This template 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology
This template 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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
This template 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 template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
This template 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.
Delving further into it, the natural section could be cut so that only those things potentially relevant for current change are shown: * Albedo -> Theory
This looks like a great start from Femke, who I see is on a well-deserved Wikibreak. I have to say the prospect of reworking this template makes my head hurt - I believe in the concept of making it more useful to people who are interested primarily in current climate change, but the specific decisions around what to take out are beyond my current level of expertise. I'd appreciate anyone's help if they have time to move this forward. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Clayoquot and User:Femke, was this proposal carried out in the end? I came here today because I found a additional items that should probably be added. I'll talk about them further down below on the talk page. EMsmile (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now taken another closer look at the revision history and formed the impression that the changes that were discussed in this section have more or less all been implemented. EMsmile (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see in the talk page archive that the group for climate change adaptation had been removed in 2019. I think the removal was justified back then as the terms that were in the group were not the right ones. I am proposing different terms now. Copying here from the talk page archive:
Thanks Richarit; I wonder though if we really need those sub-groups or if we could just have them all together in one row. Also, things like Paris Agreement, climate risk is already in the template under "Society and climate change" so we should only add those that are very specific to adaptation (I am assuming we are not meant to list the same article twice in the template although I am not 100% sure).
I've added a row for adaptation inside of the group "Society and adaptation" now (formerly called "society and climate change"). I think adaptation topics fit quite well in the society grouping. EMsmile (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking forward to finally having time to catch up on reading these talks. My quick response on your question about the template, from the main page, and the addition of Society and Adaptation to it is I would put Society and Adaptation after the Mitigation group in the table. Ten years ago, we thought mitigation was the only focus and had to come before adaptation efforts, but it now of course is evident it is parallel, as people suffer already from climate impacts. But mitigation efforts are still more critical so as to prevent even worse effects down the road. Thus, the bulk of colleagues I work with always list it first. So it's kindof a general framing that I've seen. (I.e., an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, nevermind recovery.) AnnetteCSteps (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you AnnetteCSteps, well said. Therefore, I have now boldly made that change. It took me several attempts to get the odering right but I think I got it right in the end (please double check). EMsmile (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have also moved the IPCC link from "History" to "Research". IPCC reports are really big fat literature reviews so I thought that IPCC might fit better under "Research". EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to float the same idea. I believe that SRM should be added to this template because it is receiving increasing attention. However, where to place it is unclear. "Mitigation" means reducing atmospheric GHG concentrations, so is not appropriate. I propose "Society and adaptation." Of the four existing rows under that, "Adaptation" is the least bad. Creating a new row might be better. TERSEYES (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By reflecting sunlight, SRM has the indirect effect of reducing GHGs in the context of positive-feedback processes like permafrost melt --> methane release. SRM might therefore be pertinent under Mitigation. It doesn't seem to be relevant to Adaptation since adaptation is reactive, and not preventative like mitigation. —RCraig09 (talk)15:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the IPCC defines mitigation as "A human intervention to reduce emissions or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases" and adaptation as "the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities." SRM strikes me as closer to "adaptation", since it would be an adjustment to actual or expected climate change, and would not be intended to reduce emissions or enhance sinks.
Hello, thanks for the ping and for progressing this. I am undecided if SRM should even be mentioned at all in this navbox because I am unsure of i) how detailed should a navbox be?; and ii) is SRM really a solution in any way or just a "pie in the sky" or "fundamental research" thing? But if the consensus is that it indeed should be in the navbox then perhaps we add an extra line / sub-heading under "mitigation" called "Other"?. Or we could add an extra line / sub-heading under "causes" so that it's nearer to the entry for "greenhouse gas emissions". Under "causes" there is a sub-heading called "sources". Perhaps another sub-heading there could be called "attempted remedies" or something that is the opposite of "causes"? Like "Masking of causes" or "masking of sources"? These are just some wild ideas. EMsmile (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having not heard anything for a month, I propose specifically to:
Place SRM under section "Mitigation". (I disagree with this but this was editors' consensus at Climate change);
Rename the "Personal" group (which currently has only one item and a parenthetical) to "Other"
Add SRM to the Other group, after "Individual action on climate change".
update 4 May: I poked around the history of this template and learned that SRM was part of this for several years, until last year. This, coupled with the lack of disagreement here, led to me make the edit.
I disagree. Geoengineering = SRM + carbon dioxide removal (+ sometimes glacial geoengineering). Furthermore, the IPCC, UNFCCC, and UNEP do not use "geoengineering" but instead speak of SRM and CDR separately. In line with this, I recently reduced Geoengineering to a cursory overview of those three categories. CDR is already in this template as part of "Preserving and enhancing carbon sinks." May I revert? TERSEYES (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you User:TERSEYES are presenting evidence to use Geoengineering as a generic term covering SRM and CDR. Even assuming you're right that the IPCC etc. treat SRM and CDR separately from geoengineering, we're faced with how to place Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy for the template. I guess I'm perceiving more agreement here, but you are seeing disagreement here. Can you explain exactly how you would hierarchize Wikipedia articles? —RCraig09 (talk)07:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: 'Geoengineering' was long an umbrella term for CDR and SRM, including in the 2nd through 5th IPCC Assessment Reports. In the 2018 IPCC Special Report on 1.5C and the 2023-2024 6th Assessment Report, the IPCC no longer uses the term. See e.g. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/
Since 'Geoengineering' is no longer in official use, and since CDR is elsewhere in the template, I propose that the template contain 'SRM' instead of 'geoengineering'. TERSEYES (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that IPCC no longer uses the term but it's still in widespread use in general, and probably won't go away in a rush. I see it often used in "solar geoengineering" (for SRM). So I think it would be fair for it to be included in the template. We could also remove CDR from the template if you are worried that CDR appears in the template twice. In general, the navbox should include high(er) level articles, not lower level articles. That's why I would favor geoengineering over SRM, as it's the overarching term, isn't it? (even if IPCC no longer uses it) If not, what's a better overarching term for SRM? EMsmile (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As background: I see where you all are coming from. I am of the opinion that,in terms of categories and names, we should (1) aim to be consistent across WP pages, and (2) generally follow the lead of the IPCC and similar authoritative institutions. In the latter, I see a clear consensus that CDR and SRM should not be lumped together. For example, the need for the former is now evident and is endorsed by the Paris Agreement; the latter not. And much CDR does not meet the definition of geoengineering.
In terms of preferences: I rank them (1) CDR and SRM separate with no mention of 'geoengineering'; (2) CDR and SRM collected as 'geoengineering' but still having separate links (i.e. what @RCraig09 floated); and (3) CDR and SRM collected as 'geoengineering' but no separate links to them. TERSEYES (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell: Over decades the geoengineering term may be falling out of favor, scientifically but less so popularly. But unless the Geoengineeringarticle is moved/renamed/deleted, I think there should be a link to it somewhere in the template. —RCraig09 (talk)16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this article should be in this template. In my opinion it is too far down in the tree of articles, i.e. it's too specialised for a high level template such as "climate change". EMsmile (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The growing demands of air conditioners on energy use is significant as a positive feedback phenomenon. If the article itself doesn't get deleted, then I think it should remain in the template. —RCraig09 (talk)16:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
