Talk:Climate change

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change at the Reference desk.

faq page Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the [show] for references at the bottom of the FAQ. Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change? A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists.[1] See also: Scientific consensus on climate change Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place? A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."[2] Q3: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans? A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics,[3][4] including academically trained ones,[5][6] they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives: Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions.[7] This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.[8] Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.[9] If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic).[10] Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it? A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum. Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated? A5: Two reasons: There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly. However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.[11] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import. Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"? A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess. Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO2? A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles. See also: Clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled? A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.[1] This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change. Q9: Did climate change end in 1998? A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998.[12] More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out;[2] thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement? A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."[13] Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD. While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference: A map of the Eastern Settlement A satellite image of that area today A map of the Western Settlement A satellite image of that area today A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists? A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years? A12: Measurements show that it has not.[14] Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts. Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards. See also: Arctic sea ice decline See also: Antarctic sea ice § Recent trends and climate change Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming? A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming.[15] The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975.[16] (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)[17] The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming.[18] Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect? A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends. See also: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)? A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming. A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.[19] Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'"[20] There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change.[21][22] This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.[23][24] Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates.[25] Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article. See also: Climate of Mars and Extraterrestrial atmosphere Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money? A16: No, Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses. Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work. There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming. Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data.[26][27] Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist. Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity? A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction. Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe? A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying. Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important? A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities. Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change. Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby? A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them. Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy. Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before? A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept. Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays? A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:[28] Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires: Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation, These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN), The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and Cloud cover on Earth must be declining. Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."[29] Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true? A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details. References Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020. "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020. Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help) Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009. Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009. Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009. "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007. Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467. The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012. "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009. Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017. The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða. "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^[dead link] Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64. Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek. Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008. Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007. Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762. Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes. Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN. "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011. Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

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

	Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006, and on October 31, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 4, 2007 Featured article review Kept March 26, 2020 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2021 Featured article review Kept News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 5, 2004, and October 11, 2018. Current status: Featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Antarctica High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arctic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Top‑importance Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Effective Altruism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Geography Top‑importance Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Geology High‑importance Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sanitation Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: Climate Top‑importance Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Top-importance). Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post. "Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (August 15, 2015). "On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage". Science Daily. "The guardians of Wikipedia's climate page: An intensely devoted core keeps a bastion of climate science honest". Mashable. November 11, 2020. "Climate change: Conspiracy theories found on foreign-language Wikipedia". BBC. November 18, 2021. Marco Silva (December 24, 2021). "Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia". BBC. Olivia Steiert (September 9, 2024). "Declaring crisis? Temporal constructions of climate change on Wikipedia". Public Understanding of Science. {{cite news}}: Wikipedia Library link in |url= (help) Margaret Talbot (March 4, 2025). "Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 4, 2025.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to climate change, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Other talk page banners

This page has agreed on a consistent citation style. Please follow those standards when adding sources. Ask on the talk page if you need help or have questions. This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Global warming Climate change Discussions: RM, Global warming → Climate change, Not moved, 11 June 2018, discussion RM, Global warming → Climate change, Moved, 21 August 2020, discussion This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2008. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened: October 27 to November 2, 2013 November 3 to 9, 2013 November 10 to 16, 2013 November 17 to 23, 2013 April 16 to 22, 2023 This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "a great primer on the subject", "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen", pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.", wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

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

Section sizes Section size for Climate change (50 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 16,113 16,113 Terminology 3,710 3,710 Global temperature rise 70 26,508 Temperatures prior to present-day global warming 2,663 2,663 Warming since the Industrial Revolution 11,007 17,556 Differences by region 6,549 6,549 Future global temperatures 6,219 6,219 Causes of recent global temperature rise 2,597 30,439 Greenhouse gases 8,352 8,352 Land surface changes 3,715 3,715 Other factors 22 15,775 Aerosols and clouds 4,570 4,570 Solar and volcanic activity 5,061 5,061 Climate change feedbacks 6,122 6,122 Modelling 4,009 4,009 Impacts 1,247 29,899 Environmental effects 4,586 4,586 Tipping points and long-term impacts 6,086 6,086 Nature and wildlife 7,160 7,160 Humans 1,903 10,820 Health and food 2,900 2,900 Livelihoods and inequality 3,051 3,051 Climate migration 2,966 2,966 Reducing and recapturing emissions 4,908 21,190 Clean energy 8,136 8,136 Energy conservation 1,719 1,719 Agriculture and industry 3,483 3,483 Carbon dioxide removal 2,944 2,944 Adaptation 7,837 7,837 Policies and politics 2,422 16,232 Policy options 1,612 3,655 Climate justice 2,043 2,043 International climate agreements 6,795 6,795 National responses 3,360 3,360 Society and culture 26 11,035 Denial and misinformation 2,538 2,538 Public awareness and opinion 5,585 8,471 Climate movement 2,886 2,886 History 61 17,163 Early discoveries 6,677 6,677 Development of a scientific consensus 6,623 6,623 Recent developments 3,802 3,802 See also 52 52 References 35 109,709 Sources 366 109,674 IPCC reports 5,383 5,383 Other peer-reviewed sources 49,444 49,444 Books, reports and legal documents 30,503 30,503 Non-technical sources 23,978 23,978 External links 1,297 1,297 Total 295,193 295,193

Daily pageviews of this article (experimental) Pageviews summary: size=61, age=24, days=60, min=1856, max=7079, latest=2262. The pageviews file should be updated soon. If not updated before age exceeds 30 days, the chart will be hidden until it is. See § Maintenance. 05-232981 05-242654 05-252682 05-263160 05-273712 05-284048 05-293995 05-303582 05-314512 06-015592 06-026483 06-035961 06-047079 06-055293 06-063342 06-072390 06-082596 06-093566 06-103705 06-113566 06-123801 06-132762 06-142475 06-152882 06-164079 06-173743 06-183327 06-193166 06-202947 06-212545 06-222694 06-233117 06-243261 06-253313 06-263374 06-272529 06-281936 06-292222 06-302729 07-012525 07-022499 07-032308 07-042163 07-051942 07-061912 07-072442 07-082576 07-092935 07-102457 07-112198 07-122004 07-132121 07-142465 07-152689 07-162425 07-172177 07-181888 07-191856 07-201942 07-212262 │ 0 │ 710 │ 1420 │ 2130 │ 2840 │ 3550 │ 4260 │ 4970 │ 5680 │ 6390 page views for Climate change

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

/Terminology section /General discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 8.

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I mentioned above, I am against this change. See the source and reasoning above. The sources you have picked for your Atlantic hurricanes[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

— 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2]

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)[reply]

— 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)[reply]

— 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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

+ 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)[reply]

— 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)[reply]

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 [3]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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 [4], and one ice melting [5]? Bogazicili (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@Femke, fair enough. How about this for wildfire: [6]? 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)[reply]

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

If we can make this one 4 images, we can use the heatwave image: [7] Bogazicili (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please correct calendar error

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [8] (also in need of an update). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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