an attempt to include one little and highly relevant sidebar infobox, wow.) Tinterest (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my three questions posted 03:53 8 May.

It doesn't surprise me you now ask a question I have already answered: "That climate change is of interest to many geophysicists, does not mean that readers will benefit from a geophysics sidebar or navbox that points to barely-related articles." You've got it backwards. And you've admitted that the sidebar itself is not "highly relevant". And it's not "small" especially in the lead.

I didn't say it was not highly relevant (I wouldn't be advocating its inclusion obviously). It was just a remark on the fact that you fight so much the inclusion of a highly relevant yet tiny infobox only because it directly opposes the very existence of this article. Implications from hard science studying the main subject of this article so vastly and deeply (as the AGU does, which means by extension that we are talking roughly 1/3 of all geophysicists, not "some" as you would downplay it), are that the article in reality has a totally opposite meaning from the one purpotrated by you and your mass following. Speaking of which, your mass following is really irrelevant and you can have 1 million followers if you like but that still would not change the fact that this article has missed the point entirely. Personally, I think this article should be speedy deleted. Tinterest (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a "privatized corner of Wikipedia": it has 3,126 editors who watch this page and 5,333 who have edited this article... arriving by consensus at its current state. It's not surprising that the one with the least knowledge does the most name calling. Just stop. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may underappreciate how many disciplines study climate change. Sociologist definitely do. They may for instance study the large disconnect in public opinion supporting climate action, and the lack of sufficient climate action. How does social change come about? What have been successful movements to demand climate action? How does climate disinformation spread? These questions are as key as the questions that geophysicists study. Please, WP:focus on content, and do not attack other volunteers. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of this relevance issue is:
Tinterest's premise that some geophysicists study climate change, does not imply that readers here are interested in all the other things that geophysicists study (or in list of geophysicists).
I realize that dozens of disciplines study climate change (see my question 3 above); this fact does not imply we should have dozens of sidebars here, especially in the lead. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? So to you, that some (or all) sociologists or dozens of non-physical disciplines study climate change implies sociological or non-physical nature of a physical process? You don't realize that when something gives physical character to a process, no one else's opinion matters anymore except the physicists'? Then don't forget that housewives too study it over morning coffee, so let's include a section dissussing what housewives think about climate change. While at it, how about midschool seniors (it's their future after all)... and then bus drivers... and... Your playing the "mass following" card reminds me of the Luddites ("what do all those physical scientists know"). Tinterest (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change

The annual review of sociology’s article “climate change and society”, which was published in July 2020 in volume 46, examines how sociological viewpoints help us comprehend climate change as an ecological and social issue. The human drivers of climate change are examined by the authors, Thomas Dietz, Rachael L. Showman, and Cameron T. Whitley. These factors include how social structures and political economies affect greenhouse gas emissions, how political and power interact in corporate and policy systems, and what influences the individual behavior of consumers and citizens. The significance of tackling climate justice across multiple strata, including race, class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and indigenous identity, is also emphasized in the review. Sociology needs to integrate theoretically in order to successfully contribute to the conversation about climate change. I didn’t make any chances on the information above, but I did add some extra important information that I think would be helpful. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054614 Andreaperez12 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Andreaperez12. Is there any change you would like to see based on that paper? Either in this article or another? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaking the studying of effects of a physical process for hardcore physical science on that physical process is a redflag revealing a Ludite movement at work. And you not only equate the cause and consequence, but you go a step further and take the consequence out of the context and make it the character of the process itself ("blame the humans!"). Wow. I mean just - wow. As I said above, this article should be speedy deleted as it fails even the common sense check. Now I understand why the article is milelong and why you hate it even mentioning geophysics: you've been trying to make up the lack of quality with increase in quantity. Never works in the end. Tinterest (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2025 (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.

[30] IPCC SR15 Ch4 2018, pp. 347–352

[31] Andre, Peter; Boneva, Teodora; Chopra, Felix; Falk, Armin (2024). "Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 14 (3): 253–259. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3. ISSN 1758-678X.

[32] Bergquist, Magnus; Nilsson, Andreas; Harring, Niklas; Jagers, Sverker C. (2022). "Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws". Nature Climate Change. 12 (3): 235–240. doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01297-6. ISSN 1758-678X.

[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]

[1]

[2]