Jump to content

Talk:Tipping points in the climate system/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Really old comments that had no heading

To start things off, this article uses way too many analogies. In fact, half of the introduction section was just analogies, which may help some understand the topic but seems to be more of a content filler. We begin to see some quality writing in the definition section. The authors define the term "tipping point" using the IPCC AR5 report, which is a very reliable source. They also provided an alternative definition, which I think just confuses the reader since it just dances around the first definition from the IPCC AR5. There are some grammar and spelling mistakes, such as the capitalization of the word "ocean." There is a lack of citations in some parts of the article, which needs to either be cited or be removed. PhatWabbit (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This article misunderstands the meaning of tipping point, at least as its used by Hansen or Lenton. A tipping point is *not* when we get to a CO2 level that causes more CO2 to be emitted. Its something like when we get to a T change from CO2 that we are committed to melting Greenland. In fact the concept is very hard to define exactly (I would argue that no-one has done so: it remains a vague concept more useful for generating scary headlines than anythng else). See-also [1]. Or [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Hansen seems to like the "small cap" warm weather sea ice removal temperature. Excerpt:

Early energy balance climate models revealed a “small ice

cap instability” at the pole (Budyko, 1969; North, 1984), which implied that, once sea ice retreated to a critical latitude, all remaining ice would be lost rapidly without additional forcing. This instability disappears in climate models with a seasonal cycle of radiation and realistic dynamical energy transports, but a vestige remains: the snow/ice albedo feedback makes sea ice cover in summer and fall sensitive to moderate increase of climate forcings. The Arctic was ice-free in the warm season during the Middle Pliocene when global temperature was only 2-3�C warmer than today (Crowley, 1996; Dowsett et al., 1996). Satellite data indicate a rapid decline, �9%/decade, in perennial Arctic sea ice since 1978 (Comiso, 2002), raising the question of whether the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” leading inevitably to loss of all warm season sea ice (Lindsay and Zhang, 2005). Indeed, some experts suggest that “. . . there seem to be few, if any, processes or feedbacks that are capable of altering the trajectory toward this ‘super interglacial’ state” free of summer sea ice (Overpeck et al.,

2005).

from "Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study" Hansen, et al. --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone claims to have defined it, and here's their definition [3]. Here's the article it's an appendix to [4]. I cross-posted this at Talk:Dynamical system, because I think the definition comes from the theory of dynamics and doesn't really have anything to make it a separate concept. But I would have to go through the math, whereas it should be trivial for an expert in dynamics to see whether the definition looks like a quote or looks like incompatible jargon from a different discipline. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy groups

I think it is appropriate to say somewhere on the page that advocacy groups have sprung up around the concept of a tipping point, and that a goal of 350ppm has been proposed and embraced by people like Hansen. There seems to be no cogent reason to exclude the fact that the concept of a tipping point has had a social response. ► RATEL ◄ 02:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point! Agreed. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Example [5] where an env. activism groups cites the "tipping point" as a call to arms. ► RATEL ◄ 04:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Seems to me there's no good reason to include such information in this article. But I might be convinced if the editor(s) wanting to add it weren't spamming 350.org on all articles containing the number 350, and reasons why it's important were added here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it REALLY "spam" if it is the Most Important number now? 99.37.84.188 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is spam. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What is "spam"? 99.54.139.30 (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I tell you 350 times, it's spam. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this linked to Category:Climate change, as tipping can go either way ... ?

Why isn't this linked to Category:Climate change, as tipping can go either way ... ? 99.155.145.157 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in Category:Climate crisis, which is a logical subcategory of Category:Climate change. It shouldn't be in both, absent overriding considerations, per WP:SUBCAT.
At least, that's my interpretation of WP:SUBCAT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Climate crisis is an entirely pointless category. WP:OVERCAT seems appropriate to link here. The climate crisis is global warming. -Atmoz (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
That may be. If you want to propose a category merge… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

addition tipping point "How it all ends" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg ?

Addition tipping point "How it all ends" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg ? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube videos are rarely appropriate anywhere, and that only if claimed by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If of interest, see Greg Craven (teacher). 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if notable, that doesn't make it reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Kerr

Re [6]. Kerr is a journo. His opinion doesn't belong that prominently William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

wp:tea 99.39.187.21 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

a nice argumentative end

It has been a while since I read the U.N. Millenium report (2006). 'Global Warming' is only one of the critical stressors on the biosphere.

Yet, [biosphere] does not even suggest that the real thing might be at a 'tipping point' of disintegration. Is this because it can not be proven or calculated until it actually disintegrates? Is there perhaps another place on the web that better represents this critical issue for mankind?

Google search of biospheric tipping point yields: http://www.johncairns.net/Papers/Threats%20to%20the%20Biosphere.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapler42 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See Planetary boundaries 99.181.144.230 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Off topic chatter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lack of understand ... Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion. 99.181.135.147 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Lack of WP:COMPETENCE by the anon? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If you insist on insulting novice editors, why don't you assist them, Admin User:Arthur Rubin ... example Talk:Amazon_Rainforest#Change_Impact_of_Amazon_drought_to_Impact_of_2005_Amazon_drought_since_there_was_a_2010_Amazon_drought. Remember Don't insult? 99.181.134.121 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You are not a novice, and an accusation of lack of WP:COMPETENCE is not an insult, just an observation. Some people are just not suited to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. 99.119.128.35 (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to implement WP:RBI, but your IP-hopping makes that difficult. I think I'd have to block a couple of /16s in order to deal with just the ones who are clearly the same person, not just people with the same apparent goals and apparent lack of English skills. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
What are /16s? Why are you (Wikipedia:THREATEN#Threats_and_intimidation) threatening an IP User, as it appears to be Wikipedia:I just don't like it, or someother variant, on your part Mr. Rubin. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not threatening the IP. I'm stating that you (all of you, whether you are one person, or muultiple persons acting in concert) are violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that your edits will be removed. Whether that involves preventing you from editing Wikipedia as a whole, or just articles loosely related to global warming, remains to be determined. There was a finding that you were non-constructive at ANI a few months back, and nothing has really changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

99.181.156.221 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's more related to the general concept of "tipping point" than to this article. As a non-scientist, you should do better at constructing that article than I would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Self contradiction?

The initial statement that a tipping point is the change form one stable state to another seems to be contradicted by a later point that it may be passed without any obvious consequences. If the two states are indistinguishable then in what sense are they distinct? I think some clarification of what exactly it is in the climate that has "tipped" is required. In the example of the Greenland icesheets explicitly stating the parameter of concern would help, is it the thickness, the temperature, the speed or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.234.173 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I think the intent is that the tipping point is not the change in the state, itself, but the change in a parameter which makes the change to another stable state inevitable. Some work on the general concept of "Tipping point" would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the concept is one without a clear meaning or definition. However, I don't think your "contradiction" is; just because the consequences aren't obvious doesn't make it a change of state William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the Meridian Programme?

What is the Meridian Programme? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition might be improved by including mention of feedback

Seems to me that feedback is the thing that makes the system tip and should be mentioned. In the wine glass analogy a small change (less than the tipping point) results in negative feedback which returns the system to the initial state, whereas a slightly larger change that passes the tipping point results in positive feedback that inevitably sends the system off into the new state. (this gels with Hansen's comments further down that we have already passed the tipping point for climate change == the climate sensitivity is positive)

In short I'm suggesting the definition of the tipping point is when the sign of the feedback changes from negative to positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.234.173 (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

edits

made a minor change to sp of celcius. also worth noting that it shoudl be capitalized. --Fraulein451 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversibility?

Is passing a tipping point always irreversible? If it is always irreversible it should be beefed up to say so. If not then it isn't a defining feature and probably doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.117.60 (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was more like a hysteresis point; not necessarily irreversible, but requiring a lot more effort to reverse. I could be wrong, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right. But bear in mind these things are ill-defined so you can't really expect an exact answer. No-one owns the term, after all William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ice sheet melt citation

Is the sentence "At some level of temperature rise, the melt of the entire ice sheet will become inevitable, even though complete melting may not occur for millennia." meant to be an established fact or just a possible scenario? If it's a fact then a citation is warranted otherwise something to indicate it's a speculator such as changing "will" to "might" is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.117.60 (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gail Whiteman report

This ref was removed: Gail Whiteman reporting that methane release can happen 'at any moment' Perhaps another article about the same report can be integrated KVDP (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

But why. As your link says, academics argue that a significant release of methane from thawing permafrost in the Arctic could have dire implications for the world's economy and that is the point of the report. So it has nothing to add here. Its also rubbish, IMHO. But don't take my word for it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No longer a "somewhat ill-defined concept" - this needs an update.

Elsewhere on the internet the casual researcher will find plenty of good text and graphical explanations of tipping points. Google text and images.

This article is pretty old. Needs updating. Rpauli (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this one is ill-defined; to be precise, the "good text and graphical explanations" of tipping points are not about the same concept. The general concept of "tipping point", for which we do not have an article, might be well-defined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
"ill defined" is a bad joke, isn't it? The concept is well defined but might be "ill understood" by somebody. --Hg6996 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Definitely deserves an update. "Ill-defined" and the wine glass analogy are irrelevant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.143.133 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

tipping points and tipping elements

Hi,

I fear the name of the article does not match its content. This article is about tipping elements, but it is titeled "tipping point". You can see this when you look at what Lenton et all really highlights in his cited publication: These are tipping elements, not tipping points. The tipping point exists, too: It is the point at which the tipping element flipps. --Hg6996 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the article is about tipping points; it just happens that the only examples are from Lenton William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the article is intended to write about tipping points and a part of it indeed does so but to do so consequently the section "examples" should also list tipping points.
But instead it lists tipping elements but names them tipping points.
If it would list tipping point the point at which the tipping elements flipp (or at which they are assumed to flipp) should be listed.
I cite the abstract from the cited source, Lenton at all.
He writes:
"The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point". --Hg6996 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Detailed reference on the use of tipping point terminology

this communication science article tracks the uses of climate tipping point terminology. its fairly pedantic but there is useful info in it. the author suggest a distinction between scientific uses and social uses, which have overlapping but different meanings, and the history of its use, a section that is sorely missing in this article.

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/russill_2009.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyotoGrrl (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tipping point (climatology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Title change

While (after?) we're merging, shall we change the title to Tipping point in climate, tipping points in climatology, climate tipping points or tipping points in the climate system? The current definition implies that tipping points are defined differently in sociology, physics and climate, which is mostly untrue. Femkemilene (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If it makes sense to whoever is doing the work, it makes sense to me. One thought. I expect to be sorting and consolidating climate pages as time allows for a good long time. When I wrote up my thoughts in my sandbox, which i think I shared with you, I sketched out a plan if I was doing this alone. My own thought was to start at the bottom and work upwards. So in my own mind, whatever label this page has it will probably be subjected to further merge proposals down the road (probably involving climate change feedback). I apologize if saying "There is another merge down the road" sounds like playing games. That's not my intent. My brain would do this little bit by little bit. Others might want to wrestle the Hydra all at once. The point is, since there is further clean up and merge work ahead, an option is to not worry about the page's label right now. But if it makes sense to those doing the work, it makes sense to me! FYI, I'm hung up at the other merge, where I need to spend an afternoon in the library and real life is in the way for awhile. So bottom line... whatever you want to do is great, thanks for helping with the overall clean up project! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

reversibility

Useful RS

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Where have all the tipping points gone

I love the rewrite, but the most important section of the old tipping point article is removed: all the tipping points that don't relate to global temperature! Lenton's overview of tipping points from 2008 is somewhat outdated, but still mostly correct and I think it's inclusion, with updated research, is vital for this article.

The article now falsely implies that melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, disruption to Indian and West African monsoon seasons, and disruption of thermohaline circulation are consequences of some temperature tipping point, instead of having tippnig points in their own right. I think in terms of balance about 1/3 of the article should be about GMST tipping points, and the other 2/3 about other tipping points in climate.

Importantly, the definition in the lede is now at odds with the two references we have for what a tipping point is in the definition section. Femkemilene (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I too thank Efbrazil for working to execute the merge here. I find it useful, when reading the SPMs, to also look up the sections in the full reports. In this case, the full report elaborates on the definition of tipping point, in way that is not just about temperature, but about the workings and components of climate system

The notion of thresholds has become a prominent ecological and political concern (Knapp, A.K. et al., 2008; Lenton et al., 2008; Leadley et al., 2010). To avoid policy confusion, three types of threshold need to be distinguished. The first reflects a human preference that the ecosystem stays within certain bounds, such as above a certain forest cover. These can be, by definition, negotiated. The second type reflects fundamental biological or physical properties, for instance the temperature at which frozen soils thaw (see Box 4-4) or the physiological tolerance limits of species. The third type is caused by system dynamics: the point at which the net effect of all the positive and negative feedback loops regulating the system is sufficiently large and positive that a small transgression becomes sufficiently amplified to lead to a change in ecosystem state called a regime shift (Lenton et al., 2008). The new state exhibits different dynamics, mean composition, sensitivity to environmental drivers, and flows of ecosystem services relative to the prior state. This type of threshold is called a “tipping point” (defined in the Glossary as a level of change in system properties beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly, and persists in its new state even if the drivers of the change are abated ) and is important in the context of climate change because its onset may be abrupt, hard to predict precisely, and effectively irreversible (Scheffer et al., 2009; Leadley et al., 2010; Barnosky et al., 2012; Brook et al., 2013; Hughes et al., 2013). Many examples of tipping points have now been identified (Scheffer, 2009). Regional-scale ecosystem tipping points have not occurred in the recent past, but there is good evidence for tipping points in the distant past (Section 4.2.3) and there is concern that they could occur in the near future.

— IPCC AR5 WG2 Full report section 4.2 page 278
Importantly, this definition is about the climate system rather than just temperature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Regarding the outdated list of tipping points, that's partly why I cut it (it was out dated). My goal in the merge was really to categorize types of tipping points and update the content, power to you if you want to go further than that. Keep in mind that there is a detailed list of effects in Effects of global warming. We can perhaps call out which of those effects are "tipping points" provided we can also call out which effects aren't "tipping points" and perhaps which systems tip not because of temperature. Regardless, we don't want to start replicating the list in Effects of global warming.
I think it's great if you want to go into more detail on what causes different effects to tip that isn't temperature, but in fairness the original article didn't go into that either. I tied the specific examples to temperature because in the modern context temperature is the root cause for a tip in those systems, not other things like continental drift.Efbrazil (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Our article [{Effects of global warming]] is a bit of a monster. I suggest instead spending the first energy reviewing tipping points identified in the FULL WG2 AR5 report. It's loaded with potentially usefual material. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand your worry now of including other tipping points, in terms of the article becoming like the effects of global warming and will make sure I stay away from that. I'm planning quite a big rewrite over the weekend, using the IPCC definition and sources therein. The article should indeed be clear that ice sheet melt occurs without a tipping point as well (effects of global warming), but that a tipping point in this system would make it significantly worse.
I think there is one big tipping point that has potentially little to do with global warming: the deforestation - precipitation feedback loop in the Amazon.
For later, cascading tipping points is something that needs to be discussed as well: the fact that going over a tipping point in f.i. ice sheet dynamics might cause a tipping point in the thermohaline circulation.
I will target the introduction first using the IPCC definition and then mostly expand the section on climate tipping points with a description of the most-used examples. Femkemilene (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Great! Just to belabor one big picture thing .... in my own mind, I try to never conceptualize a tipping point in terms of the major components of the climate system that are effected. For example, I try to NOT think of "ice sheet dynamics tipping point". That's because of the simple question "Who cares?" Well, I do because I think ice sheets are cool and going there would be fun and my wife cares because her field of study is tangentially related. But that's just a few of us. The real issue is how does the overall climate system determine their stability? How does the overall climate system respond when they're gone? So instead for any given tipping point, I try to think of "climate system implications for the stability of ______________ and implications if we that gets messed up?" Its the same exact phenomena, but the context and emphasis is on the overall climate system, rather than the specific parts and workings of the system. Sure, we have to talk about the parts and workings down in the details. I'm just trying to emphasize that each tipping point we talk about should be set in the overall system context at the start and end. To borrow an old analogy, each section should help the reader understand the whole elephant, not just whatever part that reader is engaged with. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I will follow the lead of the IPCC 1.5 report and make a distinction between tipping points that effect the global climate and regional tipping points. Will add a bit more information about the overall consequences for these global tipping points. Femkemilene (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A lot to be done, but structure is now in place

I will continue the editing later this weekend with more focus on the global effects and better sourcing. Of course, feel free to expand! Femkemilene (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank @Femkemilene: and @Efbrazil: for constructive collaboration on the recent merge discussions. Even if we end up learning enough to not merge, we're still cleaning, sorting, and focussig so the results either way will be vastly improved. Keep it up! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI lead cites

Just FYI, in response to a recent edit summary, text in the lead is supposed to summarize cited text in the body of the article. Citations are not mandatory in the lead. WP:LEADCITE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to that; early warning signals are very relevant to tipping points and a very active field of study. Research into cascading tipping points is relatively new and I think you could argue that it doens't belong in the lede (yet). The implications of them are wide-spread and I think that sufficient research has now come out to include them briefly. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Are there RSs that say this is a vital emergent research area? Then we can include that and maybe include a summary in the lead. Sometimes knowing what we don't know is significant stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Good to know about sources in the intro. My main goal in editing the intro was to make it a coherent message when read out loud. The last paragraph was just two disjointed ideas that didn't add much value on their own. I took another crack at the article with these notes in mind, take a look at comments for details.Efbrazil (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Glaciers, coral reefs

Isn't the retreat of glaciers a tipping point too (trough the albedo effect) ? Also, aren't coral reefs (again which are in decline) a tipping point as their disappearance will probably impact the flow of sea currents. If so, perhaps include them in article. Genetics4good (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. As far as I'm aware, there is no threshold in forcing above which a large change in those climate elements occurs. They are both sensitive to climate change, but in a more gradual fashion. You can do a quick Google scholar search and see if something pops up, but I doubt it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Genetics4good, (A) Thanks for your interest (B) please don't post stuff out of your own head. Instead, please find WP:Reliable sources and then by all means, post away and we'll discuss your suggested article improvements based on those RSs. What we do not do is spend lots of time on general WP:FORUM discussions. Carry on! Bring on those RSs..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Actions to prevent or delay (local) tipping points of being crossed

Shouldn't the page also include a list of actions that can be taken (and are often already being taken btw, at least to some degree) to prevent crossing over individual tipping points ? In some cases, such actions are already described on the pages of the individual tipping points, but a quick list here would avoid needing to look up each one individually. For instance, I'm thinking of:

  • savannization of the Amazon -> monitoring of forests (uav, satellite, ...) to avoid illegal logging thereof
  • melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets -> prevention of black carbon emissions (from ships) again through monitoring
  • arctic methane release (thawing) -> not sure about this, but methane storage (so before it thaws and is released) could be done in some degree, see here. Even if the methane is used then (for fuel), the global warming potential will be lower as you're no longer releasing methane any more (as it has been burned then)
  • peat fires in the arctic -> again, remote monitoring of forests to allow for faster extinguishing of the fires
  • Ocean deoxygenation ? -> growing more oxygen-producing aquatic plants (i.e. seaweed, ...) in the oceans
  • ...

I think that by adding something like this, the article would be a bit less negative in tone, besides simply also being useful information for the page. Genetics4good (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be off topic here, but this article is one of many. See main articles for such ideas at climate change mitigation and Climate engineering NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll propose it at the climate engineering talk page.
Regarding ocean deoxygenation, can this be mentioned at this tipping points page too ? What I'm thinking of (and why it would be relevant) is that as global warming decreases ocean oxygen levels, more aquatic life dies off or simply doesn't become as plentiful and does not grow as fast/get as big. The aquatic life itself is also made of carbon, so if it dies off or if there is fewer of it and/or remains smaller, that would mean the "carbon storage ability" of the oceans as a whole gets reduced quite significantly. I haven't found any real references to support this, but there is some literature that does point into this direction (see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190313103238.htm -> sea life containing carbon, releases carbon when they die down ; https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-s-oxygen-starts-running-low/ -> oxygen reduction increasing stress on aquatic life

Genetics4good (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

These feedback processes are very interesting, but as long as they are not named tipping points by RSs (and preferable scientific and or pop-sci sources, not reliable newspapers), we should consider those as off topic for the current article. My first thought was to put it at climate change feedback, but that is specific to feedbacks on warming. The article on ocean deoxygenation itself is ready for improvements however! There is no real structure in the article yet, so you might want to add a section on feedbacks. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
See Suffocating the Ocean (2016); And this later Phys.org article notes the connection to 'tipping' the carbon and nitrogen cycles, but also says the effect is so far unquantified. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Merging from Abrupt climate change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To selectively merge Abrupt climate change into Tipping points in the climate system on grounds of overlap and duplication. Klbrain (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be very little unique material at Abrupt climate change, and that article should probably be merged here as well. Your thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. There is no clear demarcation between a tipping point and abrupt climate change. Some authors might argue that non-reversible 'tipping points' are not tipping points at all, but instead examples of abrupt climate change.[citation needed]. In some text the two are used almost interchangeably: http://www.metlink.org/climate/ipcc-updates-for-a-level-geography/tipping-points/, but defined separately. The 2017 NCA no distinction between the two is made and the chapter title discussing both is simply: 'Potential Surprises: Compound Extremes and Tipping Elements'.
In terms of practicality half of the article Abrupt climate change can be 'dumped' into a new section of 'tipping points and abrupt change in the distant past' or something like that. Femkemilene (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, in proposing the merge, most of the other article has to do with the earth science usually associated with IPCC WG1. "Abruptness" also has meaning with respect to a given species' ability to adapt to climate change, but that can get worked into the other articles more on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, I'm not entirely sure we want to separate that. A lot of work on tipping points an sich contains both physical climate and ecosystems. Cascading tipping points is one example; the work by Lenton another. So ecosystem tipping points I would put in this article. Individual species abrupt changes/tipping points (is that what you mean?) would indeed fit better in a different article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (changed signature)
I think a section on abrupt climate change is a good idea, but it's tough to write- there's a huge difference between decades and millenia for people, but if you look at the geologic record it's impossible to tell the difference.
My reading of the literature is that there's no hard and fast rule for what a "tipping point" in the climate is- the real power is in the expression "tipping point" in the first place. I think the title of the article sets the context to be tipping points in the climate system itself. In that context, a tipping point is an unstable climate state that marks the point of transition between states (e.g. glacial, interglacial). That's why the graphic was of value, as the geologic climate record shows states and transitions in temperature. I think if the article was called "Climate change tipping points" then it would make more sense to focus on tipping point effects that will result from climate change, like melting of ice caps.--Efbrazil (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
On reflection, I disagree with merging in "abrupt climate change". Climate change can be abrupt whether there is a tipping point or not. For instance, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs caused abrupt climate change, volcanism can cause abrupt climate change, and what we're doing to the planet right now is abrupt, but none of those are triggered by climate system tipping points. Similarly, the ice sheets can melt whether climate change is slow of fast, so tipping point "effects" are also not tied to whether change is "abrupt" or not. It's really a separate topic.Efbrazil (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If you reflect again, and think BIG PICTURE, all of those abrupt examples (asteroids and volcanoes) are acute external forcings. They can be addressed on their face wherever we talk about forcings (right now in "climate change" article, though this is flux perhaps). And the sudden nature overwhelming adaptive capacity can be a section at Climate change adaptation. After all, if change is slow enough for (whatever) to adapt, then whatever adapts. And if change is faster than that, the (whatever) will scream, if it can scream, OH MY GOD THAT WAS FAST. So "abruptness" is really just a one-word description for comparing speed-of-change to (whatever's) adaptive capacity. We don't have enough material for a four separate articlees, being (A) Forcings, (B) Tippings, (C) Adaptations and (D) speed-of-change exceding (whatever's) adaptive capacity. The last part can easily fit in the first three. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. I have no problem with the Abrupt climate change article going away as there's not enough content and it's not really a discrete topic, although the speed of climate change is of course important. What I was objecting to was characterizing the solution as a merge into Tipping points in the climate system. If we want it to go away it should probably be dispersed across all the articles that are concerned with the speed of climate change (which is many articles- Global warming, Climate change adaptation, Climate sensitivity, Climate change feedback, Tipping points in the climate system, and probably more). Stuff like volcanism would go into Climate forcing mechanisms, assuming I get that proposal through. Make sense?
Also, do you know why Talk:Climate change#Splitting proposal isn't drawing comments? Do I need to add another notice somewhere?Efbrazil (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
See user talk... but give me a bit to decide how to share my thoughts NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Concretely, shall we merge the content of general, effects, first bit of feedbacks into this article. The part about past abrupt change cannot be integrated easily, but should be integrated with help of literature looking at these events throught the lens of tipping points and irreversible change. I'm a bit worried that not all of the abrupt past changes in climate can be put together in an overarching manner.. Are there any articles where that info might be suited for? The article is very weak on climate change adaptation, but maybe we can add a sentence in that article. (the article climate change adaptation is also very weak). I don't think the article's content should go to sensitivity, nor climate change feedback. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, general and the first bit of feedbacks are talking about tipping points so merging here makes sense, but effects can be caused by something other than a tipping point so I wouldn't merge that. Adaptation seems like the best place for the rest of the article, so I'd merge it in there and also rename the adaptation article to "Climate change speed and adaptation". Make sense? I can take lead if you want, your call.Efbrazil (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You can take the lead if you don't mind me reorganizing it quite a bit afterwards. I'm tempted by the idea of bringing this article up to good article status as well.
In terms of renaming the climate change adaptation article: strongly disagree. Climate change adaptation is a phrase that's often used exactly like that. It would be weird to add one certain aspect of climate change adaptation to the article title. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Go for it then! All I'm trying to do is discourage stuffing the bulk of the article into tipping points. I personally think the best solution would be not merging it, but instead changing it to "climate change speed" and doing a deep dive on the research.Efbrazil (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Research FIRST then decide NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not think climate change speed is a well-defined topic. A quick Google search does not come up with any definition and the search results are quite varied in scope. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should have a well-defined scope about which for instance overview literature exists. If we define our own scopes, we get a lot of overlap with other topics that have a well-defined scope.

It is quite difficult to determine whether abrupt climate change in the past was due to tipping points. There is some literature that covers specifically abrupt climate change from a paleo-perspective (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change, https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/4#23). If we keep a separate article, I think we can limit its scope to this particular topic. (I love well-defined shorter articles). Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

On the page of Abrupt climate change, NEAG and me have collected some definitions of abrupt climate change. They indeed differ very little from the definition of tipping point. I now think the way forward is to merge, but including abrupt climate change in bold emphasizing how close the definitions are. I've started the process of adding more information about abrupt climate change in the articles that Ebrazil proposed (climate sensitivity and climate feedback done). If no protest, I'll start the process when I've got a bit more time on my hand. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Femkemilene, NewsAndEventsGuy, and Efbrazil: There seems to have been an agreement in principle about a year ago; just pinging those with subject expertise, involved in the discussion, would might be able to complete the merge. Klbrain (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is all dumb. Abrupt Climate Change is a real thing. Tipping points is gunk William M. Connolley (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

While scientists don't always agree about the definition of either tipping points or abrupt climate change, most sources do agree that the terms exist and that they may have a bit of overlap. The IPCC SROCC report uses the term tipping 82 times. They include examples of non abrupt tipping. They also include examples of abrupt change without threshhold behaviour, i.e., Tipping behaviour. I didn't think merging is a good idea anymore. On page 594 and 595 separate definitions of the two terms are given. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutral. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
https://bskiesresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/tipping_rev1.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Runaway climate change

Runaway climate change is more developed, and both cover the same basic concept... once there are enough feedbacks, the climate system takes off looking for a new equilibrium. We should talk about that in one place, not two. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If we merge the two, I think we should stick to tipping points, not runaway climate change. This term is used more frequently in the scientific literature. I don't think the current definition of tipping point (there are many definitions unfortunately) is correct: many climatological tipping points are regional, such as tipping points in glaciology and the biosphere. The current definition of runaway climate change implies that any net positive feedback can cause that, which is also not entirely correct. I think this might be a project I'd like to contribute to. I'll try to find a collection of definitions over the next couple of weeks.
I'm not sure I agree with the article about runaway climate change being more developed. It contains a lot of off-topic things about the climate system in general that can probably simply be removed.
I also think that runaway climate change is a subarticle (or in the future section?) of tipping points (climatology). It's the consequence of a specific tipping point that effects temperature.
Femkemilene (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure going the other direction works as well. There is SO MUCH overlap in many of the climate articles that down the road we may want to do yet more merging after this merge is complete, but that is for another day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Merge makes sense as Femkemilene suggests, seems non-controversial. Not having done this before, I'll just follow the instructions here, probably tomorrow. Let me know if there's thoughts to the contrary.--Efbrazil (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Go for it, long overdue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, go for it.Femkemilene (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I super-went for it, which means I not only merged but I rewrote the article, keeping relevant references. I tried taking a light touch but both articles were really out of date and / or incoherent. Take a look and make any patch ups you think are necessary. I did not do an article rename, I figured I had caused enough churn already.Efbrazil (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC) addendum- initial commit failed due to conflicts, actually done nowEfbrazil (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


Why did we merge the runaway climate change article into this article? Please change this. "Tipping points in the climate system"? That's not searchable.

Please restore the original runaway climate change article. Thanks. Nashhinton (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason that the two pages were merged, is there was a lot of overlap between the two articles and we could not find a good definition of runaway climate change in scientific literature or other RSs. If you think we made a mistake, could you give a broad overview what you would want to see in an article about runanaway climate change + RSs supporting that definition and scope. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a new category/heading here- Runaway Carbon Dioxide. This is unrelated to climate and weather. The idea, framed out by Bill McKibben in "Falter"(2019) is this: Human CO2 emissions ~37GT/year are causing atmospheric CO2 (~414ppm) to rise at an increasing rate. This is reacting with seawater to form carbonic acid, causing ocean pH to fall (~30% since 1751). Eventually, (possibly CO2 >=1000ppm), many current ocean species (such as phytoplankton) will disappear, being replaced with disaster taxa (i.e. Chlorobiaceae). These species emit hydrogen sulfide, which harms the ozone layer. This leads to a breakdown also in plants on land. Essentially repeating the conditions of the end-Permian mass extinction. Norse1933 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Structure

The article has a section on large scale tipping elements and regional tipping elements. This seems to me to be an arbitrary distinction. The reality is that over ten years ago,[1] scientists identified nine (main) possible tipping points.[2] These need to be documented in the article. I have added headings. Please feel free to add material to each of them. Yaklib (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists
  2. ^ Explainer: Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change, Carbon Brief, 10 February 2020

Carbon brief as a source

@NewsandEventsGuy: Carbon brief isn't a blog. Has editorial board and a reputation for fact-checking. It's significantly more reliable than for instance The Guardian. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To vet this source best, use the WP:RSN. As a reader I consume their content. As a Wikipedia editor, sure they have an editorial board, but there is no published Terms and Conditions that allow us to determine if a guest post should be treated any differently than the non-RS contributions by guest writers at Forbes. If we were to accept it, that would create a template for the likes of Heritage Foundation to mimic the structure and so sneak in the BS. In the specific instance, there is VASTLY better RS for the potential carbon source represented by permafrost and hydrates so why not just use the vastly better RSs on which the carbon brief material is usually based? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
PS I see Y just did that very thing... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
While IPCC is always a great source, I would not say at all vastly better RS. Guests posts are mostly from experts that have just published an impactful study published in a scientific journal, and would be a RS even if they weren't published in the highest quality science journalisms around on climate matters. Note that some of these articles in CB have ended up as scientific papers. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
that may all be true, but as I said.... the place to make the case to use it when other sources can be used instead is WP:RSN where it seems we did debate it awhile back and I participated. See archived thread here. The site appears to be a group blog, by an advocacy group. Don't get me wrong, I love their work, but it still appears to be self-published by the group. There might be a case for an exception under the "expert opinion" rule and if we had the T&C it might be clear that it is a journalism outlet, rather than a self published group blog. But with all that... there is almost certainly going to be unquestionably RS sources to be used. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous analysis. They got awards for investigative journalism, for instance for the Royal Statistical Society and also won the Press Gazette British Journalism Awards for Specialist Media. If we cannot use this, we cannot use any journalistic source. Specialist science journalism is typically more reliable than generalist media, as noted in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science). I have never detected advocacy in their pieces, and I think that's the only journalism on climate I can say that for. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
"Ridiculous" is an indication that you're pissed but is hardly accurate, once you step outside your climate science brain and enter the byzantine labyrinth of Wiki policy.
  • True or false... They publish a Terms and Conditions that explains whether they take responsibility for the reporting of guest submissions? ANSWER...... FALSE they do not....at least not that I could find.....so it appears we don't know if the editorial board "owns" that reporting, or republishes without taking responsibility for it as they do at Forbes.
Also, lacking such a statement wiki policy would seem to force us to make the lesser assumption, that guest material is the responsibility of the author alone. That takes each citation into the world of "expert opinion". Sure, they probably are all expert enough to merit the exception. But do we want to jump through those hoops each time, or leave the text susceptible to future criticism when none of us are watching? This is avoided by the next point....
  • True or false... Usually we have no other source that is unquestionably RS for the same material so advice in the RS policy to look for unquestioned alternatives does not apply. ANSWER.... FALSE, we can cite the same material that writers at Carbon Brief rely upon.
I once ran into a troublemaker like myself when I tried to use unlicensed graphics from SkepSci. This is years ago. So I contacted SkepSci to explain what happened and asked them to consider CC licensing. Almost overnight they slapped cc licenses on all their graphics so now we use many of them. You're welcome. This is similar. The RS policy makes an ambiguous distinction between established journalism sources and new ones. Notice that established ones have a lawyer statement linked on their home page, usually called "Terms and Conditions" and there is usually a paragraph or two about editorial control and responsibility for content. I've looked at many of these in other RS debates. If you really really really want to cite CB, please consider contacting them, as I contacted Skep Sci, and ask them to address this oversight. I realize that in your climate science persona this may seem like a "ridiculous analysis" but if you can think instead like a Wikipedia policy wonk, that might be a bit strong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not pissed, just informal/direct wording in a discussion with an old friend. I'll contact them. :) FemkeMilene (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I belatedly realized "frustrated" was probably a better descriptor of how I read it, even if I read it wrong. Good luck! I suspect this will benefit CB for offwiki purposes as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yaklib: I moved your comment here from user talk, so its all in one place per the WP:TPG.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC) (@NAEG), You removed [information] because it is on Carbon Brief - claiming that although you are a regular reader, it is a blog, of dubious neutral RS value for WP purposes. The particular article which is the source of the information is written by Dr Christina Schaedel, a research associate at the Ecosystem Dynamics Research Lab at Northern Arizona University. I'm inclined to think that would make her a reliable source. I hope you don't mind if I revert your edit. Yaklib (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the specific expert-exception criteria at WP:SELFPUB. I can't tell from what you just wrote that she qualifies, and I stand by my view that until CB is clearly established as RS we need to go through these steps each time we cite it. Much easier to use the underlying sources found in unquestionably independent RSs, and it will immunize us from some troll's future binge complaining over these ambiguities. You might say I'm the annoying friend who wants to make sure everyone has their rapeling harness on correctly before leaping off the edge of the cliff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Describing Carbon Brief as "journalism"

I'm adding this comment here instead of at Talk:Carbon Brief so we have a centralized discussion, as recommended by the WP:TPG.

Some years ago we debated CB as an RS at the RS noticeboard in this archived thread. At the time we tweaked the corresponding article about CB using their own words talking about themselves, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Today Femkemilene complained that their own description about themself was "too close to the mission statement" even though our ABOUTSELF policy explicallows such useage. F changed that text to explicitly describe the work of CB as "journalism", which is Femke's opinion in this contested discussion. That's getting kinda close to POINTY or GAMING, Femke. You're not using the available sourcing to establish CB as an RS, you're editing to advocate for that outcome. That's thin arctic ice, one might say. Patience with your outreach effort would be wiser IMO.

That said, I'm going to delay a decision on reverting that change for the time being. Instead, I just wanted to fully document my research and thinking. Is Carbon Brief "journalism"? Or a self-published group blog by an NGO? For our analysis please compare to Forbes. Both websites have editorial boards. Over at Forbes, the Forbes legalese titled "Terms" explicitly denies editorial control or ownership of guest contributions. Carbon Brief lacks any explanation about editorial control and responsibility for content. But that doesn't help us today. So the fact is, we might believe this or that, but we just don't know. We do know the site is funded by the NGO described in our article, but we don't know how independent the editorial team is from what is apparently a single source of funding. We also can't tell if the editorial team has control and accepts responsibility for guest submitted content. So right now today it seems like wiki policy compels us to view it as a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source, at least until CB provides additional info. It's my understanding that Femkemilene is going to contact the CB team to inform them of this discussion, and suggest they release a TERMS statement so not just Wikipedia but the whole world will have a more clear understanding of the nature of CB's work. Which will help not just us, but CB too.

But today.... this isn't necessarily a deal breaker to using CB as a source right now, because there are two exceptions that allow us to use selfpub sources. The first is when they talk WP:ABOUTSELF. The other is when the author meets the expert exception in the policy (see section WP:SELFPUBLISH). The expert exception lists criteria to apply on a case by case base for each desired citation, and if that seems like a lot of work its probably because it is. However, the policy also says Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. and in footnotes gives examples of institutions that advise citing the original sources underlying the selfpublished work instead.

So is CB "journalism"? Maybe... they are getting awards with that word in the title of the award. But when the editorial board does not tell us how they operate, I'm not sure we should rely on the characterizations of their work by third parties. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have contacted them, and send them a follow up about their relation to their funding.
We should rely way more on the multitude of established third parties than on their own description. It is not uncommon for high-quality newspapers to not describe how they work, and I feel you're imposing your own criteria, going well beyond the WP:NEWSORG, which explicitly states: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.". FemkeMilene (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Cool, I'm as eager to you to hear about their reply; Out of curiosity, have you spent time evaluating RS debates at the RSN, outside of the climate subject area? I did that for awhile. My own criteria? Well, you're frustated I get that. However, you cherrypicked a factoid from the full subsection. Just because a site is a NEWSORG does not mean it is a RS. I'm thinking we'd be best served by patiently waiting for CB's reply. Ideally a Plan B would be asking experienced RSN thinkers who are not climate regulars look at this question but the reality is CB will likely speak before Plan B bears fruit. So let's try not to let frustration burn any bridges in the meantime. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI I did add a thread pointer over at the RSN so maybe some uninvolved eds will comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
PS re.... does "journalism" necessarily mean Wiki-qualifying WP:RS? Answer... obviously not. See for example Journalism#Forms. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have read quite a lot of RSN on natural and social science topics, and my experience is that sources with less tendency to correct mistakes and find balance in experts are deemed (mostly) reliable. Let's wait a week. I've used this source in FAs without getting any pushback on it not meeting the HQRS standards, which go beyong RS. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

HQRS? that's a new one on me, and just redirs to RS generally, but I'd like to learn. Please consider boldly retargeting the redirect to go to the subsection you have in mind and then letting me know. Or alternatively just telling me, and I'll retarget the redir if I agree NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I just read through an interview with Chief Editor Hickman at which I gleaned the chronology.... 2010, launched to do what Hickman described as "advocacy type of rebuttal journalism"..... 2015, Hickman took the helm with a stated desired to do a "a very straight ‘explainer’ type of journalism”. Which is great and all. But it does raise questions about which characterization applies to each thing from CB we might want to cite. In this context I note that policy on NEWSORGs mentions the concept of "well established" outlets, and this is a relatively new but maturing one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
high-quality reliable source, which is named in criterion 1c of WP:WIAFA. Not sure if there is a written definition, as this varies too widely over disciplines. For medicine it's relatively strict adherence to WP:MEDRS. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Example in first paragraph

In the first paragraph of the lede, the glacial cycles are given as an example of a tipping point. I'm not sure how much threshold behaviour is present there (probably a bit in the ice sheet response), but it's certainly not a canonical example of tipping. The lede focusses on the external forcing, rather than the internal threshold behaviour. Maybe just taking one of the ice sheet tipping points, or the Amazon one would serve our audience better. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't use the words 'tipping', 'critical' or 'threshold'. I've boldly removed it altogether. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Time to nominate for "good article"?

Hello Yaklib,

I see you and others have made lots of great improvements to this very important article. Suggest you nominate it as a good article. I know there is a fair bit more to do but as it generally takes weeks before anyone picks up a nomination for review I think you have already got it past the point where it would be "quick failed" and can continue working on it while you wait for review. Keep up the good work. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think nominating for a good article would be a lovely thing to do. Your edits are quite impressive for a new account, and a reviewer will give you feedback that allows you to grow as an editor. I would wait at least a week's that you don't get caught up in the current backlog drive, and that the article is slightly better prepared. Empty sections may still lead to a quick fail (unlikely, but no fun), and people prefer to review articles that are well prepared. You may want to consider signing up to WP:GOCE first, a group of volunteers that copyedits the article. I recently skipped that step, and caused a lot of extra work for my reviewer. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - very much appreciated. I think I will fill in the empty sections first. Yaklib (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes even though I have done a little bit of copyediting getting a copyedit from the guys above before nominating for "good article" is a good idea - you usually only have to wait a week or 2 for the copyedit.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I also cheer for your excellent work here, and support GA nomination NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Positive climate future

Yaklib, Positive climate future is unfortunately not a reliable source. First of all, it is a blog, which is typically considered self-published if it isn't part of an established media outlet. Secondly, I see no evidence of professional staff or an editorial board to do fact checking. Thirdly, the fact you are citing from them is a common myth: see this national geographic article which offers a great explanation. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition of tipping point

Currently this article quotes the IPCC definition of a tipping point as:

"A level of change in system properties beyond which a system reorganises, often in a non-linear manner, and does not return to the initial state even if the drivers of the change are abated. For the climate system, the term refers to a critical threshold at which global or regional climate changes from one stable state to another stable state. Tipping points are also used when referring to impact: the term can imply that an impact tipping point is (about to be) reached in a natural or human system."

I am not entirely comfortable with the notion that climate change will lead to a new stable state. If the world remains hotter and sea levels are ten metres higher than they are now, and that lasts for thousands of years, I suppose that could be called stable. But it will take millennia for all this to happen. There is nothing stable about the process of change currently taking place. The IPCC definition appears to suggest it happens overnight. I think the way it is worded is quite misleading. What does anyone else think? Yaklib (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the wording implies it happens overnight, and the IPCC is the authority on the matter. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of secondary sourcing

One of the important improvement needed to the article is the switch from mainly having primary sources (single studies, like the highly controversial one about cloud cover) to mainly secondary sourcing (review papers / review reports, like the IPCC or the NCA). This is needed to make sure we don't put undue weight on the most scary sourding paper, and make sure the caveats are all in place (for the cloud, the extrapolation of a small area the researchers studied to the globe). See WP:PSTS. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

New IPCC report

The new IPCC report is out, providing us with an amazing synthesis of published research. For loads of Wikipedia pages, we can increase the certainty with which we can describe impacts, probably including this one. However, the first discrepancy I noticed between our article and the IPCC is the description of ice loss in the Arctic, which is linear with tempearture according to the Technical Summary, page 43. I don't think the cited sources supported that there was a tipping point for this impact, so I've removed that paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

In the technical summary there is "Box TS.9: Irreversibility, Tipping Points and Abrupt Changes" so I want to ask everyone whether you think this article should include all three of these things? And if so whether the article should be renamed? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I would not rename the article. The scope is a good question. The new IPCC glossary definition says: "Tipping point: A critical threshold beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly and/or irreversibly.", so we can describe irreversibility and abrupt change in this article, without having to include it in the title, if they occur after a criticalt threshold. I think effects of climate change or physical effects of climate change is the place to talk more about other example of abrupt or irrevserible change. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The IPCC does say there is no tipping point in the Arctic sea ice - because observed/projected losses are potentially reversible. It also says: "The Arctic Ocean is projected to become practically sea ice-free in late summer under high CO2 emissions scenarios by the end of the 21st century (high confidence)." We could mention that the Arctic ice is expected to disappear but point out that the IPCC says this is not a tipping point. Explaining that this is not a tipping point because it is reversible, helps describe what 'tipping point' actually means. Yaklib (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Scope of the article

The second sentence of the article defines the scope. Before it defined three domains in which tipping could take place: physical, ecosystem and humans. The article is only talking about tipping points in the former two, so I agree with @Yaklib that we can change the scope. We do talk a lot about tipping in ecosystems, such as the Amazon rainforest and boreal forest). Shall we change the second sentence to "Tipping points have been identified in the physical climate system and in the biosphere (or in ecosystems), and can have severe impacts on humans." Alternatively, we could include some social tipping points, such as the tipping away from coal use, but I'm not that keen on that. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

yes proposed sentence good I think - and I think "ecosystems" is better than "biosphere"Chidgk1 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Early warning signals

This section is currently waffle with no specific information. If we intend to keep this section going, it needs to include up to date information about what is happening in different tipping elements which raise alarm. See The amount of Greenland ice that melted on Tuesday could cover Florida in 2 inches of water. This is an example of an early warning signal. There are hundreds of other examples available. Yaklib (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added some early warning signals for Greenland. However, it might be best to include early warning signals for each of the nine tipping elements as a sub heading under the main heading of each one. Yaklib (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The section is about the mathematical analysis of detecting tipping points, and about critical slowing down. The article you link is a) a newspaper article, and therefore not quite suitable as a reliable source for technical details and b) doesn't mention tipping as far as I can see. Given the technical nature of that subsection, could you leave it to me? FemkeMilene (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
An important thing to keep in mind is that significant change can happen in tipping elements that have nothing to do with their nature as tipping element, such as reversible ice melt. We should be very careful if we want to use articles that don't mention tipping to avoid WP:SYNTH. We should not imply a tipping point is near if the cited sources don't say so. FemkeMilene (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I think both of you are right in that the first paragraph should be theory and the second an example. A problem at the moment is that the example does not quite match the theory. If there is an example with a graph showing slower return to normal that would be ideal I guess - have not found one yet though. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Currently the first para is NOT theory. NOR is it mathematical analysis. To illustrate - the first sentence reads: "For a subset of tipping points, it may be possible to detect whether that part of the climate system is getting closer to a tipping point;[109] however, detection can note only that abrupt changes are likely, while predicting when and where they will occur remains difficult." That is nothing but speculative waffle.
And it does nothing to help make the reader more aware of the early warning signs. Sorry to repeat the point - but that means it is just waffle.
And we need to provide examples of early warning signals in each of the nine tipping elements. The current example about the Greenland ice sheet contains information about statistical records being broken on three separate melting occasions in the last ten years. That's mathematical information - not waffle. Yaklib (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
To me, that is a good translation of the mathematical results, but I'll try to explain the theory of critical slowing down and loss of resilience more clearly when I have some time to spare. I spoke to a colleague yesterday who publishes on TPs, who indicated that most research on early warning signals is limited to paleo archives and model results, and that the analysis of these EWSs in current data is mostly limited to ecosystem resilience. EWSs are increased autocorrelation and variance (sometimes skewness), not record highs, which could be a non-tipping impact of CC. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
As the second sentence of the lead says ecosystem events are included I think if your colleague has an ecosystem example I could add it - nothing to stop Yaklib adding more early warning sign examples of course. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
There is very little on early warning signals outside of the scientific literature. I found one carbon brief article with an example https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-identifying-three-tipping-points-in-antarcticas-pine-island-glacier. The term is currently misused in the article. Records are typically not 'early warning signals/indicators'. I will have time to write something scientifically accurate next weekend, and may need your help making that more accessible/less waffly. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. It is an encyclopedia and is not required to limit itself to scientific interpretations.
You have even written this about yourself: I fear Wikipedia is getting inaccessible for a lay public, as we experts like to correct people that are wrong on the internet with fancy words. Yaklib (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It is meant to be scientifically accurate. The term EWS/EWI have a very specific meaning and therefore shouldn't be used to refer to something else. Some of what is now under those headings looks like synthesis anyway, with many of the sources not mentioning the term tipping. It's your interpretation that these numbers are relevant to tipping. While it isn't quite untrue, we are not meant to imply a relationship when the sources do not. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm very aware of the need of a collaboration between lay people and experts, and I'm always really grateful for feedback when I'm not clear enough, like you gave before. Please bear with me, real life is crazy. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The words, EWS may have a scientific meaning to someone like yourself who has a PhD on climate variability and change. I get it that you know your stuff and are familiar with scientific terminology. However, for a lay person the words, Early warning signals do NOT have a scientific meaning. Wikipedia is mostly read by lay people. Wikipedia would be the last place an academic would go for information on a subject.
My suggestion, for what its worth, is this: Under the section headed Early warning signals, perhaps you could explain the difference between the scientific meaning of the words, Early warning signals and how lay people like me interpret these words. At the moment, I stand by my comment that this section contains no useful information for the lay reader - primarily because it is disconnected from anything else in the article. Yaklib (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The old text tried to please both graduate students and a more lay public, and failed at both. Now I've written the first paragraph to with students in mind, whereas more concrete examples of EWS are in the second paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Finding sources that indicate how lay people interpret words is incredibly difficult. I've not attempted this, as it has been a pain for more well-researched topics. Oh, and academics use Wikipedia a lot, we are still lazy :). We shouldn't write with them in mind of course, max is grad students if the information becomes waffle when translated into 'lay terms', and this level of difficulty should only be buried later in the articles. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I see from your edits that you are not into collaboration at all. I will no longer edit on this page. Nor will I nominate it as a 'good article'. Yaklib (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Which was the offending edit? I hope it's not the style edits, which can be very peculiar to an encyclopedia and it may seem weird that I changed some sentences rather drastically. I'm always aiming to discuss and find a compromise. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC) I've made a new heading of 'mathematical theory', signposting that readers who aren't interested in maths can easily skip the theory of early warning signals. I'll go over the entire subsection again to make it easier later. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yaklib As you have improved this very important article so much already I hope you will consider continuing here some time in the future. Maybe it would be best for us all to take a break from this article for a few weeks. Because I guess after AR6 WG1 comes out it will take a little while for the press to digest it. I hope the professional writers will then explain AR6 views on EWS in a way that I will find easy to understand (if anyone wants to add equations for grad students I think they should be in a footnote so as not to put off weak math people like me). Also I am guessing that there might be more than one theory about EWS - but presumably AR6 will indicate the consensus if there is one. For sure after that I will then nominate this for "good article" if nobody else does, because the subject is so important. Anyway whether or not you return thanks for your hard work - without you I would have been put off by the poor original state of the article and left it as too much work. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Given how little the press have been interested in EWSs so far, I doubt they will highlight this over other aspects of tipping. I'm not thinking of adding equations. The basics of EWS are consistent in the literature I've read, with disagreement about feasibility. For the AMOC, one paper indicated they needed 550 years of data xd.
With the IPCC report in hand, and the high-quality popsci press helping the interpretation, we can indicate (1) how far away from these tipping points we are, and (2) how likely it is we will pass them (3) when. I'm hoping the summary for policy makers talks about them, as they are written for a lay public. Very happy to not touch the article for a while, and conominate for GA once I'm happy it's scientifically accurate. Always enjoy working with you, Chidgk1. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Femkemilene, Lead author Professor Tim Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter says: "A decade ago we identified a suite of potential tipping points in the Earth system, now we see evidence (ie early warning signals) that over half of them have been activated." Prof Lenton is clearly using the layman's version of "early warning signals", even though he's a scientist. How else could he say that half the tipping points have already been activated?
But you write: "We should not imply a tipping point is near if the cited sources don't say so." Prof Lenton does say so.
You're happy to proceed, "once I'm happy it's scientifically accurate."
This is why I cannot work with you. You have appointed yourself as the arbiter of everything to do with climate change on wikipedia and take a rigid approach as to what is acceptable in your limited, scientific frame of reference. I remind you yet again, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal - and you have no right to appoint yourself as chief editor of climate related pages. Your approach is not conducive to collaboration. Yaklib (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination means I endorse the article, of course I would only do this if I think the article is accurate. I'm happy for others to nominate, and as an involved editor, I'm not going to be the one reviewing the nomination anyway.

Lenton is not using the term EWS, because he uses different evidence of nearing a tipping point than EWS (namely modelling evidence). I'm keen on including more evidence that tipping points are close to their modelled threshold, as long as we don't call it EWS. There is no need to use the word 'Early warning signal' for this, there are plenty of words we can use that do not have a conflicting scientific meaning.

May I point you towards WP:Focus on content, rather than focussing on a person. If you have comments about my behaviour, I'm happy to further discuss them on my user talk page. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems there are two kinds of early warning signals - the mathematical approach advocated by Femkemilene and the 'flickering' - increasingly common extreme weather events - which is observable to everyone on the planet that has their eyes open. George Monbiot writes for the Guardian which is an entirely reliable source. And his analysis of flickering is based on scientific articles that are linked in the Guardian article.Yaklib (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. It seems Monbiot has read the word flickering in the scientific literature (it is a EWS mostly for noise-induced tipping, but also occurs in the more standard bifurcation-type events), and gave it his own definition (just any extreme weather, including in systems without any tipping behaviour). Guardian is often disappointing in terms of scientific climate reporting, especially the more technical aspects of it. The Fischer paper doesn't seem to mention any tipping. We typically only want to use popular press as a supplement to peer-reviewed article, see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular press. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Monbiot takes the definition of flickering and its link to tipping points from the Wang et al study in Nature, not from the Fischer paper. Yaklib (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Monbiot takes the term flickering and comes up with the connections to extreme weather himself. We cannot trust columnists to make those radical connections.
My comment about Fischer was that that entire sentence is irrelevant here, as it does not mention tipping and it is original research to imply it is relevant here. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wang study makes the connection, not Monbiot. The abstract says "Our results suggest that if environmental regimes are sufficiently affected by large external impacts that flickering is induced." In the body of the article it says: "In systems in which exogenous drivers result in high levels of disturbance, flickering can be a more likely source of early warning signals than critical slowing down."

Extreme weather events are specific examples of 'large external impacts' and 'exogenous drivers resulting in high levels of disturbance'. Yaklib (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Two points can be made about information from the Fischer study. 1) There are a few sentences in this WP article that do not contain the words 'tipping point'. That does not make those sentences irrelevant. They are there to add context and expand on information in other sentences. 2) The sentence you claim is irrelevant is about the frequency of extreme weather events - ie its about 'flickering' - which is an early warning signal. So its totally relevant. Yaklib (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wang study has a different meaning: it says that it may be possible to detect a system is sensitive & close to tipping if you have these external drivers. The reverse is not true; just having the external drivers doesn't mean that your system itself is close to tipping. It's very common to have more extremes even if you're climate change is completely linear (no irreversibility, no abrupt changes).
The Guardian columnist seems to make another mistake: he says that having more extreme weather is the same as more volatile weather, which are not equivalent statements. Extremes can increase if the mean changes, but not the variation (~the volatility).
Of course there are sentences that don't mention the word tipping point. I'm talking about using sources that aren't about tipping points. Relevant background information about tipping points can be found in sources about tipping points. We should not decide ourselves what is relevant, as there are many common misconceptions on the topic, like conflating extreme weather with tipping. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The Wang study says: "Our results suggest that if environmental regimes are sufficiently affected by large external impacts that flickering is induced" and that "flickering can be a more likely source of early warning signals". And that "Studies of mathematical and experimental systems have shown that systems may ‘wobble’ (ie flicker) before a critical transition (ie tipping)". It may be your opinion that this has a different meaning to what it says. But you seem to be quibbling over the meaning of something that is plain English. You even quibble about whether "extreme weather is the same as more volatile weather".
You may be right that extreme weather does not indicate flickering or that flickering is not an early warning signal. But opinions are not facts. If this is what you believe, it would be helpful if you cited a study which says that - rather than just expressing an opinion which seems to contradict what the Wang study actually says. Yaklib (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. I suggest you start a WP:request for comment to see what others think, as it's now 2 vs 1 against inclusion. My proposal would be to only include the first sentence, as the other two are interpretations of Wang by a columnist and you, neither of which are reliable sources for this context. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

the August 2021 IPCC report identifies 1.5°C of warming as a "key tipping point beyond which the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages will increase dramatically"?

Y seems very keen on this text [7], sourced to CNN [8]. But CNN is clueless about climate change and the IPCC; it isn't clear who made up their text for them. But it isn't in the report, as you may verify for yourself by opening the report (SPM) and using ctrl-F William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur we should not quote unspecialised media. There exists high-quality lay sources, such as scientific American, national geographic and carbonbrief. IPCC does not use the term tipping point in such a sloppy sense. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system/Archive_1&oldid=1055315030"