Talk:Climate change/Archive 97

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Use of ChatGPT/LLM on this article

Hello Wikipedians and editors,

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

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

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

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

Some questions to inspire your storytelling:

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

- What impact has it had on article quality?

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

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

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

All the best,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello @Wikipistemologist

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

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

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

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

Climate change

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

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

"Feedbacks are expected to trend in a positive direction as greenhouse gas emissions continue, raising climate sensitivity."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Backendchild (talk • contribs) 04:55 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

References

Climate Change Affects Snow: An In-Depth Look

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

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

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

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

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=56af58707372583917ad804557162751c5ade0f2

The article linked is another scholarly text discussing the climate change affects on snow in Australia. 2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935 (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Your removal of Geophysics sidebar template from Climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Straw man arguments and name calling. The issue, again, is relevance. Like the growing list of things you have ignored above, you haven't answered the three questions I posed above, and now you ignore the crux presented 14:46 9 May: Your premise that some geophysicists study climate change, does not imply that readers here are interested in all the other things that geophysicists study (or a list of geophysicists). Obviously dozens of templates involve one idea that relates to climate change, but all or almost all of the links in the templates have nothing directly to do with climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The only elephant in the room is the one you refuse to see (summarized in the subsequent section below; on mistaking the studying of effects of a physical process for hardcore physical science on that physical process). Again, I move that we delete ridiculous (Luddite) contentious articles like this one, instead of leaving them linger forever unresolved. What good are they, given that they forever deepen divisions in a society (and this one "succeeds" in doing so in most societies of the world)? Tinterest (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Ocean and Climate Change

According to an article written by Maria McNutt, she states that, "The loss in ocean productivity will be detrimental for the 20% of the population that depends on the seas for nutrition." This means that the global food supply will decrease quite intensely. That means people will have to find ways to adjust and survive. This also means that many animal species in the oceans will also suffer because as the oxygen levels are decreasing, the carbon dioxide levels are increasing which depletes the amount of safe water in which the species can survive in. Both human and animals species will heavily feel the impacts of climate change as it will only get worse if people don't take an initiative to slow the effects of climate change. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1243256 2600:1012:B13A:A50F:9006:DCD6:EA6D:935 (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

From rising seas to homeless polar bears - no scary prediction on climate change has ever come true. Neither did that 20% tale she told us back in 2013. Tinterest (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Aerosol and Clouds

According to the scholarly article titled, “Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing," the authors state that there is robust evidence that aerosols actually don't actually play that big of a role in the climate change crisis. There is a significant shift in the way that we think aerosol's role is in the changes of climate. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12221/2022/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:a7ab:ef00:921:5a85:3bf:e9aa (talk • contribs)

Hello! This is a primary study. Usually we try to use WP:secondary articles that collate information, to avoid given undue emphasis to a single study. In some of the subarticles this paper may be relevant. Did you have any specific text in mind? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Impacts

Recent advances in climate science have enabled researchers to assess the extent to which human-induced climate change has increased the likelihood or severity of specific extreme weather events, a field known as extreme event attribution. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (2023), there is high confidence that climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of heatwaves, heavy precipitation, and some types of droughts and tropical cyclones in many regions. Attribution studies use statistical and modeling techniques to compare observed events with simulations of a world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, helping to quantify the influence of climate change on individual events." 2600:1700:71F4:410:5138:758:9E4D:3597 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia uses "ref" tags for citations, as shown above. You can also use the citation tool in the editor to enter the following details:

Title: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report

Publisher: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Year: 2023

DOI: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

Not sure if you're the same person as above, but please suggest a change to the article, rather than simply putting information here. Is something wrong or out of date? Do we miss something? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead images

I think we can consider an update here.

• I think for wildfires we should find a better image. There are newer images such as this
• Change coral image with economic impacts or flooding. I find the image of a single coral very underwhelming.

Bogazicili (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Examples of some effects of climate change: Wildfire intensified by heat and drought, bleaching of corals occurring more often due to marine heatwaves, and worsening droughts compromising water supplies.

I'm happy to discuss new images there. One of the difficult bits is to find images that look good while being that small. I think the fire is okay, but I do get you with the coral.

Just a collection of newer images to test out, not yet selected for good geographic diversity (these all come from a collection User:TatjanaClimate managed to secure for Wikipedia. Took those because I'm lazy and just wanted a single search term on Commons). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the top two images could do with a multiple image template. Dracophyllum 06:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Femke: we are still proceeding with 3 images for the lead right?

I think one developed country, one developing country, and one nature image would be balanced?

How about one fire (a California fire?), one flooding , and one ice melting ? Bogazicili (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we can go back to four. One was removed because people didn't like it, iirc, and four would be the optimum from my perspective. One rich country, one emerging, one developing and one nature? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for fewer images - I don't like multiple images & think they should be kept to a minimum. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm ok with 3 or 4. For the 4th one, it could be heatwave related, such as a heatwave map. If 3 images, something heatwave could also be better than forest fire. Bogazicili (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Caption will be updated

@John: Why do you dislike multiple images? Do you feel it becomes too busy in the article with them? I've always wondered about accessibility, given that they have an absolute size rather than an relative one.

@Bogazicili: I don't think a heatwave map works in miniature? I'd also like to avoid adding even more maps and figures to the article, as the balance between photos and graphs is already off, making the article feel very theoretical, rather than about daily life. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

General comment: the major impacts of climate change are intensified heat waves, sea level rise, glacial melting & freshwater loss, intensified storms/cyclones & resultant flooding, intensified droughts, intensified wildfires, desertification, habitat loss & increased extinction, spread of "tropical" pests & diseases. So hard to choose! Maybe there's a creative solution to prominently illustrate, maybe a gallery near the top, though that will likely not gain consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There are currently 3 images so we can conservatively change those 3 for now at least. Bogazicili (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Femke, fair enough. How about this for wildfire: ? It doesn't show the actual fire but the impact of 2023 Canadian wildfires in New York City is very notable I think. Bogazicili (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Added my preliminary suggestion above. What do you guys think? Bogazicili (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

If we can make this one 4 images, we can use the heatwave image: Bogazicili (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Scrap the montage of small images completely. It doesn't work on small devices. Place good pics among the text in sensible places and a better message will be delivered! HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree 100%..... the article should be focused on accessibility. All clusters of many images should be removed. Moxy🍁 00:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Which small devices? Please provide technical information, so this can be discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)

MOS:IMGSIZE (bolding mine): As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 250px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide (300px for lead images) and 500px tall, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays).

I adjusted the lead images, they are now no more than 300px.

The other relevant guideline is WP:GALLERY: Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

I don't think various images used in this article cause an unbalance, and it improves reader understanding. This is a science heavy article, and images are useful. Other websites such as NASA climate change also make use of images. Images also include "point of contrast or comparison" as they show different impacts etc.

This is also a Featured Article. It passed the most recent community review with several multiple images. Bogazicili (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've got a tiny little phone, and it seems to work there (pictures are under each other). User:Moxy, always appreciate your input on accessibility, so keen to hear why this should not be used. I feel like we've done a downgrade in terms of accessibility by downscaling the images, as you now need very keen eyes to read these two initial graphs without enlarging them. I might start a discussion on the max sizes for lead images, given how small 300 px is. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The community has just up the size for default images to 250px ..... Thus having images at 120px or so jam together with a fixed size obviously doesn't meet our basic requirements. An article of this nature should be an example of what to do not an example of what not to do MOS:ACCIM. Moxy🍁 21:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

My thinking here is that some images are inaccessible at 250px (text too small for people with limited vision), or even at 400 px, whereas other are fine at 120 px. It matters whether they are clear, including from when you try to mimic various visual disabilities by increasing distance from screen for instance. From WP:ICCAM, it does seem that there is a bug with galleries (which we use later in the article).

The change to 250px was mostly an aesthetic change as far I remember that discussion, rather than setting the new standard for accessibility.

For the fixed-width objection, would it make sense to request a change to the multiplpe image template to also take an upright parameter? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Femke: if there are any accessibility issues, my understanding is that these are due to fixed-width parameter. total_width seems to be required for automatic resizing of images in {{Multiple image}}.

I think upright parameter or a new parameter called auto_resize should automatically handle auto resizing. Maybe we can request this in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) Bogazicili (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Fossil fuel subsidies important enough for lead?

I think Fossil fuel subsidies are important enough to be very briefly mentioned and linked to from the last paragraph of the lead.

With explicit subsidies at around 1% global GDP https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-subsidies-fossil-fuels they are very significant.

For example the current sentence:

Fossil fuel use can be phased out by conserving energy and switching to energy sources that do not produce significant carbon pollution.

could be changed to:

”Fossil fuels can be phased out by stopping subsidising them, conserving energy and switching to energy sources that do not produce significant carbon pollution.” Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of graphic in "Impacts" section

A. Existing graphic: Soil moisture.

B. Proposed replacement: Extreme event attribution (intensified peak wind speeds of hurricanes).

C. Second proposed replacement: Times series of Category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes (no attribution)

D. Attribution of events on global scale (uploaded 3 June 2025)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep. Temperature, soil, precipitation are the 3 graphs in B. Future Climate Change, Risks, and Long-Term Responses in AR6 SYR SPM (page 14). We already have temperature in the article. Bogazicili (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  RCraig09, I'd recommend here for image B: Effects_of_climate_change#Extreme_storms Bogazicili (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Requesting input from more editors on this topic (superseding "soil moisture" graphic). —RCraig09 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• I plan to replace the soil moisture graphic with Graphic B which introduces attribution in an intuitive example. In graphic B I have reduced the font size for hurricane names (EMSmile's objection), and I have not been able to find a statistical analysis of attribution for all tropical cyclones (Femke's preference). Graphic C (Zzzs's suggestion) is just "one more example" of worsening CC effects and doesn't introduce the increasingly important concept of attribution. Graphic , discussed below re attribution, is more abstract and difficult for our readers to understand than B.. Bottomline: I plan to replace the soil moisture graphic with graphic B. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Graphic B now replaces the soil moisture diagram. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I am against this change. See the source and reasoning above. The sources you have picked for your Atlantic hurricanes do not come from overview sources about climate change.

See WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, and MOS:IMGREL.

Also, why would you change an image showing entire world with something that only shows impacts in Atlantic? I am already concerned about the Euro-centric or Western-centric bias in English-language Wikipedia. Bogazicili (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, User:Bogazicili. But the "image of the entire world" is about a topic—soil moisture—that is not even specifically discussed in article text. Soil moisture per se is seldom mentioned in sources compared to storms, droughts, etc, and is thus less preferable under WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, and MOS:IMGREL. Highlighting the growing field of extreme event attribution, graphic B concretely demonstrates how climate change affects cyclones. It is irrelevant that the example is "only" one (1) of the two (2) basins in the world to have cyclones; that's just wikipolitics. (If you have a source for generic cyclones in both Atlantic and Pacific, please link it and I will consider creating a graphic.) See discussion below "Underemphasis on extreme event attribution", a topic that deserves mention in this article. Other editors, please weigh in here. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Drought is mentioned.

Do you want us to specifically say "soil moisture" in the text and how soil moisture is connected to droughts? A projected reduction in mean soil moisture by one standard deviation corresponds to soil moisture conditions typical of droughts that occurred about once every six years during 1850-1900. from the source I added. Also see graph in IPCC AR6 SYR p.100

And again, unless you can source your image to an overview source, such as IPCC AR6 SYR, it is WP:UNDUE. Bogazicili (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Draughts are obviously what concern humans (including our readers), but dry soil is merely one draught characteristic that has not warranted mention in the almost 24-year existence of this article—so no, adding text wouldn't impart importance to the dry soil chart. Most references are not IPCC level overviews; that's too high a bar for every addition. In any event, WP:UNDUE concerns subject matter and not sourcing. Extreme event attribution clearly outweighs the draught sub-topic of dry soil. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@RCraig09 i would imagine that the main impact of soil moisture change would be through agriculture, and that is obviously important. however, I agree that such an impact is not going to be top of most peoples' minds. DecFinney (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@RCraig09: WP:DUE, WP:Proportion etc are all based on what reliable source say. Bogazicili (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

— WP:DUE and WP:Proportion are (indirectly) "based on" what reliable sources say, but they are determined by content and not by source. And WP:RSCONTEXT clarifies that a source must be "reliable for the statement being made", and the IPCC is not the only reliable source.

Graphic B's title was changed 15 May 2025 (refresh browser to see)

— To clarify the value of the chart to this article, I changed the chart title to emphasize extreme event attribution while retaining references to climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about at this point. Do you mean content in the source or content in this article?

WP:Proportion for this article would be based on content in reliable overview secondary and tertiary sources about climate change. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about content per se, both in this article and in "the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Clearly, the growing prominence of extreme event attribution (EEA)^{(see decFinney's links, below at 21:03 of 14 May)} shows it deserves more coverage here under WP:Proportion than a not-even-mentioned-after-20+-years sub-issue under droughts. Overview articles are often preferred (not required, or even followed in this article); as discussed at 17:35 below, EEA necessarily attributes specific events to causes, so that overview sources aren't even appropriate. EEA clearly has much greater WP:WEIGHT than soil moisture. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree.

Soil moisture is in an overview source, IPCC AR6 SYR SPM 2023, p. 14. Your graph does not come from an overview source. WP:Weight is clear here.

If extreme event attribution is in an overview source, feel free to add it to the text.

We already have an image that shows climate change increases frequency of extreme events:

Maybe this could be changed to something that shows climate change increases frequency and severity of extreme events? Or is that too complicated for a single image?

Or you can make another image, showing suggested climate change intensified the ten deadliest extreme weather events below and add it in Climate_change#Humans, under the frequency increase image. I think there is space there. (I also think usage of gallery is justified in that section.) Bogazicili (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

— Yes, soil moisture is "in" an overview source. But, yet again, the question re WP:WEIGHT is what fraction of that overview source? In fact: IPCC AR6's Fig. SPM-2 shows soil moisture only as an intermediate chart, one of three charts in a single figure, with the text string "soil moisture" not even being mentioned elsewhere in the entire report except in a long list of adaptation options on p. 8! Soil moisture does simply does not deserve the weight that the growing field of extreme event attribution (EEA) does. Watching for climate change stories for the "2025 in climate change series of articles, I encounter an EEA story, linking to a peer-reviewed article or NOAA-level source, at least ~once a week; however in 4.5 years I don't remember a single article about soil moisture—which is consistent with why there has been zero prior mention of soil moisture in this >23-year-old wiki article. Friday's example: "Houston set to have 4th day in a row of record heat. What role is climate change playing?" with description of Climate Central's Climate Shift Index. Or this article from Thursday: "arguably the most important development in climate science in many years: attribution science."

— You don't seem to realize that the thrust of this graphic is EEA, not hurricanes or winds or projections or worldwide generalizations. EEA is inherently directed to specific events, but the events themselves aren't the focus of the graphic.

— Requiring graphics to be based on overview sources would remove most of the graphics in this article!!! The "overview sources" argument is simply a false argument here—especially here, where extreme event attribution (EEA) is based on individual events that should not even make it into overview sources.

— shows projections of future trends; it does not even show EEA of prior events. And your suggestions essentially amount to summarizing the cumulative statistical results of EEA rather than illustrating to our lay readers what EEA does. And educating lay readers is what this website is about.

D. (attribution on a global scale) Suggested caption:
In virtually all countries and territories around the world, scientists in the field of extreme event attribution have concluded that human-caused global warming has increased the number of days of extreme heat events over long-term norms.

— Other editors: please post here, to resolve this discussion once and for all. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

— Newly uploaded Graphic D shows on a global scale, an example of the increasingly important field of extreme event attribution (EEA). Its content is clearly more notable, WP:WEIGHTy and informative than a soil moisture graphic that occupies a microscopic fraction of an IPCC publication. And to repeat: the graphic's notability is about EEA and not about particular hurricane seasons or heat waves. Other editors: please post here, to resolve this discussion once and for all. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I really like this image. Maybe Femke can comment on accuracy and sourcing? Bogazicili (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili ...q @RCraig09 very nice figure. thanks! i hope it can be added 👌 i consider this a very good source (world weather attribution). a look at the report cited for the figure suggests the numbers shown in the figure here are clearly of similar order of magnitude to those presented in the report, so i assume it has been accurately produced. DecFinney (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced the soil moisture chart with Chart D. I think it's the most appropriate among the new graphics in the Extreme event attribution category on Commons. Meanwhile, I've tried to bring the Extreme event attribution article up do speed here on en.wp, so that article is worth the wikilink in the image caption. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

(separate thread started earlier:)

@RCraig09 i believe that figure is based on data for north atlantic hurricanes? in such a case, i feel just about justified to pedantically point out that it is 1 of 7 (not 1 of 2) tropical cyclone basins. "just about justifed" because it is relevant to the western-centric nature of the figure. DecFinney (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@DecFinney: The distinctions seem to be administrative and formal, and not substantive. Again, if you are aware of an illustration-worth example of extreme event attribution that is global in scale, esp. re cyclones, please link it and I'll consider creating a chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@RCraig09 the basins are quite distinct from a scientific/meteorological perspective but we neednt get into it.

how about the chart at the beginning of this article. this article also makes the point that attribution studies are not geographically representative.

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/attribution-studies/index.html

fig1 of this is very effective i think...

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/10-years-of-rapidly-disentangling-drivers-of-extreme-weather-disasters/

it just needs the conclusion added as a statement on the figure: "climate change intensified the ten deadliest extreme weather events" DecFinney (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@DecFinney:

— Extreme event attribution is inherently tied to individual events (it works backward from effect to cause). I'm a bit worried about copyright issues with the Carbon Brief map: it would require re-thinking after analyzing the large amount data behind the bubbles as you click on them... multiple pie charts would be more appropriate than their bubble chart. But even then, Graphic B is much more intuitive to lay readers in concretely showing them how CC worsens disasters, rather than abstractly showing some scientists' conclusions. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

+ I should have emphasized: extreme event attribution inherently considers causes of individual events, such as individual hurricanes. Summaries of scientists' conclusions are less demonstrative to laymen than concrete examples that inspire "Aha moments". —RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

— WWA Fig. 1 is much less pertinent since it shows deadly events without specifically tying them to climate change. The sentence you quote would be more appropriate in narrative text, rather than as a chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Please correct calendar error

In the fourth figure caption, please replace

Global temperature in the Common Era

with

Global temperature in the past 2000 years

Reason: The x-axis starts at "0" (zero), but there is no year zero in the Christian calendar, which starts with year "1". Year "1" AD/CE is immediately preceded by year 1 BC/BCE in the calendar. Zero was invented only several centuries later by ancient Indian scholars. The easiest way to fix this schoolboy error is to change the caption as suggested above, and declare that the numerals from 0 to 2000 do not refer to calendar years at all, but to timespan. Such a correction would be in line with the detailed figure description, which uses the phrase "in the last 2000 years" - although this phrase sounds to me overly pessimistic and I prefer the "past 2000 years".

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. meamemg (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The article is protected and moreover the error is embedded in the graph. 86.164.81.31 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the wording the title as "Global temperature over the past two millennia" would be a better wording, as seen in the original graph from which this image was derived? — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I approve of your suggestion (I am the original IP above). Please go ahead. 86.164.81.31 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Just submitted the overwrite request at WP:COMMONS, hopefully it will go through soon. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done updated the image on commons, ping me if it's not updating. Also changed the caption from "last" to "past" — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 23:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Please add the appropriate inter-language link for the Spanish language article

There is a Spanish language article for this subject, but it's not linked. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calentamiento_global . Linguaphonia (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

es:Calentamiento global is linked to Global warming. See global warming (Q7942). There is no corresponding Spanish language Wikipedia article for climate change. See climate change (Q125928). Peaceray (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello both. Somebody recently broke all these interlanguage links on wikidata and is refusing to fix it, see wikidata:User_talk:Wikimi-dhiann#Reworking_of_climate_change_categorization. Calentamiento global is about the same topic, and should link to the same article. Our English Wikipedia article Climate variability and change is about climate change in general, and should link back to Q125928. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Peaceray So should I ask a Wikidata admin to rollback https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q125928#Confusing_definition_and_inconsistent_Wikipedia_articles ? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this would be best handled there. Peaceray (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Someone else has done a different fix there (changed description rather than rolled back) as you can see on above link. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Which of course doesn't work, given that the language links are mixed.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes indeed I should have put “fix” in quotes. I think this is a broken thing I won’t touch because if I do someone will criticise me and it will be too much hassle and not enjoyable. As the description now matches English Wikipedia and the modern meaning in English I think we English writers should leave it as is. If affected language writers want to try and fix it that is up to them. I don’t know about Dutch but it is now OK for my other language of Turkish. Maybe in a few years time I will look again at the mess of Simple English but maybe by then there won’t be any point to Simple English Wikipedia as AI will just generate and read out a simplified version of the enwiki article for schoolkids. @Linguaphonia Presumably you gave up like me? If not feel free to request a rollback on wikidata but be prepared for hassle sorryChidgk1 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Link to Wikiquote

q:en:climate change has now been created. May someone link it in the section dedicated to the "External links"? Thanks in advance. 82.54.123.100 (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I added all the sister projects with “Sister project links” in curly brackets but if that is too much then someone can specify which ones Chidgk1 (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

duh was already there lower down Chidgk1 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

can anything be done about the overlinking in Lead?

I noticed this a while ago and removed an unnecessary second link to climate adaptation but taking a long look at this lead again I can't see what should be reduced since it all leads to different articles and it's hard for me to tell what may be redundant. People who have dealt with this article for much longer, I'd greatly appreciate input AssanEcho (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a single instance in the lead, of a duplicate link, or of redundancy. This is a high-level article in a complex subject, and it's to be expected that many other articles would be linked. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at it I was sure there must be overlinking but I combed through the paragraphs and it's all doing exactly what it should be. Remsense 🌈 论 04:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Just counting, this lead has 62 links in the lead! The general guide on lead links states feat-articles says they generally have 12-25 links. It is also a bit daunting to someone who may be new to the topic (it was a bit for me when I was about 4-5 years younger from now, but that's anecdotal). Just thought to raise this issue for if nothing else me and someone else can debate it as I try to slim it down. AssanEcho (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Just counting

Yeah and again, that's seemingly why you're getting hung up on things here. There's nothing worth doing that doesn't leave a gaping hole where the article link clearly deserved to be, or to make the lead less informative and representative of the topic. It's fine. Remsense 🌈 论 11:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I mean what else are you supposed to do? I did already state in the start of this discussion that i did want others help with this since what you said *is* true in that many of the links are justified, but that doesn't change the issue when nearly a full quarter to even have of a paragraph is blue. It just means that there can be either better ways of explaining the subjects in the lead and maybe just leave a few to be found via discussion in the main body. I'm working on an edit right now, it'll be done shortly so please give me your thoughts even if you revert! Thank you. AssanEcho (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to do. Given the context of the topic at hand, a particularly high density of links makes perfect sense, and as written it does what it needs to do for readers. Remsense 🌈 论 11:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Then there's no harm *trying* to do something. And with how many people care deeply about this topic and by extension this article I'm fairly sure that anything that could go wrong from this will very quickly be addressed to me or others and quicky reverted AssanEcho (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No, there is potential harm, like I thought I expressed freely enough before? All those links are important. If your goals are orthogonal to providing readers with information proportionate to the topic, then I'm not sure those are goals we'd do well to pursue. Remsense 🌈 论 11:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The Scientific consensus link is a bit EGGy, and we probably don't need to link the generic concept of mountains, coral reefs, or global health (especially when most other seemingly generic links actually go to "Climate change and generic topic"). On the other hand, we probably should link to heat wave. I don't see a compelling case to remove much more than those. CMD (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis i agree that at least mountain and probably coral reef could be removed. DecFinney (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That said, Effects of climate change on coral reefs does exist as a redirect (and one with possibilities I would add). Effects of climate change on mountain ecosystems will pop up one day as well. CMD (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You do raise good points but I can't really give any new responses other than what I've said before with my issues with the 60+ links in 5 paragraphs. I stated that harm would likely be minimal due to the high number of editors and people generally who hold an this topic and (by extension) this article to a high standard and will take issue with anything which makes it worse off. I say all this because the view that changing it at all will cause harm is opposed to experimenting and perhaps ending somewhere better even if it's only slightly so. AssanEcho (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I was under the impression that putting citation links in the lead of an article was discouraged, but this article seems to be full of them? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE says first and foremost that citations in the article lead are neither required nor discouraged all else being equal, because the lead summarizes the cited article body. in many (most?) cases, editors seem to prefer avoiding their use in mature article leads, because they are potentially troublesome when prose is shifted around, partial presence draws attention in turn to places where they are absent, plus the lead may synthesize material in a manner that is hard to cite phrases like one has done in the body.

However, if there's one article where one would specifically think to benefit from inline citation in the lead, this is that article. People have particular sharp demands for data, and particular sharp responses when it is not immediately made visible to them. Remsense 🌈 论 21:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I've seen a *lot* of people saying they're discouraged, and just believed them instead of checking the policy for myself. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I would say that sense is not entirely wrong either. Per the guideline, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Remsense 🌈 论 21:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

yes. agreeing with what Remsense says. its also why you may see several ciations in sentances in contraversial articles like J6 rally for example AssanEcho (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a valid concern, and I moved some links less centrally about climate change to the body. Some were already linked there, so only needed unlinking in the lead. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Most Featured Articles contain about 12 to 25 links in the lead, with an average of about 1.5 links per sentence, or one link for every 16 words is not the kind of standard to apply to the lead of this article.

Most Featured Articles articles have a narrower scope, such as Armadillo shoe. Of course Armadillo shoe is going to have less wikilinks in the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LINKEXAMPLES is better. "Technical" terms such as fossil fuels, industrial revolution etc should be linked. Bogazicili (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Missing: discussing opposing view, point by point

A dedicated section is highly needed.

Focusing on this debate by concisely collecting arguments spread out throughout the article is very important. Nobody is reading the whole article. As the Trump administration legislation proves, we're far from having a solid consensus.

Suggestion:

Opposing theories

(A) "There is no change"

(B) Human-induced or natural?

(A) would be easy to dismiss. (B) requires more work, point by point:

• "This is a change like the many in the past. Currently, the average temperature is much cooler than in the preceding geological periods: the natural pendulum is swinging back."
• What is the proof that the change is man-induced?

The best researchers supporting the "against" theories must be highly-visibly cited, otherwise the whole page ends up looking like an POV echo chamber, reflecting a group dynamic unwilling to address opposing opinions. We're in "disrupting" times, where everything is being challenged. Arminden (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

See above in the FAQ. Legislation fortunately doesn't give us any information about scientific consensus, which is firm on this. To be neutral, Wikipedia doesn't provide a false balance between science and and and unscientific statements from politicians or industry folks.

At the moment, we're already discussing the effect of natural forcings (Climate_change#Solar_and_volcanic_activity) and we discuss misinformation quite thoroughly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Femke. By the way, we do have climate change denial where a lot of the noise and stuff around "opposing views" is described. EMsmile (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with FAQ and Femke. Wikipedia presents what reliable independent sources state; it doesn't have to refute what non-neutral or other unreliable sources claim. To this end, we rely on the Scientific consensus on climate change, not on what "Trump administration legislation" supposedly "proves". Scientific content has already been "challenged" during the peer review process. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. Wiki is a popular inf. source. One hears about researchers who have different opinions, and one wants to see how that is addressed, and looks up this article. My point always is: user-friendliness, and a pragmatic & practical dissemination of information people are looking for, ideally via one-stop pages or very visible cross-references. You, on the other hand, are talking of something else altogether: ideological struggle, academic principles, expectation that users should know where else to look, old fashion teacher-like expectation that the user must read through the entire article, etc. I had addressed all that even before you wrote it, because it's what "the usual suspects" would say, wouldn't they?

I was quite clear: beyond "total denial", there is the - at first view - valid argument that climate has always varied. Why not answer, in a concise and specific manner, to that? I would much welcome such a section standing by itself on this page, as I suggested here-above. If you oppose it teeth and claws, then at least find a very visible way of pointing to the other pages you've mentioned! That is good editing, with the user in mind. "Main" and "see also" links under the respective section headings are a good start.

German Wiki is a different biest, and I usually prefer enWiki, for exactly the mentioned reasons. IMHO, your arguments fit deWiki much better than they do this version, enWiki. Arminden (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I looked them up and found:

• Scientific consensus on climate change under "History"
• Climate change denial under "Society" of all places!!!

One must know beforehand that you oppose and don't take these arguments as valid or still relevant to look up for a link under "History", and that you treat them as propaganda or mass manipulation to even start thinking the link might be under "Society". The total opposite of user-friendliness. It has NOTHING to do with "false balance", and everything with helping the users find what they're looking for. And THEN let the arguments (theories, proofs, % of researcers agreeing) do their work! Don't try to do it for them! Activism & encyclopaedias don't serve the same deity, Athena might also bear weapons, but she's not Ares. Arminden (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

If anything, the currently-existing Climate_change#Denial_and_misinformation and Climate_change#Public_awareness_and_opinion sections give too much weight to the "opposing theories". The article is too generous. The issue has everything to do with false balance. The readers who are "looking for" what's not scientific will peruse Reddit or Facebook—not research facts in an encyclopedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Is reading comprehension such a problem? I won't re-repeat myself forever: I'm not lacking more material, I'm lacking a more user-friendly way of finding this stuff, which is spread throughout a very large & detailed text.

And you are factually wrong. I came here precisely for this purpose. I already know all the rest. And I'm neither on FB, nor on Reddit. What you're doing is called activism. I don't support denialism, but that's neither here nor there: when an academic researcher specialised in palaeoclimate and the dating of speleothems tells me that he has good scientific arguments against seeing the current, very real climate change as man-made, I want quick, efficiently presented data on the current pros and cons, preferably with a list of supporters and their publications. Not activistic blabber, nor to be forced to sieve through tonnes of material with no direct relevance and which I'm alreadey familiar with. And I bet my future & the Gulf Stream's on me not being the only one with such interests. Think practical and outside your own box and you'll agree. Whatever. Arminden (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not really practical, right? You'd can't put name the tens of thousands of climate scientists that say it's human-caused without a doubt, and then put your 10 industry-funded doubters for balance. Such WP:FRINGE viewpoints should not be given that much attention. We can, without mentioning the fringe viewpoints, make more clear why we know internal variability is not to blame here. Iirc, we had a sectionw internal variability before. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Please read (!) what I wrote. I won't re-repeat myself forever: I'm not lacking more material, I'm lacking a more user-friendly way of finding this stuff, which is spread throughout a very large & detailed text.

And you are factually wrong. I came here precisely for this purpose. I already know all the rest. And I'm neither on FB, nor on Reddit. We don't need activism, we need a practical tool for getting information. I don't support denialism, but that's neither here nor there: when an academic researcher specialised in palaeoclimate and the dating of speleothems tells me that he has good scientific arguments against seeing the current, very real climate change as man-made, I want quick, efficiently presented data on the current pros and cons, preferably with a list of supporters and their publications. Not principled opposition, nor to be forced to sieve through tonnes of material with no direct relevance and which I'm alreadey familiar with. And I bet my future & the Gulf Stream's on me not being the only one with such interests. Think in practical & encyclopedic terms and you'll agree. Whatever. Arminden (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

One hears about researchers who have different opinions, and one wants to see how that is addressed, and looks up this article

We have a helpful graphic in Climate_change#Public_awareness_and_opinion Bogazicili (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Again: you miss my point by a mile. Arminden (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Arminden i think you are looking for this? https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

I roughly agree with others that it's not the role of an encyclopaedia to structure itself around the questions pushed into public discourse by deniers and delayers. that would tend the arricle towards an activist position. however, i agree that there are probably many people that come to the page looking for answers to these questions, and that ideally they would leave closer to the answers.

perhaps a link/source to the royal society FAQ document (or similar) could be worked into an easy to find part of this wikipedia article? DecFinney (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a great idea. A FAQ document link can be added into Climate_change#External_links Bogazicili (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili now added DecFinney (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) You write, "I want quick, efficiently presented data on the current pros and cons, preferably with a list of supporters and their publications". But a "list of supporters" would be at least tens of thousands long, and their publications ten times that. To list perma-skeptics and deniers would give false balance. This article is too generous to them already. The Earth article doesn't have a list of supporters and Flat-Earthers for readers seeking to hear "both sides". 16:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi DecFinney, and thanks. Anything easy & quick to find is welcome.

All others, please consider: reaching the current consensus took a long process of discarding theoretically possible, but actually wrong hypotheses. Some honest and valuable researchers haven't been yet convinced, and they do have a voice, like my friend, the speleothems specialist, who got it from fellow geologists, who are in academia and teaching students. They, among others, can benefit from this. The dismissive "there's nothing left to prove" attitude misses the point.

Of course I'm not suggesting to list hundreds of authors & their myriad papers. A short, systematic, maybe bulleted list of "suggested natural cause X" vs "why it's been discarded" can be kept short & to the point, with 1-2 names or refs for each - of course only of the most respectable kind on both sides, ideally the best known ones. And please, foget activism: no matter how right you are folks, ppl expect verifyable arguments, not "96,8% say like we do, ergo you're an idiot if you bother researching alternative hypotheses!" That's didactically catastrophic, very unwarranted in times of "alternative truths", and creating sects, not rational, science-savvy people.

In short: gimme the right tools to contradict my friend :)

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is linked from this one: Climate change denial

And switching from a neutral description of the topic to one that helps one side win debates seems much more 'activist' than staying neutral. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the article that Arminden is after is more like an updated version of Causes of climate change. It does have a short section on internal variability and how scientists know it's not the cause of climate change. There are websites dedicated to disecting these types of arguments, such as (also in need of an update). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Femke, danke! Yes, something like that. The point is: an efficient cross-referencing system between related articles. It's of no use if the links are invisible or hidden deep inside some sub-section. Wiki is flexible, only some editors are not: if it serves a good cause, create a large, systematic "See also" including major items hidden inside the article! Especially such which aren't visible under their actual name (use of pipe), but not only. Let's be user-friendly, it's all I'm asking for. Not like hiding Climate change denial under "Society", for Zeus' sake! Nobody will look for it in there. Lots of cross-references - hattags, Wikilinks and external links, foreign-language Wikilinks...: all the tools. Britannica stopped publishing the print version for a reason, and Brockhaus/Herders/Meyers etc. probably too. Arminden (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

MilesVorkosigan, I propose to you an exercise. You're facing a geologist with a well-deserved PhD, who teaches his specialty at university and has a research director job under the umbrella of his country's academy of science, who tells you that he can explain to you the very real climate change based on his vast experience with previous natural climate variations. Now rush to enWiki and try to quickly find out what he might be talking about, and what top scientist has put these hypotheses to bed & how. Good luck to you, and see you next month. Arminden (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I noted at Talk:causes of climate change, that our excellent explanation on these arguments has been deleted. The main line of argument is around fingerprinting. Each type of climate change is different, and climate change due to greenhouse effects causes a couple of fingerprints, such as nights warming faster than days, and the stratosphere cooling. You would not see that with internal variability. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedias and debate-prep materials aren't the same thing. Besides, that's addressed in the denialism article. It links to a perfectly good explainer on 7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense.

Besides, as we know, you usually can't use reason or facts to persuade science-deniers. They didn't arrive at that position through reason or facts to start with. Usually it's through a political belief or just being a contrarian. (This is also discussed in the linked article) MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Arminden I put the fingerprint info back in that article but I am not an expert so if I am wrong feel free to revert or change Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm no specialist either, but I'll rush to read it, as it sounds like the right thing to do, considering Femke's remarque. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ONEWAY, this does not belong here. We do not refute flat-earthers in Earth, creationists in Evolution, antivaxxers in Vaccination or any other wackjobs in the articles about the subjects the wackjobs have wacky opinions about. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I've just added "For unscientific rebuttals, see Climate change denial" to the hatnotes. Hope that's helpful. YoPienso (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Femke: Femke just reverted my addition ("For unscientific rebuttals, see Climate change denial") to the hatnote. Diff. The reason given was that it "does not feel neutral". I could drop the word "unscientific," or could be more longwinded and write "For rebuttals unsupported by the scientific consensus, see Climate change denial."

Please comment! YoPienso (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I like my second suggestion and am going to implement it now. Will check back in later so see how the community feels about it. (No need to warn me about edit-warring. Not gonna.) YoPienso (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hatnates are not see alsos, but are there to make sure people are on the right article. I don't see how leading readers away to another article is useful here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging here. Yes, you're right, but you were wanting to be able to readily find rebuttals. You took issue with having a link tucked under the Society section header. Ergo, I put it at the top. Another fix would be to change Society to Public perception or some such title. YoPienso (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Hatnote says, "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." Usually. There's also IAR. As you said, it's not reasonable to expect many readers to peruse the entire article. YoPienso (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The grossly mistaken presumption underlying one side of this discussion is that: people wanting to learn about opposing theories (i.e., denial and their rebuttal) will come to Climate change. That presumption is no more true than people seeking info about flat earthers or their rebuttal will go to Earth, or fake-moon-landing conspiracists would go to Apollo 11 . They will not. This article is already too generous in that regard, and there is zero valid reason to WP:IAR. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation. What do you think about changing the section header Society to Social context or Public perceptions? YoPienso (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yopienso I dont think "society" is particularly strong as section heading. my inital assumption is the the section will be about societal impacts.

my suggestions are: "public discourse, perception and action" or "public engagement", or replace public with "societal" in either of them. DecFinney (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I think public perception is too passive for the content under that section. You have people doing things (whether it's protesting or creating false narratives). I don't see how social context differs too much from society, except it being a bit more wordy.

For Public discourse, perception and action sorta works, but discourse is mild jargon, which should be avoided in a section heading. Maybe 'Public discussion, perception and action'? Might be too wordy. Public engagement does not seem to cover the public opinion section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth: many Wikipedia articles have a standard (generic) section heading called "Society and culture". I quite like that one. I wouldn't make the section heading too specific and wordy in our climate change article, although I do agree that maybe just "Society" on its own is perhaps too short and cryptic. EMsmile (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Society and culture sounds good to me. Thanks for suggesting it. YoPienso (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

"independently-produced" not "independent"

This topic refers to the article statement: "Multiple independent datasets all show worldwide increases in surface temperature"

Groups that produce globak temperature records will broadly have to use the same data. I suspect there's a few differences if one digs into it but, funadamentally, there's a set of weather stations around the world to use, and all groups will want to use the majority of that data.

A key, and probably the main, aspect in which they differ is how they process that data, as there are many choices and assumptions to make. The groups can take their own approaches to this, so arguably the datasets are "independently-produced". There may be a better term.

Before making this edit, Im checking people agree my chosen term is the best one. DecFinney (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmm.. Without looking back into the source, I wonder if you could make the argument that there are independent source datasets as well. You've got weather stations, satelllites, ocean buoys, radiosondes etc. I don't think we need to make this sentence more complicated. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

We should simplify the sentence to be true to the source: just call them multiple datasets. The EPA 2016 source only refers "three worldwide temperature datasets" and "independent indicators of global warming"—and not independent datasets. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep. I'm happy with that, thanks. I see the edit has been made. DecFinney (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to move limiting warming to 1.5 degrees from lead to body of article

Currently the lead says:

"Limiting warming to 1.5 °C would require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050."

Unfortunately thinking 1.5 °C is still politically possible is now a fringe view and thus should not be in the lead in my opinion. Therefore I propose that the above sentence be moved down into the body of the article. I am open to suggestions for a new sentence in the lead - or I can propose a new lead sentence here if you like - certainly there should still be a wikilink to net zero.

Modern Refs:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/29768659241293218 It is always possible to find arguments to make 1.5°C forever possible, but they increasingly diverge from reality.

https://www.wri.org/insights/1-5-degrees-c-target-explained In theory, it is still physically possible to avoid spending down the carbon budget required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C through rapid, sustained emissions reductions. But the plausibility of executing the transformations at the pace and scale required is another matter.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02247-8 If 1.5 °C anomalies continue beyond 18 months, breaching the Paris Agreement threshold is virtually certain under SSP 2-4.5 or 5-8.5.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02246-9 Here we show that, without very stringent climate mitigation, the first year above 1.5 °C occurs within the first 20-year period with an average warming of 1.5 °C.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/ compare table 8 with current annual emissions of around 50 billion tonnes CO2eq

References

Chidgk1 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. In addition, the wording "Limiting warming to 1.5 °C" is quite jargon-y. I doubt that most non-experts would know what we mean with this. Do people understand that an increase of 1.5 °C is measured compare to a reference value and that it's a global average but some regions are warming faster etc. Too much to unpack. I think it's unclear for laypersons. (to be fair: the issue of reference value is explained in the preceding sentences) And as you say, no longer all that realistic either. NB: the wording "limiting warming to 1.5 °C" also appears a few times in the main text; might require some adjusting there as well. EMsmile (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

THe sentence is not true anymore anyway, as we'd have to go down much more now before 2030 to stay under 1.5C, so agree with removing it. Can we replace it with a statement that is accurate around the 'well below 2C' target? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm as it is no longer true I deleted it rather than moving it to the body of the article, as body already has discussion of 1.5 degrees. Re replacement sentence I will start a new talk page section below. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with "well below 2C". I mean it was helpful to see when the halving and net zero need to occur. Although I haven't checked WP:Tertiary sources whether this is due in the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Sorry I don’t understand - if you are suggesting putting something in the lead please could you explain in the below talk page section Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Link Nationally determined contribution from lead?

It was tempting to boldly link the word “pledges” but with the discussion above about overlinking I decided to ask first. As that sentence has no links I think this would be useful as NDCs are very important. Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Linked Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for new lead sentence about how to keep well below 2 degrees (and/or link net zero)

I have not yet been able to come up with a good sentence about how to keep well below 2 degrees of warming - perhaps you have an idea?

In order to put the link to net zero back in the lead how about adding:

Most countries aim to stop emitting carbon dioxide.

As you know there are almost exactly 200 countries in the world and routine calculations are not original research. Although the USA may have dropped out that still leaves "most countries" and we can change the cite to the 2025 gap report when it comes out. And/or cite the more recent https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx238yyr40qo which says about 140 or https://zerotracker.net which says 142 nations. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Are you saying that halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would limit warming to well under 2 degrees or if not what are you suggesting? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything concrete.

But I think the article should say what needs to happen to stay "well below 2 degrees". To stay "well below 2 degrees", what needs to happen by what date?

But I haven't checked tertiary sources if it is due in the lead. I haven't also checked what the recent sources say.

So my suggestion is only a rough preliminary suggestion Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I also have to say, looking at the previous wording, Limiting warming to 1.5 °C would require halving emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, this doesn't do a good enough job explaining uncertainities.

As far as I understand, these were based on modelling and the results were in something like 70% probability range?

Future versions of this need to do a better job at paraphrasing the source. Bogazicili (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili The body of the article seems to say that global net-zero by 2070 could limit to under 2 °C, but that is based on a 2018 source. As far as I know global net zero by 2070 is still feasible as that is India’s target but I have not yet found a recent (ideally 2025 to take into account US withdrawal from Paris Agreement) source explaining how we keep under 2 - perhaps it would depend on how much was emitted before 2070 and when. I understand UNFCCC will publish an NDC Synthesis report before COP30 so perhaps there will be something in that we will be able to use. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I just learnt that there is SSP2-com scenario but I don’t understand it yet https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62983-5 Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I put the link to net zero back in the lead by adding that most countries are aiming for it.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I find that misleiding in the sense that most of these countries are very far off formulating any realistic net zero policies —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Well you are of course right that most of those countries have a target year without the necessary UK style carbon budget checking independent institution. And here in Turkey we have a target year of 2053, but our current NDC allows us to increase emissions a lot to 2030!

How about if we move the sentence

“There is widespread support for climate action worldwide, and most countries aim to stop emitting carbon dioxide. “

to immediately before the sentence

“However, with pledges made under the Agreement, global warming would still reach about 2.8 °C (5.0 °F) by the end of the century.” ?

Or does anyone have a better suggestion? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Remove conflict from lead?

I don't think this is significant enough for the lead.

As far as I know climate change hardly ever causes war - see for example https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2024/06/climate-change-and-conflict-a-perfect-storm-in-sudans-countryside? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Please, give us some time to reply and reassess the weight of the literature, rather than basic this on a single guardian study —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection if anyone wants to put “conflict” back in the lead for the moment if they have time to look for overview studies. I deliberately put that link here to make the argument more difficult for myself. Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know the only ongoing wars which anyone is claiming are anything to do with climate change are those in the Horn of Africa. Having said that I suppose someone could argue that “conflict” is not only war and that people are more likely to shoot or knife each other in hot weather. Or they could look at the herder pasturalist conflict to see how much that is due to climate change. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Chidgk1, the overview studies are already cited in the lead. Are you reading the cited sources before you are removing information?

Conflict doesn't necessarily mean war between two states. Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I understood that “conflict” also includes civıl war but am a bit confused about AR6 saying “conflict through food price spikes, food and water insecurity”. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

IPCC AR6 WG2 Technical Summary 2022, p. 53:

TS.B.7.4 Climate variability and extremes are associated with more prolonged conflict through food price spikes, food and water insecurity, loss of income and loss of livelihoods (high confidence), with more consistent evidence for low intensity organised violence within countries than for major or international armed conflict (medium confidence).

Looking at this after a long time though, it seems just saying "conflict" in the lead seems to be confusing readers Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes you are right - I put it back because I had misunderstood “conflict” to just mean war. As you say I think it is probably confusing other readers too but at the moment I cannot think of a better way to put it in few words in the lead Chidgk1 (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can say something like "internal violence" but I need to look at newer sources and wp:tertiary sources Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The body of the article already says “An expert elicitation concluded that the role of climate change in armed conflict has been small compared to factors such as socio-economic inequality and state capabilities.” Chidgk1 (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Add the word “coal” to lead? If so how?

Currently "fossil fuel" is mentioned several times in the lead. I asked Le Chat "What proportion of adult native English speakers know what “fossil fuel” means?" and it said there was no recent survey but implied that most do. I kind of doubt that - does anyone know better?

As coal emits such a large share of GHG and is easier to phase out than other fossil fuels I would like to specifically mention it in the lead.

Firstly do you agree in principle?

Secondly do you have any idea how to mention it? I find it rather hard to add. How about one of the following:

Add "A fifth of greenhouse gas is from burning coal."

or

"Coal, which emits a fifth of greenhouse gas, is the easiest fossil fuel to phase out."

Change …. especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution.

to

…. especially burning fossil fuels such as coal since the Industrial Revolution.

Change Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases.

to

Extracting and burning fossil fuels such as coal, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

On the first mention, we can add coal, oil and gas. I do wonder if emphasizing coal only is neutral, given that rich countries emissions mostly come from oil and gas. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok I guess mentioning only coal might be unfair to China and India. Although I generally dislike brackets one way to do it would be to change:

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution.

to

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) burning since the Industrial Revolution.

which would save the skim reader from having to click the link. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

To avoid brackets change:

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities, especially fossil fuel burning since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases.

to

The current rise in global temperatures is driven by humans; especially burning coal, oil and gas since the Industrial Revolution. These fossil fuels, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices release greenhouse gases. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I think fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) is the best way to concisely introduce new readers to the generic term and three examples. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Sociological aspects

Sociologists emphasize that climate change is not only an environmental and scientific issue but also a deeply social one; it is shaped by patterns of inequality, political economy, and institutional structures. Dietz, Shwom, and Whitley (2020) argue that greenhouse gas emissions, climate vulnerability, and responses to climate risks are all influenced by intersecting factors such as class, race, gender, and Indigenous identity. 2600:8802:270e:d00:a0b8:b62b:310d:9458 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a title and moved this to the bottom of the page per convention. It would be helpful if you could propose any changes to this article on this talk page, keeping in mind that it is a high level article. Mikenorton (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Greta thunberg

this article should mention more environmental activist like Greta thunberg, Olivia Bouler and others Demosthenes and Locke's (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Demosthenes and Locke's Interesting - I had not heard of Olivia Bouler. Greta Thunberg is already mentioned here. While it would be nice to mention more names here that would be too much detail for this high level article I think. “Climate activist” redirects to Climate movement which is linked from here. If you have good cites perhaps you would like to add Olivia Bouler to that article. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Interwiki - Wikidata

"Hi, I am afraid that at this moment this page is incorrectly linked to wikidata item (Q125928) "change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns for an extended period" - it should be linked to (Q7942) - "current rise in Earth's average temperature and related large-scale shifts in weather patterns due to man-made gasocrine processes". It makes problem in interwiki links now - Chlimate change is linked to historical climate variaties in other languages. Jirka Dl (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not only English Wikipedia, the entire set was reclassified a year ago. User:Wikimi-dhiann, who introduced these errors, is active daily on wikidata, but unwilling to fix this. Anybody here willing to fix this? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

If nobody is against, I will fix it for enwiki. Jirka Dl (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jirka Dl Thanks if you fix it for enwiki please let me know and I will fix trwiki (but not other languages as too much hassle for me) to keep them in step. As far as I know Simple English was never screwed up and I did not look into whether any other languages were unaffected. So your correction of enwiki will bring the links between English and Simple English back to the correct state. For info there are earlier discussions at Talk:Climate change/Archive 97#Please add the appropriate inter-language link for the Spanish language article and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q125928#Confusing_definition_and_inconsistent_Wikipedia_articles and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikimi-dhiann#Reworking_of_climate_change_categorization Chidgk1 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Femke@Chidgk1- so I fixed the problem for this page in enwiki. If it there are some other languages to fix, let me know, I can do it too. Jirka Dl (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jirka Dl I have not made any changes to enwiki or trwiki as both @Lionel Cristiano: and @Anon0004: have made trwiki changes, so I think the enwiki-trwiki links are correct. However Simple English was not quite right in that the link from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change was going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change whereas it should go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_variability_and_change, so I have fixed that. Sorry I won't be checking any other languages as it would be very fiddly and time consuming for me. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

As I know a little French I checked and that is correct - thank you Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Use of prohibited terms current/present

Please be attentive to MOS:RELTIME policy prohibiting use of terms that assume time and/or circumstances do not change. Instead use acceptable template "asof date" Blainster (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

That is something for things changing within a couple of years. Not for things that will likely stay current for the entire existence of Wikipedia. Your changing have made the text more concise, which is great :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Didn't we add "current" to differentiate from the previous sentence? Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities Bogazicili (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

We did yes, but I don't think it was necessary in the short description. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Not in short description, but "current" or "ongoing" is needed in the first paragraph in the lead I think, in the second sentence quoted above.

Blainster, MOS:REALTIME sounds like a recommendation only Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date

Those MOS guidelines certainly do not supersede Wikipedia:Core content policies. Bogazicili (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Empty line

There's a useless empty line in the lead. ~2026-32753-8 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

? Where, exactly? Peaceray (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it this gap between tags?:

{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2026}}

{{multiple image - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Add the formal term "anthropogenic climate change"

Having just reached this article via a anthropogenic climate change link, which I clicked because I had never heard the term "anthropogenic" before and wanted to know if it meant "manmade" or its opposite "natural", I found that the term doesn't exist in the text, although several of the references use it. So I had to google "anthropogenic" to find out that it means "manmade": ANTHROPO (from Greek ánthrōpos "human being") + GENIC ("forming" or "formed from"). As I'm probably not the only one who isn't fluent in Greek or Latin, I would suggest that someone involved in the editing of this article adds that term somewhere at the top of the article. It could be as an add-on to a sentence in the first paragraph, such as "formally known as anthropogenic climate change (anthropogenic = manmade)", but perhaps it would be even better to replace the first sentence of the second paragraph with something like this: "Formally known as anthropogenic climate change (anthropogenic = manmade), it has an increasingly large impact on the environment." The term should be made bold, so those clicking on a link with that word can easily see it. As I'm not one of the regular editors of this article, I leve this in your able hands. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

If Cis not mentioned anywhere in the article, I believe it is not considered appropriate to include it in the lead. I have added a sentence to the terminology section so I believe it is now reasonable to discuss whether there should be a change to the lead.

I would suggest that it might work in the second sentence of the lead. "The modern-day rise in global temperatures is driven by human activities (i.e. anthropogenic)..."

I don't have a strong opinion if this is needed as long as anthropogenic is in the terminology section, which is the first section after the lead that one comes to. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to try a change. DecFinney (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I prefer not to have such difficult words in the lead, but think it works well in the terminology section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The article is about climate change itself, and properly describes it as "driven by human activities". Its goal is not to expand readers' vocabularies per se (especially in the already-long lead), so the description in the /*Terminology*/ section is appropriate weighting. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles in Wikipedia on technical subjects that are full of "difficult" words. Despite the propensity of a lot of amateurs to think they know all about it, climatology IS a very technical and difficult subject. I see no problem with including the correct word "anthropogenic" everywhere it fits in the article and in he lead. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Most scientific papers on climate change don't use the word. I don't think I've ever put in a a paper myself. We have a guideline on this: WP:Make technical articles understandable, which says not to use technical words if it can be easily explained in normal English. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Femke good point. im not sure ive ever written "anthropogenic climate change" in a paper. a lot of the time the context (e.g. time period) means theres no doubt, or the source of the climate change is irrelevant for the problem being studied.

it would probably be used in attribution studies to make clear the distinction. and people may come across such studies in the news.

so, i would say it is a word that people should be able to see defined on the page (tick, its in terminology section).

I think if "arising from human activities" or similar works in the flow, its better to use that so as not to bog down with unfamiliar terms. However, if it there are any specific bits of the text where that is cumbersome but distinction of the source of climate change is needed then "anthropogenic" could be appropriate. DecFinney (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

climate change in the arts

This article is very much focused on the science. No objections to that, but it seems a shame that the Culture section doesn't even give a nod to the representation of climate change in the arts.

I've just made my contribution to 100 days, 100 edits for climate info on WP... https://www.linkedin.com/posts/decfinney_just-made-my-contribution-to-tatjana-baletas-share-7452977119699169280-MYN7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABQfbUwBvSKCGRrxgkfSDSQhVADNwo1Sw54

I would like to add a sentence or two on climate change in games to this article, and link to Daybreak wiki, as this game has received awards as a game in its own right, not just as a climate change game.

Has this kind of content addition been considered before? DecFinney (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus that the article is already very long, and that there is a high bar for adding "related" material. The /* Society and culture */ and /* History */ sections already add context to the CC phenomenon itself. I think mentioning a game would be a few levels below the bar. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to know

So almost everyone believes in climate change, and I have to say I don't because if it was why would I be covered in snow and battling the bitter cold, and I can't even wear my regular winter coat I need my big Frontiersmen coat, and this is snow and cold I have experienced in the 2024-25 winter, 2021-22 winter and far beyond. And even in 2022 my county reached a record low, and we almost cut it this year to and all of America experienced snow even in Mexico, anyway, please tell me why you believe in climate change and no I wouldn't roast anyone it'll be without expressing are anger. Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Current climate change is caused by global warming over decades or centuries. It is not a regional weather phenomenon over a period of weeks. There will still be cold spells in limited regions, and can be made worse because warmer temperatures allow more moisture to be in the atmosphere, which must come down as rain or snow. See Effects of climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

the thing is the North American continent and more fell under a cold spell multiple times during the winters I explained and so why is climate change happening? Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is mostly covered in this article. Are there areas it is unclear? CMD (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

No it's fine I was wondering you're opinion Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

alright I'm done Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks HiLo48. See below for discussion on the forum like nature of the current article, Crop Yields and Desertification. AlejandroMuller50 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Gen.J.S. Flunkinowski. Like you many people wonder why very cold winters still happen in some places. I don’t know which is your country, but many countries have articles, such as Climate change in the United States and Climate change in Canada, which should explain local effects in more detail. If something is not explained properly you could ask on the talk page of the article for your country Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Wanting to know is good! It's worthwhile learning that the United States is only 2% of Earth’s area — and west of the Rockies isn’t that cold for this time of year. Global temperature maps show two-thirds of the United States is many degrees colder than normal and same for Russia. But Australia, Africa, the Arctic, Antarctica, Asia, Canada, much of Europe and even Greenland are warmer than normal. ... There is even a theory among many scientists — but it is not yet a consensus — that the American East is getting more extreme winter outbreaks because of a warming Arctic, which is part of climate change. Borenstein, Seth (23 January 2026). "FACT FOCUS: As cold hits, Trump asks, where's global warming? Scientists say it's still here". AP News. Retrieved 1 February 2026. . See also * Borenstein, Seth (21 January 2026). "Meteorologists blame a stretched polar vortex, moisture, lack of sea ice for dangerous winter blast". AP News. Retrieved 1 February 2026. . dave souza, talk 06:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC) updated 06:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)