m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Archive 9) (bot
|
→Introduction: Amen 34571: You may want to look above, in the above section titled "New to Wikipedia editing process", which has some helpful suggestions
|
||
(33 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
{{ToC}} |
{{ToC}} |
||
== Requested move at [[Talk:Rewilding (conservation biology)#Requested move 4 March 2024]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Rewilding (conservation biology)#Requested move 4 March 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Adding Topical table to Scholarly Journals and News Report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Recommended_sources == |
== Adding Topical table to Scholarly Journals and News Report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Recommended_sources == |
||
Line 46: | Line 43: | ||
::::::Yes, fyi, Mark and I just met, and the broader information had been sent, versus the Recommended articles. We're still going to have the returned contractor look over the materials. [[User:AnnetteCSteps|AnnetteCSteps]] ([[User talk:AnnetteCSteps|talk]]) 17:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
::::::Yes, fyi, Mark and I just met, and the broader information had been sent, versus the Recommended articles. We're still going to have the returned contractor look over the materials. [[User:AnnetteCSteps|AnnetteCSteps]] ([[User talk:AnnetteCSteps|talk]]) 17:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Again, I apologize. I misunderstood one of the columns in AirTable, thinking it indicated a reference that met Wikipedia standards. It was not. I also chose some of those references when I was still fairly new to Wikipedia reference standards, and included some references that were not high quality. I’ve removed them, but we’re still double-checking it. I’ve temporarily removed access to that Google sheet while Shoshana (I don’t know her Wikipedia username) and I work on it. I’m sorry for the delay. [[User:Loupgrru|Loupgrru]] ([[User talk:Loupgrru|talk]]) 08:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::Again, I apologize. I misunderstood one of the columns in AirTable, thinking it indicated a reference that met Wikipedia standards. It was not. I also chose some of those references when I was still fairly new to Wikipedia reference standards, and included some references that were not high quality. I’ve removed them, but we’re still double-checking it. I’ve temporarily removed access to that Google sheet while Shoshana (I don’t know her Wikipedia username) and I work on it. I’m sorry for the delay. [[User:Loupgrru|Loupgrru]] ([[User talk:Loupgrru|talk]]) 08:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
== A section on "threats" for each plant and animal article? == |
|||
I've started a discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life arguing that each plant and animal article ought to have a main level heading on "threats" (which is also where any threats from climate change could go in future). This was prompted by User:InformationToKnowledge's addition of climate change effects content to [[flowering plant]], somewhat hidden in the section on "conservation". If you are interested, please participate in the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Proposal_about_%22threats%22_in_the_standard_outline . (I think it's important to add climate change content not just in pure climate change articles but also in all the other articles where climate change has impacts.) [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 12:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Added new section on "climate hazard" to [[hazard]] == |
|||
I've just added a new section on "climate hazard" to the main [[hazard]] article, using content from the IPCC AR6 report. Its glossary didn't have an entry for "climate hazard" but the term is used a lot in the WG2 report. Climate hazards are pretty much those things that we call also [[effects of climate change]]. Please help me improve what I have written so far. Perhaps you also propose other publications that should be cited there, not just the IPCC AR6 report. In parallel, I have also proposed to merge [[anthropogenic hazard]] into [[hazard]]. (by the way, our main [[climate change]] article does not mention "hazard" once). [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 12:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Land use change articles == |
|||
''Land use change'' is a big topic for us. When I see the term mentioned, or variations of it like "land use modification", I am undecided where to wikilink the term to. I used to wikilink to [[Land use, land-use change and forestry]] but now I see we also have [[land change science]] (I wasn't aware of that article before). Is it better to generally link there? Or should those two articles maybe be merged? I also noticed that the article on [[land use]] is rather bare. As a small quick fix, I have added an excerpt from [[land change science]] to [[land use]]. Just wondering if anyone is interested in this topic and could help to improve the situation? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 11:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Please correct permafrost "melt" in 2 schematics == |
|||
Please remember the correct terminology is "permafrost thawing", not "permafrost melting". This was pointed out by User:InformationToKnowledge on a few of the talk pages (see e.g. [[Talk:Permafrost carbon cycle#Merge into permafrost?|here]]). I now noticed the wrong terminology in two schematics that we use in several articles. Can someone please change it. [[Effects of climate change#/media/File:20200118 Global warming and climate change - vertical block diagram - causes effects feedback.svg|This schematic]] and [[Climate change feedbacks#/media/File:20220726 Feedbacks affecting global warming and climate change - block diagram.svg|this one]]. |
|||
Can someone please correct that; I don't know how to edit those schematics. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: {{done}} and {{done}}. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 04:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Awesome, thank you! [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Help needed with direction of [[climate change scenario]] article == |
|||
I am currently discussing with [[User:Uwappa]] the way forward with the [[climate change scenario]] article. Would appreciate an extra pair of eyes and brain power if anyone has time. The question is: do we keep the article on just the ''theory/fundamentals'' of scenario setting (my preference) or do we expand it to give actual practical information about the different likely scenarios that are ahead of us (Uwappa's preference). [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 08:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Dealing with the tropical regions article? == |
== Dealing with the tropical regions article? == |
||
Line 169: | Line 143: | ||
::::Thanks - I have requested they be closed [[Wikipedia:Closure requests#Three proposals to merge several forestry articles]] [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 13:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
::::Thanks - I have requested they be closed [[Wikipedia:Closure requests#Three proposals to merge several forestry articles]] [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 13:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
Thanks everyone - please continue discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_sequestration#How_to_clean_up_the_mess_around_trees_and_mitigation [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 06:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
Thanks everyone - please continue discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_sequestration#How_to_clean_up_the_mess_around_trees_and_mitigation [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 06:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::I was asking myself where we stand with this proposed mammoth merger work, so I looked at the merger closure pages and am giving the following update here: |
|||
* The result of this discussion was to '''merge''' [[Analog forestry]] and [[Close to nature forestry]] into [[Ecoforestry]]. '''No consensus''' to merge [[Mycoforestry]] at this time. --> this merger has been carried out but post-merge tidying work is needed. |
|||
* [[Talk:Forest management#Merge proposal|Discussion of merge proposal]] for forest management (several articles): |
|||
** Proposal to merge [[Sustainable forest management]] into [[Forest management]] - There is a weak consensus in favour of the merge. However, there is a clear concern that this would be a massive undertaking due to the size differences between the 2 articles which could result in [[Forest management]] becoming imbalanced. |
|||
** Proposal to merge [[Afforestation]] into [[Forest management]] - No clear consensus for or against this merge. |
|||
** Proposal to merge [[Proforestation]] into [[Forest management]] - There is a very weak consensus in favour of the merge. There are also some notable alternative suggestions on this proposal. |
|||
** Several inline proposals to merge or combine other related articles such as [[Reforestation]] - No clear consensus for or against such merges. Outside the initial comments, very little discussion took place on these suggestions. |
|||
*Regarding this: "I propose merging [[Silvopasture]], [[Dehesa]], [[Forest gardening]], [[Forest farming]], [[Syntropic agriculture]], [[Inga alley cropping]], [[Farmer-managed natural regeneration]] and [[Kuojtakiloyan]] into this article, because they all seem to be types of agroforestry and are fairly short." the consensus was "Consensus to '''not merge''' [[Silvopasture]] and [[Dehesa]], at least for now, to allow further development. Consensus to '''merge''' the remaining articles into [[Agroforestry]]." |
|||
:::::@[[User:Chidgk1]] are you in principle ready to carry out all these mergers? It'll be so much better once it's all done. I think whenever it says "weak consensus" it means you can go ahead. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Unless I missed something they are all done [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Reverted edits: Cloud seeding UAE == |
== Reverted edits: Cloud seeding UAE == |
||
Line 316: | Line 300: | ||
Directly related to the topic immediately above. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
Directly related to the topic immediately above. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Managing Köppen-Geiger graphics in the regional climate change articles? == |
|||
So, some time back, pretty much every one of our "Climate change in X" articles had a pair of graphics added: one showing their current [[Köppen climate classification]], and another with the projected classification for 2070-2100. There were two issues with those: |
|||
#The labels on the graphics are not very readable without zooming in. Whoever added them originally decided to address this by blowing them up to a truly disproportionate size that ended up effectively breaking the page layout and forcing the readers to scroll the entire page horizontally. Perhaps it was not the case when it was first added, but that's certainly what happened once the new default skin was adopted. Here is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_in_South_Africa&diff=1223000788&oldid=1193297669 an example] of what it used to be like. |
|||
#The only available projection was for RCP 8.5, and we all know how unrealistic it is. |
|||
When I added the new template across all of these articles recently, I also decided to rescale those graphics to more wiki-friendly sizes (like in the example above [[Climate change in South Africa|which now looks like this]]) and to add the same disclaimer I now place on all RCP 8.5-only graphics. Then, though, it turned out that {{ping|Uness232}} had found a newer paper, which now has Köppen-Geiger projections for a full range of IPCC scenarios. You can see an example at [[Climate change in Turkey]]. |
|||
'''Even so, there are still two issues we need to decide on:''' |
|||
#How many graphics should we include, and for which scenario? For the Turkey page, Uness232 decided to go for SSP3-7, describing it as a "mid-range, relatively likely scenario" in the caption. That really isn't accurate, as SSP3-7 is still a scenario where the {{CO2}} emissions '''never go down in this century''' - they just don't accelerate like they do in SSP5-8.5. Methane and {{N2O}} emissions actually go up more in that scenario than in any other - one look at AR6 WG1 SPM (p.13) ascertains that. Considering that even last year, global {{CO2}} emissions increased by [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00532-2 a mere 0.1%], I think it's safe to say that scenario is nearly as implausible as the worst-case. The citations I have in the captions both refer to RCP 4.5/SSP2-4.5 as the most plausible. |
|||
##'''However''', the thing with Köppen-Geiger zones is that they can be fairly persistent. I.e. according to that classification, zones in the countries like [[Climate change in Egypt|Egypt]], [[Climate change in Indonesia|Indonesia]] and [[Climate change in Tanzania|Tanzania]] would barely change even under RCP 8.5, because most of their territory is already at the furthest ends of the classification. With SSP2-4.5 maps, a lot more countries may not appear to have significant change by 2100. I guess we could attempt a three/four image collage and say that the 8.5 projections represents the plausible 2300 state? (Enough references say that climatically, RCP8.5 2100 = RCP 4.5 ~2300.) |
|||
#Once we have decided on the graphic selection, do we want to rewrite their legends in larger font or something, in an attempt to make the text visible in reasonably-sized thumbnails? |
|||
Long question, I know, but please comment, as it is fairly important. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi, and thanks for opening this discussion. |
|||
:Before everything, I want to say that my pick of SSP370 was unintentional. I meant to pick either 2-4.5 or 4-3.4 (I don't remember which one right now, but those are, as far as I know, the scenarios most in line with the 2.5 to 3.0C warming prediction), but I think I just misread something and never checked back. As for the questions: |
|||
:1. If the sources explicitly state 2-4.5 to be the most likely, we should use that one. It does not matter if the zones are persistent in my opinion; we are here to present information, and if the relative persistence of zones in some countries makes the image collage unnecessary, the best practice may be removing those collages on those pages. Using RCP 8.5 maps for 2300 would be fine, I suppose, but with the existence of a map that specifically clarifies itself to be 2071-2100, this might be somewhat confusing. |
|||
:2. I'm neutral on this; I am comfortable with zooming in, and so for me this is not an issue. Some people might prefer more accessible legends though, so I also don't have any objections. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 17:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Not every climate change leads to a different Köppen climate classification. |
|||
:I would prefer just one graph, for a specific region, that shows changes for the 2 basic variables of a climate: temperature and precipitation. |
|||
:A graphic could show the differences between pre-industrial and current. It could also show future scenarios, what will the climate be when we reach the +1.5C and +2.0C from the Paris agreement? Such scenarios would not be pinned down to specific years. |
|||
:Design ideas for such a graph: [[File:Paris_climate_change.png|x75px]] [[File:Climate_change_paris.png|x75px]] [[File:Changing_climate_proof_of_concept.png|x75px]] [[User:Uwappa|Uwappa]] ([[User talk:Uwappa|talk]]) 04:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think for places with minimal projected Köppen changes, these ideas are doable, but for a few reasons I find Köppen maps more appealing when there are noticable changes between time periods: |
|||
::1) Beck et. al. came up with a methodology for estimating the monthly precipitation and temperature for different periods by through a complex process that we can not easily replicate. Therefore we would be unable to easily use accurate "future" maps. |
|||
::2) A graph can only give information about one place, or the average of a place. There are countries (including Turkey) where climate change will have opposite effects on different regions. |
|||
::3) Real-life cities have problems measuring climate change; they have [[Urban heat island|UHI]]s. [[Bakırköy]], by the 2030s, will have 30-year climate normals 3C warmer than its pre-industrial temperature, and obviously we are not at 3C of warming. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 21:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::A map similar to [[File:Natural_disasters_caused_by_climate_change.png|x50px]]could show dangers and opportunities. |
|||
:::Such a map could show impacts for global +1.5C and +2.0C, not for specific future years. [[User:Uwappa|Uwappa]] ([[User talk:Uwappa|talk]]) 06:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sure, though if we are going to use a map like that, why not use Köppen maps anyway? Places where there's a desertification threat would be indicated by A/C/D -> B, places with new possibilities of summer drought would be represented by Cf -> Cs, warmer temperatures would create a chain of E -> D -> C -> A, and Xxb to Xxa would signal new heat dangers. |
|||
::::And even with a 'danger' map, some areas might need to be completely blank, as it is in the map above. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 09:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, that sounds great to filter dangers: desertification, drought and heat. |
|||
:::::To add: floods in low areas. [[User:Uwappa|Uwappa]] ([[User talk:Uwappa|talk]]) 13:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think you misunderstand. I was not saying that we should make a map ourselves, borrowing criteria from Köppen and renaming these criteria as risks to fit our needs. That would be [[WP:OR]]. I was suggesting that, as long as there are environmental changes that can be captured by Köppen, we should just use a Köppen map. If that is not possible for that region, we can think of alternatives. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Re the legend would it be too difficult to only include the zones which are on that particular map? For example I don’t think we need “polar tundra” on the Turkey legend. Also rather than having to look alternately at the legend and map I would find our map more readable if I could put the main zone names directly on the map. The smaller zones could have their label nearby off the map with an arrow. [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 20:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::''Re the legend would it be too difficult to only include the zones which are on that particular map? For example I don’t think we need “polar tundra” on the Turkey legend.'' |
|||
::That's already how it is: Turkey has alpine tundra on a few of its highest mountains. [[User:Uness232|Uness232]] ([[User talk:Uness232|talk]]) 21:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ah I see now on Ararat - that would be better shown with an arrow I think [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I like the bar graph. [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 20:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move at [[Talk:Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement#Requested move 27 May 2024]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement#Requested move 27 May 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move at [[Talk:Decocidio#Requested move 24 May 2024]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Decocidio#Requested move 24 May 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 20:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Climate action investing articles == |
|||
Some Wikipedia articles to create/update: Climate Action 100+, [[Ceres (organization)]]. |
|||
Climate action investor networks have become big players in the business world, but I think Wikipedia coverage is out of date. The above two are in the news because of a House Republican subcommittee report alleging anti-trust violations.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Binnie |first=Isla |date=2024-06-11 |title=US House panel finds Wall St 'colluded' to curb emissions |url=https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/us-house-committee-report-finds-wall-street-colluded-curb-emissions-2024-06-11/ |access-date=2024-06-13 |work=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{Cite press release|date=2024-06-11 |title=New Report Reveals Evidence of ESG Collusion Among Left-Wing Activists and Major Financial Institutions |author=House Judiciary Committee Republicans |url=http://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-reveals-evidence-esg-collusion-among-left-wing-activists-and-major |access-date=2024-06-13 |publisher=House Judiciar Committee |language=en}}</ref> |
|||
The report document<ref>{{cite report |date=2024-06-11 |title=CLIMATE CONTROL: EXPOSING THE DECARBONIZATION COLLUSION IN ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE (ESG) INVESTING |url=https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-06-11%20Climate%20Control%20-%20Exposing%20the%20Decarbonization%20Collusion%20in%20Environmental%2C%20Social%2C%20and%20Governance%20(ESG)%20Investing.pdf |access-date=2024-06-13}}</ref> repeatedly refers to Climate Action 100+ and [[Ceres (organization)|Ceres]] as main players in what it terms a "climate cartel" which is compelling corporations to address climate change. And it turns out this is non-trivial. Many of the biggest investment and pension funds are participating in these networks, using shareholder persuasion to institute carbon accounting and quantify climate change risks and so forth. |
|||
But as a Wikipedia users I don't find much here. |
|||
* Climate Action 100+, described by Reuters as "the world's biggest climate investor group",<ref name="Reuters2024-02-22">{{Cite news |last1=Jessop |first1=Simon |last2=Kerber |first2=Ross |date=2024-02-22 |title=Climate investor group seeks to shore up support after US exits |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/climate-investor-group-seeks-shore-up-support-after-us-exits-2024-02-22/ |access-date=2024-06-13 |work=Reuters}}</ref> does not have an article or a redirect, it seems to be nowhere mentioned. |
|||
* There is only little in the [[Ceres (organization)|Ceres]] article about climate action investing. The article describes an organization Ceres created [[Investor Network on Climate Risk]], which seems to have gone defunct long ago. The INCR URLs redirect to defunct pages on the Ceres web site. Following Archive.org history of archived redirected URLs, I get eventually to Ceres Investor Network<ref>{{cite web |title=Ceres Investor Network |url=https://www.ceres.org/networks/investor |access-date=2024-06-13}}</ref>, which is I think what the House Republicans were bloviating about. |
|||
The House committee is holding hearings on the investor action networks' "war on the American way of life" (I didn't make that up). Some really big investment houses have been forced by political pressures to drop their participation.<ref name="Reuters2024-02-22"/> |
|||
But Wikipedia seems to be behind on this. No article on Climate Action 100+, Ceres article is out of date, Ceres Investor Network seems to be represented by an obsolete article on a defunct subsidiary. I'm not at all sure what to do with the subcommittee report. (Which maybe shouldn't be included until there is informed news coverage and reactions.) And I am very ill-equipped to provide the needed updates. |
|||
I'll probably post something over at Wikiproject Business also. -- [[User:M.boli|M.boli]] ([[User talk:M.boli|talk]]) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I suspect you are as well equiped to create an article on Climate Action 100+ as most of us here. Although perhaps companies are leaving it ( https://www.ft.com/content/6ae809be-2b87-48e9-bac2-d243155fbb49) as they might be afraid of what Trump would do to them - just speculating wildly. You could create a draft and submit it. [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 18:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Please put further posts in this talk discussion above the reflist --> |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
== New to Wikipedia editing process == |
|||
I joined today (Monday17 June 2024) Wikipedia and am interested in contributing to its extensive climate crisis coverage. I would appreciate any suggestions or advice anyone may wish to offer please. [[User:Alfred Robert Hogan|Alfred Robert Hogan]] ([[User talk:Alfred Robert Hogan|talk]]) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Welcome to Wikipedia Alfred! I am sure you will contribute a lot! [[User:אלכסנדר סעודה|Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה]] ([[User talk:אלכסנדר סעודה|talk]]) 17:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: {{reply|Alfred Robert Hogan}} It's best when starting out to look at changes previously made to an article, and make small changes that adopt a similar approach. Start with small, non-controversial changes. When in doubt, you can ask other editors about a particular question or suggestion, by posting on the article's talk page. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Woo hoo, great to have you on board! Thanks for dropping by and introducing yourself. In terms of suggestions, |
|||
:1. [[Wp:bold|Be bold]] - people's first contributions to Wikipedia are often their most valuable ones even though they often aren't perfectly formatted. I don't think it's important to look at the changes previously made to an article, which can be confusing. If you see an error, just fix it. |
|||
:2. Include a citation to a reliable source for everything, immediately, and include page numbers if the source has more than 10 pages. Ensure every sentence has at least one citation. |
|||
:3. Cite IPCC reports as much as you can. Don't sweat about the formatting of citations to IPCC reports initially - if you get it almost right we'll standardize it for you later. |
|||
:4. Improve existing articles before you create new ones. For the most impact, spend most of your time on existing articles as new ones tend to get a lot less traffic. |
|||
:5. Don't start by editing [[wp:Featured Articles]] ([[Climate change]] and [[Sustainable energy]]) as they are more difficult to improve. |
|||
:6. If you run into any difficulty, you can ask questions here or at the [[wp:Teahouse]]. |
|||
:7. If you want to start with non-controversial edits, look for outdated content and replace it with updated content from the same publisher. E.g. replace 2018 Our World in Data statistics with 2023 Our World in Data statistics. Nobody could possibly object to that and it really helps. |
|||
:Cheers and welcome ! [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Welcome. |
|||
:What you could do: Describe climate change in a way that local people can relate to. Answer the question: What does climate change mean for me, the people {{sl|climate change in baltimore|in my town}}, [[Climate_change_in_Maryland|my state]], [[Climate_change_in_the_United_States|my country]], {{sl|climate change in north-america|my continent}}? |
|||
:* Is data available for local climate change graphs such as [[File:Paris_climate_change.png|x30px]] and [[File:Climate_change_paris.png|x30px]]? |
|||
:* How has climate change effected local people? Which changes are positive? Which are negative? |
|||
:* What are scenarios for the future? Can local people adapt? Will they have to relocate? |
|||
:[[User:Uwappa|Uwappa]] ([[User talk:Uwappa|talk]]) 08:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Zero carbon v Net Zero house== |
|||
{{talkback|Talk:Zero carbon housing}} |
|||
Someone changed "zero carbon housing" to be also "net zero home" in June 2024. This conflates two different concepts. We already have a separate article for [[low-energy house]] |
|||
-- [[Special:Contributions/64.229.90.32|64.229.90.32]] ([[User talk:64.229.90.32|talk]]) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{discussion-moved|Talk:Zero carbon housing}} [[Special:Contributions/64.229.90.32|64.229.90.32]] ([[User talk:64.229.90.32|talk]]) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Introduction == |
|||
Hello! I am Amen Azoon I am new in this project! I want to contribute to climate editing in Wikipedia. I would appreciate any help! Thank you [[User:Amen 34571|Amen 34571]] ([[User talk:Amen 34571|talk]]) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello and welcome! Are there particular articles or topic areas you're interested in? We could use help pretty much everywhere :) [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 01:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: {{reply|Amen 34571}} You may want to look above, in the above section titled "New to Wikipedia editing process", which has some helpful suggestions. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 05:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | This WikiProject is to organise climate change related articles. Use this talk page for discussion of issues that may involve multiple articles. Any article-specific discussion should take place on the talk page of the relevant article. |
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Climate change and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
Hi @Clayoquot, @EMsmile, @Femke and others! we are back after major changes this past six months – my family medical needs, one of my contractors having major family medical needs for three different nuclear relatives, and the Washington DC Tool Library that I jump-started being robbed three times one week - with subsequent incredible support by the media and community swamping us with love! (Our team raises a toast, almost, to the burglars.)
So, one of the projects we want to move along was in two phases: 1) Now Completed: merging many of your climate action refs with ours and collaborator Earth Hero’s to create a table with at least 4-5 key, overview references per type of climate action (e.g., transportation, buildings, energy, communication). 2) Now we want to make it available for use, commenting, and hopefully editing within the PCC , for those editors interested in having articles summarizing some of the latest climate actions for individuals (not government- or industry-level.).
First, the goal of the reference compilation was to assist CSteps, WP, and Earth Hero EDITORS in the beginning stages of researching individual action pros and cons, based on some secondary/consensus documents with a science underlayment. We were not seeking to create a table of resources for the articles themselves, though they could be used as such. More a table version of resources for editors, that also includes secondary articles.
@Loupgrru did the bulk of the research, with the understanding that this is an initial framework to build upon - with lots of discussion back and forth and additions by any interested PCC editors – to help WP editors find the latest “consensus” information in addition to the IPCC and some generalized solution reports.
Since we created this table, further work has been done on the Individual Action on Climate Change article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_action_on_climate_change that is wonderful, so that it provides better coverage than before across a range of topics, and perhaps provides a good tagging structure for the references already. We seek to add some of these references now to a table structure.
A table within PCC (or outside) can provide the benefit of searchable tags and quick discovery of key, basically recommended references for multiple uses by multiple editors. Right now, you can see our reference table, with tags (and whether it is a secondary or primary source, and considered suitable for Wikipedia) here: https://airtable.com/invite/l?inviteId=invm4SukrrNzNI8LG&inviteToken=0c48e41a14c273460a30b2570172ef461a4014c176b6667516ccf9a64e5747f7&utm_medium=email&utm_source=product_team&utm_content=transactional-alerts.
We still see the references being put as a table in a subpage under the Recommended Sources page, as some of you supported before. Comments are welcome here and in the table before we put it into a temporary or permanent subpage, so we can make it a community tool.
Cheers, all!
Annette AnnetteCSteps (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change effects on tropical regions was created the other month. It's a very encouraging effort by a new editor, but I don't see how this article can be kept. Logically, its presence would necessarily entail articles on midlatitudes and high latitudes, and I don't think this subdivision would be practical. You could argue we already have Climate change in the Arctic and Climate change in Antarctica, but the former is clearly a special case, and the latter is more akin to the continent-scale articles like Climate change in Europe.
I would propose moving the material on tropical forests to the subsection of effects of climate change on biomes, and the ocean/reef material to any of the related articles. (The section on adaptation seems very general, and probably does not have anything we don't include elsewhere already.) Does anyone have other ideas? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing to merge cloud forcing into cloud feedback, please contribute to the discussion here. EMsmile (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take part in the discussion about this: do we really need the article Deforestation and climate change? I think its content is probably better off moved to deforestation, reforestation etc. Currently it contains a lot of excerpts (to avoid overlap with other articles). EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see from the chart in https://unfccc.int/biennial-transparency-reports they are still called national inventory reports. There is not yet any link to 2024 from https://unfccc.int/ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties/2023 but I would have thought some countries would have submitted them by now as the deadline is the 15th.
Of course I tried googling and simply overtyping 2023 with 2024 in the url but presumably UNFCCC have changed “ghg-inventories-annex-i-parties” to something else now “annex 1” is becoming irrelevant. Any idea where they are? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that we don't have an article on global greening yet. We do touch on this topic in several of our articles, as climate change can lead to both: an increase in desertification and a reduction. For example in Tipping points in the climate system we mention Sahel greening. But in effects of climate change we don't mention greening at all. I got onto this topic through these two articles: The Earth is getting greener. Hurray? and Anthropogenic climate change has driven over 5 million km2 of drylands towards desertification. I've just added content from the latter paper to desertification.
Global greening is interesting because part of it is due to CC (counter-intuitive perhaps, as we often talk about droughts from CC). And it also does help a bit with mitigation. But it's not necessarily good for biodiversity. EMsmile (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is about whether or not it should be merged into Environmental impacts of animal agriculture. The discussion began a little over a month ago, but hasn't had much activity and is currently deadlocked. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an RFC requesting that editors choose between one of two draft sections on Food and Health in the article on Climate change. Please take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing some work today on reforestation and got a bit stuck on one question: I noticed that several articles have content on tree planting + their role for mitigation. That content in the different articles is messy and often outdated. I wonder if we could centralise that content in just one place mainly (which one?) and then link or use excerpts from other articles to there. Here are the articles that all touch on this (the one with the best CC content first):
In terms of pageviews they are all fairly similar with around 200-400 pageviews per day. (300 page views per day)
As a related issue, these three forestry articles should probably each also have a section on climate change but don't have one yet (this could perhaps be addressed with an excerpt):
EMsmile (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone - please continue discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_sequestration#How_to_clean_up_the_mess_around_trees_and_mitigation Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of attention on the Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates article at the moment due to the floods. From what I've read, current consensus is that the floods are more likely due to climate change than cloud seeding activities but tonnes are blaming cloud seeding on social media. But when I tried to add this, I was reverted a couple times by an IP user for what I feel are unfounded reasons (view history). They did not engage with my comments on the Talk page.
Given the tendancy for cloud seeding to be popular with conspiracy theorists I'm concerned, that at worst, this could be climate denialist coopting another narrative to avoid a possible climate change link to the April 2024 floods.
(On another note, I hope to conduct some reviews of cloud seeding content with experts shortly). TatjanaClimate (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please take a look at the dispute on the Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates article?TatjanaClimate (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started nominating a bunch of "Climate change in country x" redirects for deletion. The discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22#Climate_change_in_Bahrain Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed a while ago that the climate change content for the high level article on water cycle was very weak or non existent. So then I added a section to the main text, waited a while for reactions and then just the other day also added it to the lead as a new paragraph at the end. Anyone interested in CC and the water cycle please take a look and help me improve it further. Interestingly, the pagewviews for the water cycle article are not as high as I would have thought. They have been dropping over the years and are now at around 1000 pageviews per day. The article is not great (that's probably one of the reasons for the low-ish pageviews), and a google search gives loads of other websites explaining what the water cycle is.
In any case, I think it's important and strategic for us if the water cycle article makes it very clear how climate change is changing the water cycle and making it more intense. Of course we also have effects of climate change on the water cycle which will hopefully grow and mature over time as well. EMsmile (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonably important contributor to climate change (and to general air pollution) and its article receives ~100 daily pageviews. Yet, whole paragraphs are unreferenced, there is a large table cited to 2000s research which is bound to be obsolete by now, and there are a lot of other, fairly basic structural issues which I would hope many of us can fix. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Energy Tracker Asia is a non-profit website that covers the energy transition in Asia. It was added to the spam blacklist last year. The website, at energytracker.asia, looks like a reliable source to me for energy issues and climate change mitigation. Would anyone like to take a look at the site and share what you think of it? (Sorry you'll have to copy energytracker.asia
into your URL bar as the spam blacklist isn't letting me create a clickable link here).
For transparency, Energy Tracker Asia is a group that I occasionally work with but I don't know what, if anything, they tried to do on Wikipedia that might have led to this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contributing to climate change related articles is sure to be met with a lot of discouraging vandalism and flaming since it's such a controversial topic. I think it might be a nice way to encourage people who are helping with such articles by having a barnstar to award to them, as so many other WikiProjects, even less important ones, have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards_by_WikiProject I'm not really good at that sort of thing though. Maybe someone else would care to make a WikiProject Climate Change Barnstar? I would really appreciate it.SigurdsSister (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after Türkiye uploaded their GHG tables to https://unfccc.int/reports?f%5B0%5D=corporate_author%3A249 on 18th April I wrote to UNFCCC via their Facebook page to say that I thought the wrong tables had been uploaded - they only go up to 2020 so seem to be a repeat of the 2022 upload. But UNFCCC have not replied and the tables still seem to be wrong. So I looked at https://unfccc.int/transparency-contact-details and emailed their iar@… address to tell them again and to say that the Türkiye National Communication uploaded on 6th May 2024 is dated 2023 on its first page.
Am I making a silly mistake or is UNFCCC not checking dates properly? If the latter is anyone else having similar problems and how did you communicate with UNFCCC? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am copying something below that came up on the talk page of hydrogen economy where I said I'd like to define the term decarbonisation for our readers explicitly at least once before using it more often in the article. Now I am wondering if the current redirect of decarbonisation to the main page of climate change mitigation is sufficient. I think it should redirect to a definitions section within either climate change mitigationorgreenhouse gas emissions. And once again, I suspect that some sources say decarbonisation is only about CO2 (IPCC AR6 WG 3 does that) whereas others say it's about all GHGs (?). Copied from the hydrogen economy talk page my thoughts in this:
At the moment it seems that we are implying that decarbonisation is a synonym for climate change mitigation, which it is not. Right? We say in the first sentence of climate change mitigation: Climate change mitigation (ordecarbonisation) is action to limit the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that cause climate change.
EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, we are using a variation of the "Worldtopic" template, which looks like this.
I think that it is clearly not great, as it effectively functions as a giant wall of hyperlinks that's really hard to parse. Further, it automatically lists every bluelink that starts with "Climate change in", even if it's just a redirect.
I propose that we replace it with this navbox that I had created just now. As you can see, it groups everything by continent (also linking to continent-scale articles in the process) and it also summarizes what each one of those articles is meant to contain.
Climate change by country
| |
---|---|
Greenhouse gas emissions, impacts, mitigation and adaptation in each country | |
Africa |
|
the Americas |
|
Asia |
|
Europe |
|
Oceania |
|
Polar regions |
|
Other regions |
|
|
InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, is it acceptable to use a navbox within the main text (rather than at the very end)?
Is Afghanistan not in the middle East?- According to Middle East, not really.
Why is Kuwait not in the middle east?- Because Climate change in Kuwait is a redirect, and I decided to limit this navbox to actually existing articles (similar to what @Clayoquot was advocating the other month). InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't include countries where the link is a redirect to a "Climate in country x" article. These articles rarely say much about emissions. If anyone is up for a challenge, what I think would be really helpful is navboxes like "Countries with highest greenhouse gas emissions", "Countries with highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions", "Countries with highest per capita cumulative greenhouse gas emissions", and "Countries with fastest-growing greenhouse gas emissions". Restrict each box to the top 10 countries and sort the links with the worst countries at the top. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Directly related to the topic immediately above. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, some time back, pretty much every one of our "Climate change in X" articles had a pair of graphics added: one showing their current Köppen climate classification, and another with the projected classification for 2070-2100. There were two issues with those:
When I added the new template across all of these articles recently, I also decided to rescale those graphics to more wiki-friendly sizes (like in the example above which now looks like this) and to add the same disclaimer I now place on all RCP 8.5-only graphics. Then, though, it turned out that @Uness232: had found a newer paper, which now has Köppen-Geiger projections for a full range of IPCC scenarios. You can see an example at Climate change in Turkey.
Even so, there are still two issues we need to decide on:
Long question, I know, but please comment, as it is fairly important. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Decocidio#Requested move 24 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some Wikipedia articles to create/update: Climate Action 100+, Ceres (organization).
Climate action investor networks have become big players in the business world, but I think Wikipedia coverage is out of date. The above two are in the news because of a House Republican subcommittee report alleging anti-trust violations.[1][2]
The report document[3] repeatedly refers to Climate Action 100+ and Ceres as main players in what it terms a "climate cartel" which is compelling corporations to address climate change. And it turns out this is non-trivial. Many of the biggest investment and pension funds are participating in these networks, using shareholder persuasion to institute carbon accounting and quantify climate change risks and so forth.
But as a Wikipedia users I don't find much here.
The House committee is holding hearings on the investor action networks' "war on the American way of life" (I didn't make that up). Some really big investment houses have been forced by political pressures to drop their participation.[4]
But Wikipedia seems to be behind on this. No article on Climate Action 100+, Ceres article is out of date, Ceres Investor Network seems to be represented by an obsolete article on a defunct subsidiary. I'm not at all sure what to do with the subcommittee report. (Which maybe shouldn't be included until there is informed news coverage and reactions.) And I am very ill-equipped to provide the needed updates.
I'll probably post something over at Wikiproject Business also. -- M.boli (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
I joined today (Monday17 June 2024) Wikipedia and am interested in contributing to its extensive climate crisis coverage. I would appreciate any suggestions or advice anyone may wish to offer please. Alfred Robert Hogan (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Someone changed "zero carbon housing" to be also "net zero home" in June 2024. This conflates two different concepts. We already have a separate article for low-energy house -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Zero carbon housing
64.229.90.32 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am Amen Azoon I am new in this project! I want to contribute to climate editing in Wikipedia. I would appreciate any help! Thank you Amen 34571 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]