Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Stratospheric aerosol pages

To add to the ongoing subject of page merges. Right now, we have at least four pages (stratospheric sulfur aerosols, stratospheric aerosol injection, solar geoengineering and global dimming) which are all relatively small (2-3k words each), have substantial overlap with each other and in at least some cases, are far from being up-to-date or particularly well-referenced. Their traffic appears rather uneven, as well.

I think it would benefit our coverage of these subjects if there was at least one merge. Either stratospheric aerosol injection or global dimming could be made into a subsection of stratospheric sulfur aerosols - perhaps, both of them can. Solar geoengineering is meant to be a more broad page which is also intended to cover non-aerosol proposals like marine cloud brightening (and probably other proposals like the recent space dust pipe dreams) so I think merging it/into it is inadvisable. That is, unless we decide to merge both stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening (2k words, rather mediocre detail/referencing) and probably the stub-grade cirrus cloud thinning into solar geoengineering.

Thoughts? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

While 2k/3k is not a reason to merge (those are decent-length articles for our typical readers, most read <500 words), the overlap and low-quality sourcing can be. I think the most logical is global dimming into SSA, but global dimming has much more views. If you believe it's easier to update and improve the articles together, rather than separate, that would be a good argument for a merge. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at it further, I now think that Stratospheric sulfur aerosols is possibly the worst one of those articles. The overlapping content on geoengineering is outdated, and it only describes its own subject in the most general terms, and with few references. To me, much of the article can be cut outright and the rest merged into Particulates - that article already has a very small section on sulfur and a larger one on black carbon, with "see also" linking to said article. After the merge, it would have a larger sulfur section with a "see also" to sulfur dioxide (another example of overlapping as well) which needs updating and might absorb some details from the SSA article as well.

The only issue is that the Particulates article is already 7.8k words long - this is because it goes into extensive detail about concentrations and health effects down the line. I find that many of those details would likely fit better in the air pollution article, which has more views than all of the other articles we discussed, combined. Yet, even though it appears to lack certain important information on the particulates page, it is already 8.4k words long, so it seems like some extensive condensation might have to be in order.

Global dimming would then stay as a separate article, especially as it's more of a subset of pollution/air pollution umbrella. It would require some extensive updates, however.

Lastly, I found that while solar geoengineering is essentially a sub-page of climate engineering, it is three times larger? This is probably not ideal? I would say that a merge of SG into CE may not be very difficult, as many sections (i.e. history and public perception) are already shared and can be combined with little modification. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I find the article title Particulates rather unfortunate as there are also particulates in water, like in wastewater. It would be much better if the title hinted at the atmospheric part, like atmospheric particulate matter.

I would not be in favour of merging solar geoengineering into climate engineering. The term solar geoengineering is well defined, whereas climate engineering is not (and should really be on its way out). That's the reason why the climate engineering is short - on purpose. I actually culled it a lot myself and added the definition from IPCC to it. IPCC no longer uses the term climate engineering as it's too vague. It's essentially just solar geoengineering plus CDR: "Climate engineering (or geoengineering) has been used as an umbrella term for both CDR (carbon dioxide removal) and SRM (Solar radiation management or solar geoengineering), when applied at a planetary scale". EMsmile (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, fair point on SG vs. CE articles. I still think that CE could probably be made to look better, but I'm not going to dive into it right now.

I have been preoccupied with updating global dimming this week, and I think it's finally in a good enough state. (So much of it used to rely on papers from 2001-2005 only.) The only part I didn't touch was its own badly outdated SG section, since that would end up being an excerpt anyway. Updating stratospheric aerosol injection would be next: it's actually stunning how much research on it there's been over the past few years, and how little anyone seems to know of it.

I would still want to merge Stratospheric sulfur aerosols with Particulates afterwards. However, it seems like a discussion (on its talk page or elsewhere) about renaming it to atmospheric particulate matter might have to be done first? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Dimming article is in a pretty great state, finally, (mainly needs some more images/graphs, I guess) and I was able to update solar geoengineering quite a bit as well. (Though likely still not quite enough.)

I still intend to split the Stratospheric sulfur aerosols content between stratospheric aerosol injection and Particulates (and maybe sulfur dioxide,too?), but this would have to be done sometime later. In the meantime, I also discovered that there is even a Sulfate aerosol stub, which is even more pointless. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to mention that I have recently raised this proposal in a thread on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals and I have obtained a go-ahead in that discussion.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Sulfur_dioxide_and_climate_change_pages_related_to_it

So, if no-one here objects, I will begin moving all non-duplicated content from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols and sulfate aerosol pages to stratospheric aerosol injection, sulfur dioxide and particulate pages in the next few days. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, sulfate aerosol is merged into the sulfate section of Particulates, and stratospheric sulfur aerosols is merged into the newly created "Background" section in stratospheric aerosol injection (which combined the material from those two pages with several others.) I'll still have to figure out how to rework the "air pollutant" section in the sulfur dioxide article: it currently has practically no overlap with those other pages, instead featuring very different research and even images. Ideally, there should be a bit more crossover between the two, but I can deal with it next time. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't followed this in detail but thanks for carrying out this work. Just one thought: I think we should generally avoid having a background section in Wikipedia articles. I used to create them myself when I was new to Wikipedia but over time I have formed the opinion that they are to be avoided or have a different section title and intention. That's because background is too broad/vague/all encompassing. It can easily blow out to become really large over time. Similarly, I wouldn't include a section called introduction. Could it be renamed/refocused to become e.g. rationale, causes, mechanisms, scientific basis or something like that? EMsmile (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to Scientific basis.

I have also managed to move some relevant references from sulfur dioxide to stratospheric aerosol injection and global dimming and use excerpts on that page and the sulfate one to bring them all up to speed, and hopefully ensure they won't fall behind and become outdated as new dimming/geoengineering research is added. And there is now a good density of relevant images/graphics for all of those articles, which is always a plus.

Things could still be a lot better: I am very satisfied with how global dimming looks now, but both stratospheric aerosol injection and solar geoengineering are still very surface-level in their treatment of advantages and disadvantages and it would probably take a major restructuring. It doesn't help that the SAI article touches on the less-standard interventions (both in terms of aerosol type and delivery) so briefly that it seems to suggest they are all equally financially/practically viable, and the SRM article is not much better in that regard. However, I am not sure how long it'll take to fix this. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Space sunshades & space mirrors

Another example of overly similar articles existing for far too long - space sunshade and Space mirror (climate engineering). Notably, there already was an attempt to merge them over a decade ago, as seen on Talk:Space_sunshade. Apparently, it failed simply because after the first few comments and some very mild objections from one of the article creators, nobody bothered to comment on the matter for four years. Hope we avoid the repeat of that and settle the matter faster now, whether through a discussion here, on those talk pages (again) or elsewhere.InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I have also started a discussion about merging four articles into two (Large marine ecosystem > marine ecosystem and ecological collapse > ecosystem collapse) on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment#Proposed_merges last week. I chose that venue because strictly speaking, those articles are more about the environment in general rather than explicitly about climate change. Yet, that WikiProject appears to be completely unused, so I might as well mention it here as well. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have started official merge proposals for all of these articles. If anybody's interested, you can enter the discussion on their respective talk pages. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have noted my support on the three talk pages of the articles where you proposed the mergers. While on the topic of mergers: please take a look at my merge proposal for flood mitigation into flood control here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flood_mitigation#Proposal_to_merge_into_flood_control (edit: has already been merged) EMsmile (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I am hoping someone else can also voice their opinion, but otherwise, I am hoping to wrap it quickly - probably before the end of the month.

That merge certainly appears to make sense, and I'm glad it happened already!

Now, I happened to find a really strange case on Talk:Sudanian_savanna. It appears that it was first put up for a merge proposal in 2007 and then stayed with that proposal open for over 15 years until an editor finally came around in May, voiced support for merging, closed the proposal unilaterally...and then didn't actually merge it, in over two months. What do you think is the right way to do things there? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen similar cases around. Sad! I would say in your case, if there is no opposition within a week or two, then go ahead with the merger. Don't wait for "approval" as it may never come. If there is no opposition, then that's good enough. EMsmile (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have merged the marine ecosystem articles. Now, there's still the marine ecosystem vs. marine habitats issue, as well as the seemingly highly duplicative marine coastal ecosystem and the weirdness like ocean surface ecosystem (where it feels like half the article should be limited to pages like neuston?) All to consider some other day, most likely.

The only thing in relation to underwater life which may be relatively straightforward is dealing with marine ecosystem - aquatic ecosystem - freshwater ecosystem. It seems like the second article doesn't really do anything besides excerpting the same sub-articles as the other two? I think that it can be comfortably made into a disambiguation or at most, a marine resources-like semi-redirect.

With space sunshade vs. space mirrors, there's now one opposing vote, complicating things.

With ecosystem vs. ecological collapse, there's no opposition, but cleaning up the two to merge neatly might take some time. (And even then, the article would seemingly need a lot more effort to be remotely up-to-date.)

There's also the matter of ecosystem diversity. Can anyone say what purpose this small, poorly referenced article actually serves right now? It would seem like it's best redirected to ecosystem ecology, though some paragraphs might be useful elsewhere. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I am finding this all very interesting (as I am very interested in the oceans topics) but I fear that it's getting a bit lost under the heading of "Space sunshades & space mirrors", and also others might not find it so clear what the relevance to WikiProject climate change is. I suggest you re-arrange this under new heading(s) on the talk page towards the bottom. Or, if the topic is not so closely related to WikiProject CC, rather write on the talk pages of the individual articles. Feel free to ping me as much as you like as I always like to read your comments and engage in discussions with you. EMsmile (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The images used for sub-pages

I don't really "get" the images that are currently being used for the sub-pages (copied below). They were added by Femke in this edit with this edit summary: "Adjust design; mostly stolen from pl:Edytujesz Wikipedia:Wikipedia dla klimatu/nawigacja" Maybe it's just me but I spend a few seconds each time trying to figure out the meaning/relevance of those images. Previously, we had just words, no images (see here). I think other Wikiprojects have better images for their sub-pages, see e.g. WP:MED. My suggestion is to either use no images or ones that are clearer like those used at WikiProject Medicine. I am talking about these images:

Main

Participants

Tab structure issues

Aside from the question of whether to use images, I'm going to make some adjustments to the tab structure:

Currently two tabs link to the Style guide. One of them is supposed to link to the "Small to medium tasks" page but actually links to the Style guide.
I think there should be a tab for "Recommended sources" and our suggestions for sources should not be transcluded into the Style guide page. Sourcing and style are separate issues; one is not the parent topic of the other.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. I've added a tab for "Recommended sources", for which I added yet another icon. As I commented above I'm not a big fan of the icons. But as others do like them, I'm going with the flow :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

How do I add to “pages that link here?”

I think the climate change mitigation article and talk pages should link here, and vice versa, but it doesn’t look like they do. How do I do that? Thanks. Loupgrru (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There's already a link to us on the talk page. In the orange(ish) box up top labeled "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:". Is something like that what you mean? --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I’m pretty new, so there’s some things I’m still figuring out. I see the orangish box, but I don’t see that section here, although I’ve seen that on other pages. If I do a word search for “This article is of interest...,” your comment is the only occurrence. I don’t understand what I’m doing wrong. Loupgrru (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You can see all the pages of interest to the project at Category:WikiProject Climate change articles but the link to popular pages at the top of the project may be more useful. Hope that helps Chidgk1 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, it’s there. Thanks! Loupgrru (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

If I go to Talk:Climate change mitigation and search for "Wikiproject Climate change" I see a link to this Wikiproject. Regarding having the Climate change mitigation article link to here, Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't allow that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that’s the problem; maybe I’m getting confused with the difference between pages and articles. You say you see that CC mitigation links to CPP — that’s good. It seems like CPP should also link to CCM. But I should be looking for a link from here to the CCM page, not the CCM article. Maybe I can find the CCM page linked in the list @Chidgk1 provided a link to (thanks, Chidgk1). Loupgrru (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're asking. Perhaps it would help if you could tell us: 1) What does CPP stand for?, 2) The URLs of exactly what pages you want to link to what, and 3) Why do you want these links? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, CPP should have been PCC for Project Climate Change. Another Wikimedian helped me find what I was looking for. Still, I appreciate your interest. Thanks! Loupgrru (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Meadow, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}

Should there be significantly more or less top importance articles?

Or is the current 59 about right? I ask because I might later ask a question about which should be top and it seems easier to agree on an approximate number first Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's slightly more than the Wikipedia-average. We have 1.4% as top-importance, and Wikipedia has 0.8% as top-importance. So we're correct in the ballpark. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles that tie to climate mitigation - the potential to improve those ties

Hi all, as you can see in two talks above dealing with WP grants to work on individual climate action on food and ag and references and one on a survey of users, part of our CSteps team's work is to tie existing Wikipedia pages to climate mitigation efforts that individual people can take regarding food and agriculture, so as to help create effective grassroots actions to help individuals asking "how can I fight climate change."

We just completed a review of a number of Wikipages based on our experience in this arena of individual and community action - of what subjects can be tied to actual food/ag action, and whether they are or not. We also rated them using WP ratings, etc. using one of the tables that @EMsmile put together, I believe. And we noted whether they answered the questions in the CSteps user survey. (@Loupgrru is doublechecking that critical user questions have been covered.)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P3SS8vO3DaY33UmDA6kS8RaHa6e0MEvyn8B2O-UuCPk/edit?usp=sharing

We are sure you probably know of others, so any who'd like to take a look please feel free to add to the list (with a note of your username if you don't mind.) And perhaps help us as a group to set priorities. Our goal is to link at least 30 of the articles to climate change/action via a sentence or two and then links to appropriate climate change mitigation articles. For instance, althought environmental impacts are mentioned, it is not mentioned in the Insects as Food, Foodscaping, and Roof gardens articles that they can be useful very climate-change fighting actions (Roof gardens on so many levels, pun unintended), nor links to climate change pages given. We'd like to change that.

Shoshana (whose username I'm going to have to memorize) is also using this to create an outline for a subpage on Individual Climate Actions regarding Food and Agriculture - that then perhaps we can discuss. As per a different talk here, our page is broader than Low-Carbon diet and some other pages suggested - those would have links within the Food/Ag Action article) But that's still coming (this next week) and then open for discussion.

Thank you! Sorry we've been kindof quiet. We want to make sure we work with you all on this, but we wanted to present a framework first, and some stuff set us behind. Cheers! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks fantastic! Thanks for the update. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi AnnetteCSteps, thanks for the update. It's a very useful table. If I were you I would also add the daily pageviews to the table (e.g. daily pageviews averaged for last 6 months). I think articles with high pageviews should generally get priority. For your interest / comparison, the article list that we work on as part of our project is here. But I like that you are targeting articles that are not per se about climate change but that need to have climate change content in them, e.g. plant-based diet.

You mentioned: We also rated them using WP ratings, etc. using one of the tables that @EMsmile put together, I believe.. I am not sure what you were referring to specifically? The WP ratings just come from the talk pages, right? In our project we actually use a more detailed quality scoring system to try and figure out which are high C or low C, high B or low B... Our scoring system is here (comments welcome). - Good luck with your project! EMsmile (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in most cases the WP ratings came from the talk pages, right, but I know we looked at the table you put together, so I'm not sure if things got changed to include that. @Loupgrru Can you respond? Thanks! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

And thanks for the interest. I agree about daily page views. Our time is getting limited though, as we are behind (everyone got ill), so we'll see what we can do. I might be able to help @Loupgrru. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the WP ratings I referred to in column J of the spreadsheet are the ones that come from the talk page, like “low,” “stub,” “start,” and the other examples you mentioned. Newbie that I am, I was unaware of the scoring system you provided above. I have a lot on my plate just now, but I’ll make sure to familiarize myself with that ASAP, and then switch out the talk-page style ratings with new ratings based on the criteria from that page. Loupgrru (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: I’ve added 3 columns for average daily page views (ADPVs), the date I checked the ADPVs, and the importance rating for Project Climate Change, if there was one. I only filled in values for the highlighted rows, which again means that the subjec:

• Refers to agriculture or food,

• Is related to global warming,

• Is also related to global warming mitigation,

• Could be supported/affected positively by community climate action.

The majority of the highlighted pages in the table were not rated for Project Climate Change, although a lot of them were for Project Environment.

3 pages are rated top importance. Of those, all have ADPVs of 50 or more.

8 pages are rated high importance. Of those, 6 have ADPVs greater than 50.

9 pages are rated mid importance. Of those, 7 have ADPVs greater than 50.

Highest page views for rated pages were Rice at 2893 (high importance), Sustainable Agriculture at 513 (low importance), Subsistence Agriculture at 509, (low importance), Dairy Farming at 427 (mid importance), and Food Security at 558 (mid importance). Highest unrated pages were Pescatarianism at 3426, Food at 2582, and Veganism at 2516.

I also added a sign-up column for those who are interested in adding information about how climate action and mitigation is related to the ideas in each article.

@AnnetteCSteps Loupgrru (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@AnnetteCSteps Interesting. Perhaps I missed a key or note somewhere but what does the yellow shading mean please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Loupgrru another question for you. I couldn't find a key to it either. Thanks! AnnetteCSteps (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn’t miss anything. I explained what the yellow highlight somewhere, but the explanation isn’t on that document. The yellow highlight indicates that the Wikipedia page satisfies these criteria:

• It refers to agriculture or food,

• It’s related to global warming,

• It’s also related to global warming mitigation,

• It could be supported/affected positively by community climate action.

I wanted the spreadsheet to show that I had considered every food/agriculture-related page/article that I could find (at least a couple more have come to my attention since I created the sheet that I need to look at), and then the highlight would show which pages we should focus on adding information to about possible community climate action with appropriate references. To narrow that down further, and in response to @EMsmile’s comment above, I also plan on figuring out which pages are listed as having top importance here as well as which ones have the highest page views. @AnnetteCSteps has shared a web tool with me that we think will show page view numbers as of the day I use it, but if there’s a way to do that that would automatically update that number that any of you know of, I think we’d all appreciate that. However, I’ve got a lot on my plate right now, so it may take me a little while to add that information to the spreadsheet. I promise to get to it as soon as I can. Loupgrru (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Loupgrru AnnetteCSteps (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Updates to the Recommended sources page

Hi everyone. I've just done a major reorganization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Recommended sources and also expanded it with some new content. I tried to not change the meaning of any existing content unless it clearly failed to align with accepted policies and guidelines. Feedback and further edits are welcome.

One issue that could use further clarification is what criteria we use to say whether an organization is a good source for facts. For instance, we have Climate Action Tracker listed as a recommended source but I'm not sure why it's better than REN21, which is listed as a source that requires in-line attribution. For country-specific mitigation and adaptation issues, we often use think-tanks as sources. Should we be doing this? If yes, how do we decide how to choose the right think-tanks? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work there! Really important.

I don't think REN21 usually requires inline attribution. They publish a lot of historical statistics which are perfectly fine to cite as fact. When they make predictions, they may have a bit of a bias towards renewables and in-line attribution may make sense. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes we should use think tanks. For example in the articles I edit on Turkey https://shura.org.tr/ is extremely useful. But I am afraid I don’t know how to choose which ones. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Almost all think tanks have bosses that may not always be clear. In general, I would use them with strong caution. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Think tanks are a grey area.There has been some discussion on WP:RSN noting the wide range of quality in think tanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_342#Think_tanks . What makes the current task easier is that it is a page about recommended sources rather than permissible sources - it is about the sources that we as a community regard as high quality. The page doesn't try to define the minimum bar for quality, which is harder. While we unpack the grey areas, I'll remove the ones that have been challenged by anyone. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Just pinging @Loupgrru here, because he's putting together a recommended reference list for climate actions, coming soon to a PCC wiki section near you. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Content removed

Further to the above discussion, I've removed the following for now as "recommended sources" and "sources to use with caution" are different things:

Materials from industry coalitions or think tanks such as REN21 or the Breakthrough Institute. Such sources can be used when we are reporting what these groups say, but this usually requires inline attribution e.g., "According to Jane, Jack also ran up the hill. There may be exceptions so each case is weighed on its own merit. Often there will be reliable media reports to cite instead.
On the flip side, also be cautious with from environmental advocacy groups and political parties. The same cautions about self-published sources and inline attribution apply.

Reputable organizations and websites

Climate Action Tracker a tracker of government commitments to climate action

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Project Drawdown

Do people think Project Drawdown should be regarded as a high-quality reliable source? Are there any caveats about using it? It does not look like a typical WP:SCIRS publication but it as far as I know it is well-regarded. Femke, I know you're are travelling and I imagine you will want to opine, so we won't make decisions on this unti you're back ;) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I know the people within Project Drawdown, and the people they use are usually Ph.D. scientists or fellows leading each topic (transportation, food) research, and they are carefully studying the carbon life cycles for different solutions. Project Drawdown is utilized a lot by other scientists to highlight solutions. I am sure they are not infallible, but their goal is to really research the science. The organization is based on a book generated by Paul Hawkins, pulling in scientific researchers to comment on the actual impact of different "solutions."

Another very good resource is World Resources Institute - their work is also science-based. We will be using them a lot when we actually start writing the Food/Ag and Climate page or sections. (Our proposed outline is soooo close.) AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant "Hawken." Also, he is now starting a new organization called Regeneration, dealing with Food and Ag. I've been talking to folks at Toronto Regeneration, and they and another chapter are interested in helping pull together references for our wiki work here. Now that I'm settled into Texas again, I'll give them a shout. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with images at effects of climate change on human health?

Does anyone have time/interest to get involved with effects of climate change on human health, in particular with regards to images, especially for the lead? I am thinking of a 2x2 image collage for the lead, see on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Effects_of_climate_change_on_human_health#Images_for_this_article The article is still quite small with regards to pageviews (100-200 views per day) but I think it's likely up and coming. I've recently been working on content improvements with the help of an expert and also the wonderful User:FeydHuxtable; so content wise it's pretty good now, I would say but it needs more/better images. (interestingly, the related article heat illness could also do with a bit of TLC; had previously asked at WikiProject Medicine about that). EMsmile (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've brought this to the attention of Climate Visuals (re: my post above). Hopefully they can help source some images, is there anything in particular you are looking for? TatjanaClimate (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. No, nothing in particular. I hope they can also help with images for more abstract topics such as carbon accounting, carbon justice, carbon footprint... EMsmile (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the biggest impact we can make?

I am looking at carbon neutrality and net zero articles and (for me) the first two-three sentences are likely to make the biggest impact on the most people. How can we very clearly have a similar sentence structure for these two articles, ensure that they can be seen side-by-side (rather than in the context of each other)?

Some ideas: edit the two articles together, have a page explaining common misunderstanding on climate terms, update greenwashing, use wikidictionary? Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a complicated and important set of questions. The way we usually try to figure out these things is to look at incoming links to the articles, sources, and search engine results. The idea is to try to figure out how terms are used in the real world and give the reader something helpful when they click on a link or type a term into a search bar. From that, we can design a suite of pages that might include redirects and disambiguation pages.

Today I got as far as looking at the incoming links to carbon neutrality and links to net zero. The top 10 results from each are below:

Links to carbon neutrality

1. Japan: In 2020 the government of Japan announced a target of carbon-neutrality by 2050. – actually the target is net zero

2. Brazil: target of reaching carbon neutrality by 2060 if the country gets 10 billion dollars per year

3. Hungary: Hungary passed a law binding itself to a target of net-zero emissions by 2050

4. European Union: targets of 55% GHG emissions reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050 = actually the target is net zero

5. Google: Since 2007, Google has aimed for carbon neutrality in regard to its operations. A source says its goal is net zero.

6. Albania: Albania is committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 – actually the target is net zero

7. Iceland: goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by the year 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by the year 2040. An official government source uses the terms "climate neutrality by 2040" and "net zero by 2040" interchangeably.

8. Antarctica: The Belgian Princess Elisabeth station is one of the most modern stations and the first to be carbon-neutral.

9. Microsoft: In January 2021, the company announced on Twitter to join the Climate Neutral Data Centre Pact, which engages the cloud infrastructure and data centers industries to reach carbon neutrality in Europe by 2030.

10. Apple, Inc:Apple announced its plan to become carbon neutral across its entire business, manufacturing supply chain, and product life cycle by 2030. Source is a press release that uses the terms “net zero” and “carbon neutral” interchangably.

Links to net zero

1. United Kingdom: A law has been passed that UK greenhouse gas emissions will be net zero by 2050.

2. England: A law has been passed that UK greenhouse gas emissions will be net zero by 2050

3. Netflix: Netflix announced that it would work to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2022. A Netflix sourcesays, "And as of 2022, we annually bring our remaining net carbon footprint to zero by investing in the power of nature to capture carbon."

4. University College London: achieving net zero carbon emissions for UCL by 2030

5. Fossil fuel: Guterres also said there is still cause for hope, anticipating Joe Biden's plan for the US to join other large emitters like China and the EU in adopting targets to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

6. Sea level rise: while the early net zero and slowly falling temperatures could limit it to 70–120 cm

7. Climate change mitigation: Many countries are aiming for net zero emissions,

8. University of Sussex: an effort to reach net zero by 2035

9. Rishi Sunak: keeping the legal commitment of reaching net zero by 2050

10. Carbon neutrality: Carbon neutrality is a state of net zero carbon dioxide emissions.

More analysis to come... Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Analysis

My takeaway from seeing what links to these terms, and from looking at some of the sources that expand on what is meant is:

The terms "carbon neutrality", "climate neutrality", and "net zero" are often used interchangeably.
Companies that say they are aiming for net zero are not necessarily setting a more stringent target for themselves than those that say they are aiming for carbon neutrality.
When actors commit to net zero or carbon neutrality by a certain date, I'm not sure if this means they have a plan to get there that is detailed enough to distinguish between carbon neutrality and net zero.

If we have separate articles for Net zero and Carbon neutrality, I think both should start by describing what these concepts have in common. And then talk about what the differences might be.

My gut tells me that there should be one article, Carbon neutrality, for the concept of actors bringing their emissions down and Net zero should continue to redirect there. If specific actors are mentioned in that article, we might be able to say what kind of quality standard they are aiming for, but sometimes we won't know. We should probably also have an article called Global net zero that delves into the climatology of net zero anthropogenic emissions everywhere. Articles such as Sea level rise should link to that.

This topic area is challenging to organize. I'm wondering if any experienced climate editors are willing to work on the nitty-gritty of this stuff alongside our new experts in the topic area to improve the Carbon neutrality article and either make Draft:Net zero ready to go live, or merge the draft contents into Carbon neutrality. User:Dtetta has done excellent work on carbon accounting - Dave, do you think this is something you can help with? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Clayoquot - Looks like there’s a lot of good analysis here, as well as good work in developing these articles. Happy to assist in whatever way I can. I would also lean toward having one combined article called carbon neutrality, but I can see some value in a shorter article focused on NetZero as a more recent phenomenon.

Seems like it would be helpful to get a common understanding/consensus of the differences that actually exist between these two concepts. Having briefly looked through the two articles, I am not sure I fully understand exactly where those differences lie. But there’s a number of citations in these articles, as well as other internet references, that seem to address the various aspects of this. So that should help:) Dtetta (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks for offering to help! @Our2050World: is this what you need to move forward, or are you feeling stuck? It's a really tough and important topic area so feel free to ask for lots of help. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this! There is (on another talk page) a draft net zero and carbon neutrality article that looks to make the spilt which I am contributing to. I can see @Clayoquot and @Dtetta that your preference is to keep them combined, IMO this will have real world (negative) impacts (mostly because of the second point in your (brilliant!) analysis, @Clayoquot) and the world is ready to know the important difference. I would love your views on the two articles and if this adds a new dimensions to analysis that we can follow through.

The articles are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Net_zero

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leanunu/sandbox

@Leanunu Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Our2050World, I'm so glad to see your name again! I'm looking forward to reading your sandbox page as soon as I can. Talk soon, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

😄 Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

:The net zero page is live! Love this communities thoughts and thanks all that contibuted. Our2050World 🌏 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

New welcome message

Hi everyone. With help from Bluerasberry I've created a new template to welcome any new people you come across. It has some practical advice and unlike our more standard welcome messages does not suggest going over to the Task Center to do random things. Improvements and suggestions are welcome. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That's great, thank you!! Very useful. EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Your information has been helpful in my onboarding, even if I tapped into it kindof randomly over time. AnnetteCSteps (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot, I've just added your new welcome message to the project page (unless you already placed it there and I hadn't seen it?). I wonder if we should remove the old welcome message (the one called: Invite editors to the project using: {{WikiProject Climate change invite‎}} )? EMsmile (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It's been on my to-do list for a while. There's a lot of project housekeeping that still needs to be done; it's not fun for me and I should take a break from it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyone got time and energy to rescue Climate change in Spain?

If so please take over as nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Spain in next couple of days otherwise it will not get a main page link. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heat wave#Requested move 6 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heat wave#Requested move 6 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What climate photos do you need? (Climate Visuals)

Hi everyone, Climate Visuals is working to increase the photographs available to Wikimedia Commons in their library and is seeking insights from the Wikipedia community about the climate photos you need and would use.

(The Climate Visuals library is designed to increase the impact and engagement of climate change photography and information via their creative commons photo gallery and evidence base).

What are the specific climate-related topics that you need photos for? What articles or topic areas are you working on, or planning to work on, that could use more compelling photos?

Please do let me know below and I’ll pass the message on. Climate Visuals will use this info to collect and curate existing photos that would fill these gaps. Thanks! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tatjana, this is super-exciting! Quick addendum before people poke around the existing Climate Visuals library: The search feature of the website is currently under-powered so it does not let you search for images with Commons-compatible licensing (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and CC-0/public domain). I've heard that Climate Visuals intends to improve the search feature to allow searching for images that Wikipedia can use. Tatjana, would you be able to let us know when the improvements have been made? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The Iranian parliament ratifying the Paris Agreement? Seriously though this is excellent. Could you make an Enhanced geothermal system look good in a photo? No doubt I will ask for more later. Thank you very much Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The licensing page states "The nature of the specific Creative Commons license will be displayed at individual image level on the Climate Visuals image library, but will most commonly be: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0" — which does not meet Wikimedia requirements. Separately, there is a "Creative Commons" area] that has an internal hierarchy path "Back to Themes > Groups for collections page > Agency collections > Creative Commons", but the individual pictures merely say "Creative Commons" without specifying a particular license. . . . More generally, I can see that some of these photos might be proper at certain places in an encyclopedia, but I think there are already plenty of "dramatic" or "decoration" photos here that are not particularly, well,... encyclopedic. I'd be more excited to see illustrative charts/graphs be explicitly licensed. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @Chidgk1! Keep them coming.

Re: licensing @Clayoquot@RCraig09 I can check in with Climate Visuals (CV) about planned updates to the search feature. It's worth mentioning that they are also sorting through their existing database to upload compatibly licensed images to Commons (via the assistance of a Wikipedian).

The call above is about aquiring new images for their library (and for Commons). @RCraig09 if you can think of any images you'd like that would be more encylopedic, CV would love to hear about this. They want to source imagery that will work for Wikipedia.

Re: charts & graphs, I'm hoping to aquire some of these in the near future, but if there are any organisations or collections you're particularly interested in, please do let me know. Thanks! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@TatjanaBaleta: A main provider of valuable charts is the IPCC (ipcc.ch), but I think that other editor(s) are already pursuing a process to obtain permissions/licensing. I don't remember any more details. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @EMsmile @Dtetta @Sadads in case you have any insights on useful photographs. TatjanaBaleta (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@TatjanaBaleta, I'd love photos for the Carbon dioxide removal article that illustrate synergies and trade-offs of CDR methods. In particular, we need photos showing the downsides of afforestation. The photos in Afforestation make it look all nice. I'd like to illustrate the issues that AR6 describes as: "Afforestation or production of biomass crops for BECCS or biochar, when poorly implemented, can have adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts, including on biodiversity, food and water security, local livelihoods and on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially if implemented at large scales and where land tenure is insecure (high confidence)." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

FINAL CALL! Please let know about any climate change topics you'd like to get images for. Thanks for the responses so far! TatjanaClimate (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Just pinging this thread as well to mention that (along with the new images on Commons) Climate Visuals has optimised the search function for their photo library on their website to try make it more useful for people like Wikipedia editors (by adding the ability to sort files by their license type). There are loads more images there as well. If you have any feedback on the search function, I can pass it on to Climate Visuals - they are keen to hear it! TatjanaClimate (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a photo, but I would like a Climate_spiral of Sea_surface_temperature. Uwappa (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you make a hookier hook?

Template:Did you know nominations/Renewable energy in Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone help with Economic analysis of climate change?

We need some inputs into the new structure and content of Economic analysis of climate change, now that the article economic impacts of climate change has been merged into it (a merge which I supported). I wonder if a name change would help and if it needs a refocus. Perhaps Climate change and economic aspects, keeping in line with the range of articles that are called "climate change and ...". Or perhaps it requires WP:TNT. Does anyone have any broad suggestions for this? I'll put the same also on its talk page EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Improving articles about current heatwaves, putting in "writing and improving articles" in the "To Do" cathegory in the main page.

I think we should Heavily improve articles about current heatwaves like 2023 European heat waves, 2023 Western North America heat wave, 2023 Asia heat wave.

I wanted to put it in "writing and improving articles" in the "To Do" cathegory in the main page, but seems that I do not have the possibility to edit it. I think we should do it.

The page 2023 north america wildfires has close 400,000 views per month in the peak of wildfires so why the page about heatwave in north america has only 10,000?

I think it should be corrected to 2023 North america heatwave.

I think a redirect from page like 2023 USA heatwave should be created.

I think it should be updated (currently NOTHING ABOUT JULY).

I think issues like link with climate change mortality morbidity, should be explained.

I think it should have link to pages like "list of heatwaves in the United States should be improved.

I think in pages about politicians who say something about the heatwave it shouldbe mentioned with a redirect.

Probably the same should be made aboutthe pages dealing with heatwaves in Europe and Asia.

I has already made things about but I can not do all this alone. Can you please help me? And can you put it in the to do list in the main page of the project? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. Heatwaves aren't really my area but I'll see if I can sort out why the To Do category isn't editable or easy to edit. I hope you get the help you need. If you don't, every bit you're doing helps and your work is appreciated. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added a section here that might be easier to edit than what was there before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change#Current_tasks_suggested_by_the_community . Let me know if you have difficulty adding to that section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I saw that the pages about the heatwaves has been improved at some extent. I also added several things.

What do you think about these 2 propositions?

Maybe it would be better to change the name of the page 2023 Western North America heat wave to 2023 North America heat wave (because you can see even in the map it has affected not only the west) this will probably increase views because people from others areas will read more.

I think it would be better to link the page 2023 Canadian wildfires to this page. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alexander. To change the name of a page, you can do it using the instructions at Help:How to move a page. I'm not sure what you mean by "link the page 2023 Canadian wildfires to this page" but you can be bold and make whatever links you want. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Link the page means explain in the page about heatwave that it is linked to the wildfires (with putting the link to the page) and doing the opposite in the page about wildfires. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like something you can be bold and do, unless someone has already objected to the idea. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 12:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Reference Needed

No proof is proffered of the hypothesis that increased CO2 in the atmosphere can/will cause incresed energy absorption by CO2. New data shows that the band of 14-16microns is already totally saturated. So More CO2 can not cause further absorption. Casting doubt on the whole article. Reference: NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E. Lord 1992. Bobhisey (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

New data from 1992? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Just dropped in when I saw a mention...

... and I must say, I love what you guys have done with the place :)

I haven't been involved in Wikipedia for a number of years, due to various issues - lack of reliable internet connectivity, the national problems here in South Africa of so-called "loadshedding" (a euphemism for up to 12 hours of hard electricity cuts per day), and the difficulties I found in working within the Wikipedia community itself - but I have never felt entirely comfortable with my decision to withdraw from engagement. I came here in good faith to contribute where I could, but found myself clashing with other editors over edits I had made, and the sometimes arbitrary and actually wrong (by the conventions of international use) style rules implemented here. I'll freely admit my own individualism makes me less of a team player than the editing work here requires, for which I blame no-one but myself.

None of which is germane to the issue at hand, which is simply this: that I wanted to express my heartfelt gratitude and admiration to everyone who has contributed in any way to this massive and absolutely critical project.

When I started the ball rolling by drafting the WikiProject proposal late one night, I knew at a visceral level its importance, but I only dimly understood its impact and took little time to articulate it consciously, even to myself. But every passing day brings new data, new events and new understanding. If anything, the science has been too conservative in its estimates of of how bad things are going to get as the catastrophe unfolds. Because make no mistake, this catastrophe is no longer "impending" - it's already here and we are seeing its impact in the mass media on a daily basis. Given that these negative results of our activities are apparently acceptable in some decision-making quarters, the question then becomes, exactly how much worse do things have to be before it's no longer profitable to ignore the signs and we must therefore take concrete action? None of the possible answers are encouraging.

The science tells us that there are few global issues of equal or greater importance to the future of humanity or the planet itself, and creating and organising a publicly-accessible resource of verifiable facts and information on the subject is fundamental to the changes we need to see in society today. This isn't just a nice way to spend a bit of spare time, far from it. This is creating a legacy for the future, an educational and informational resource, and a dynamic snapshot of our best current understanding of the crisis we face and its impact on the world. Do not underestimate the importance of that. This is something of which you can all be extremely proud.

I might have contributed in a small way by giving the ball a tiny nudge, but since then you have all picked it up and carried it forward. I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to get things started, and I'm incredibly impressed with how the work has continued. That all this effort is entirely voluntary and unpaid leaves me humbled.

So thank you, all of you. Cadar (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for getting it started. What is happening with energy in South Africa now seems quite important if you do have the energy and time to contribute your local knowledge. For example as someone who knows very little about South Africa it is quite surprising to me to read in https://theconversation.com/south-africas-power-crisis-will-continue-until-2025-and-blackouts-will-take-5-years-to-phase-out-206343 that there would not be enough skilled installers to install a large number of solar farms in less than 5 years. Because I thought South Africans would easily be able to train up plenty of people to do that work. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's an update on the situation in an article from the latest edition of The Conversation Africa: https://theconversation.com/south-africas-power-crisis-will-continue-until-2025-and-blackouts-will-take-5-years-to-phase-out-206343. This is a national crisis of the first water, and I can tell you for a fact that it's not possible to run a modern country without reliable access to power. The knock-on effects of the loadshedding are beyond easy description. But what that article completely fails to mention are the political and societal aspects of the whole crisis, as well as the corruption, incompetence and kleptomania which provide ample problems for every possible solution. Money earmarked for new and upgraded infrastructure is stolen, as are equipment and copper wire, which then gets sold for scrap. And there is an unspoken but well understood further aspect: Eskom, the electricity "supplier" - using the word in the loosest of all possible terms - is run by organised crime, a criminal gang. This is no joke. They attempted to murder by cyanide the previous Eskom CEO because he was a whistleblower.

You literally couldn't make this stuff up. Cadar (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes the article is a bit silly as the Professor of Physics has written it as if it was a technical or economics problem whereas in fact it seems to be a political problem. Having said that I write a lot about Turkey but I have still not properly nailed the politics of the energy system here. Maybe I’ll get round to improving the Karpowership article some time. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cadar, thank you for your kind and encouraging words :) This is indeed a wonderful team to be part of. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Had no idea a fellow Saffa was part of the formation of WikiProject: Climate Change! How wonderful! Less wonderful: loadshedding. I can empathise. The endless rolling blackouts have also jeopardised the sewerage system, resulting in contaminated water leaking into our estuaries and oceans. There's also good coverage on the Eskom crime ring in the Daily Maverick, if anyone is interested. TatjanaClimate (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing about us South Africans: we get around ;)

Now if only we could be motivated to get off our butts and engage in climate activism. Unfortunately, for the few who know about it and accept its factual basis, it still gets firmly swept under the carpet entitled "somebody else's problem". Cadar (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

How good or bad is the article cloud feedback?

Can someone who understands the science around cloud feedback better than me (I am a lay person on this topic) take a little look at the cloud feedback article (which is currently rated as a "start" article but with him importance)? I've just made some quick improvements to it, trying to bring it more up to date and to interlink it with our other articles who touch on this topic. These include mainly climate change feedback, greenhouse effect, climate sensitivity (and any others?). They all say and link to cloud feedback as the "main" article but then you go there and there's actually not much content there.

I wonder if we even need a separate cloud feedback article or if it's perhaps better off as a redirect to the right section within climate change feedback (in order to avoid having to update the same content about cloud feedback in several places). If not, then we might be able to use excerpts more smartly. I assume that the ongoing research will bring up new findings about cloud feedback and then it would be a shame if this new content would have to be updated in 4 articles rather than just in one article.

By the way, I don't even know if the image I have now added as a the lead image for this article is still regarded as valid. It's from 2010, see on the right. We have a more detailed one at climate change feedback but I didn't want the same lead image for both articles (?). EMsmile (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the image, there's probably better ones in the more recent IPCC reports. Cloud feedback has been a really difficult-to-capture factor in climate change, and there's been a lot of talk about it, so I think an image from 2010 is highly likely* to be out of date. I think it having a separate article is fine, for similar reasons. If someone else doesn't get there before I can (so, somewhere this decade), I'll take a good look at it.

_{* = in IPCC terms} --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal - "Climate apocalypse" into "Climate change and civilizational collapse"

See Talk:Climate_apocalypse#Merger_proposal_into_climate_change_and_civilizational_collapse. In brief, climate apocalypse has always been an unreliable article, one often at odds with the scientific consensus (see the earlier discussion about it on here), but with its prominent placement on the new sidebar, ahead of any other article (I removed it from that position for now, but there's no guarantee I won't be overruled, sooner or later), now is the time to resolve the issues with it, starting with the poorly defined name. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about Heat recovery ventilation?

Perhaps Americans know more about this than me?

The article is marked as low priority but is that right? Also I have some questions like

Talk:Heat_recovery_ventilation#Should_the_article_be_simplified_and_if_so_how? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need deforestation and climate change?

I am really unsure if it's in our interest to have an article with the vague title deforestation and climate change or if we're not better off adding the climate change content to the main deforestation article? I find the scope of deforestation and climate change rather unclear and wonder if it was once the lazy way of adding climate change content to Wikipedia, rather than adding it where it really belongs, i.e. in the main article on deforestation?

Otherwise we could argue that we also need reforestation and climate change, afforestation and climate change, ... Perhaps it was seen as a safe space for students to add some stuff. A lot of the content at deforestation and climate change had been added by students. I recently removed some and moved some to deforestation.

The main deforestation was terrible by the way, completely ballooned out to over 75 kB, with excessive content on infectious diseases from deforestation. I've recently culled and condensed it. I think it could be culled and condensed further and the created "space" could be used to bring in some of the climate change content. I am really not sure if a standalone deforestation and climate change is warranted/useful. Or maybe it would work under a different article name?

Note the same principle would apply to desertification and desertification and climate change... EMsmile (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In general I would be against these "and" articles but in this case I think we should keep it as there is so much interplay between the two. Not an expert but I imagine a lot more will be discovered soon. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think deforestation could be taken to include both reforestation and afforestation, but I wouldn't oppose a renaming to "forest cover and climate change". That could be used to more clearly address issues like proposals to plant trees as a way to address climate change. Beyond that, I think I agree with Chidgk1- less articles are better, but forest cover and climate change is a huge topic area.

Also, there are far more niche articles if you look at the topics under climate change here: Template:Climate change. We have greenhouse gas emissions from wetlands and Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity and Climate change and birds and so on and so forth. There's also separate articles on Effects of climate change on agriculture and Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture when a combined article would be better. Efbrazil (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of forest cover and climate change (or similar; something without "and"?). I have in the past argued for merging some of the smaller "climate change and xx" articles back into larger articles, for example we merged "physical effects of climate change" and "effects of climate change on humans", and "long-term effects of climate change" back into effects of climate change). And personally I think articles with "and" in the title are suspicious to me.

However, I don't think that merging Effects of climate change on agriculture and Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture into one would be beneficial at all! I was one of the people behind splitting this into two from the formerly called climate change and agriculture article. I see no benefit in re-merging them. Take a look, they are are on clearly differentiated topics. Out of curiosity: what do you think would be the advantage of merging them and under which merged article title?

In general, I think it's better to include climate change content into "main" articles, rather than creating all those silo-articles on climate change subtopics. Therefore, content about climate change should be part and parcel of the articles on deforestation, reforestation, agriculture, biodiversity loss, livestock, water security and so forth. EMsmile (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point with agriculture and climate change being 2 articles, and I don't feel strongly on the issue, certainly not enough to take action on it. The reason I suggested combining them was that I think fewer articles and less fragmentation the better, and that was an example of having not just one, but two articles dedicated to a single "climate change and ..." topic.

Whether an "and" article should exist really depends on the amount of high quality content for the topic. Definitely the root articles should have subtopics introducing the content for any "and" type article. For instance, we should be covering climate change under deforestation and deforestation under climate change, and in each of those sections we should be pointing to a larger article on forest cover and climate change. Efbrazil (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)