Template talk:Climate change/Archive 1

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

OK this may make me unpopuar but... I have decided this template works better at the end of articles as a centred template. I have also now added it to all the articles it lists - most did not previously include it which seems somewhat odd. I am about to go away for a while so if you don't like it then change it yourself! :-) --NHSavage 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added global dimming as a related topic. Richard001 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They weren't meant to be capitalized, but whatever works. :-) Cheers. ~ UBeR 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was just inconsistent before. Why "global dimming" and "Global cooling?" I think all capitalized looks better than all lower case. Oren0 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With the "Global warming" article so long, with so many citations, I think that this template would be much more effective if it were positioned on the right side of the articles, like Template:Politics of the United States or a number of other templates. johnpseudo 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you folk for making it. It was really needed and serves an important purpose. --Blue Tie 05:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think artificial is right. Human's are natural and it is natural for things to respond to our inputs. --Blue Tie 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Logic for change:

1. Most global warming pages (that I saw) use term "man-made";
2. Did not want to get into frivolous edit war over "human-made";
3. Look up Artificial in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Adjective: 1. Man-made; of artifice. The flowers were artificial, and he thought them rather tacky.

But then again, this is frivolous to me, so someone else can fight the good fight - I was just letting you know why I did what I did. Regards.--Old Hoss 22:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bluetie, personally i agree that artificial is a strange wording here. But your argument is rather bizarre - the Eiffel tower could by the same token be said to be a natural structure - at least as natural as termite mounds. --Kim D. Petersen 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthropogenic. Touché, User:Nethgirb.--Old Hoss 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that ozone depleting compounds like CFCs are also greenhouse gases and minor contributors to global warming, the inclusion of this "issue" here is likely to confuse readers. Anyone mind if I remove it? --Plumbago 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a possibility we can put the Methan/ clathrate/ permafrost issue into this template? Maybe under issues? There are only two topics in it, so a third topic would not feel crowded.Hirsch.im.wald 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Both links in the Adaptation section at the end are to articles about attempts to mitigate global warming. (I'm not sure they belong anywhere in the template. They are part of the Kyoto process and there are probably many similar programmes to cut emissions.) Vinny Burgoo 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They seem to have disappeared? e.g. United Kingdom Climate Change Programme · European Climate Change Programme. Were these going to be replaced with something else? I noticed this when tweaking formatting of line breaks between Kyoto Protocol & energy conservation which seemed to have its < br > round the wromg way Ephebi 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I could find no Wikipedia articles to replace them. That's not very surprising. The specifics of adaptation are in the future. If anyone can get the "Adaptation" category to stay in place without dummy text like "TBA" or, better, with links to appropriate Wikipedia articles - well, my gratitude is TBA. Vinny Burgoo 17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• you could take a look at some of these items: Effects of global warming Business action on climate change Economics of global warming Business action on climate change European Climate Forum Adaptation to global warming. Some do, or could be enhanced to deal with recognition of change and adaptation issues. There are a bunch of interesting things that has alrteady come out of the Insuarnce industry & FCCC but that would need some sifting through of published sources. Ephebi 19:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. "Causes" that are both natural and anthropogenic are slotted into the "Anthropogenic" sub-section. Likewise, "Global cooling" and "Cloud forcing" (no, I'm not a confirmed Svensmarkian, but ...) are slotted exclusively into "Natural". "Scientific opinion on climate change" is also listed as a cause of climate change.

This version of the climate change link box looks like an army on parade. Things really aren't that simple. Vinny Burgoo 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of the "effects" listed in this template are speculative, and are generally regarded as less than likely. The two I object to most are Shutdown of thermohaline circulation (a recently published study found that 9/12 climatologists believe the likelihood of this is <= 20% given current IPCC projection) and Mass extinction (speculative, based on a single study that suggested the possibility as far as I can tell). These two should either be moved to a new section called "potential effects," the section should be renamed, or they should be removed from the template. Oren0 19:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the entry as it stands, as long as its balanced in the interests of encyclopedic coverage. Technically speaking most/all of the effects identfified by the IPCC are speculation and bound up in estimates of probability. But some are more likely to occur in a significant range than others. Some may be more serious over longer time horizons but then the models get less accurate. From the above it seems you don't consider a 20% likelihood as significant. But if we were talking about medicine, then catastrophic side-effects in 1 in 5 cases would be very serious. Ephebi 08:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that 20% is significant, but in my opinion listing it under "effects" implies some degree of certainty that it is an effect. For example, I don't know of anyone who doubts that sea levels will rise if the Earth warms as the IPCC projects. The language of the template implies that mass extinction and thermohaline circulation shutdown are widely believed to be effects of warming, which they're not. That's why I believe some qualification is necessary. Oren0 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Some are more likely than others, but this varies according to model scenario & timeframe. Would you feel more comfortable if that set was titled, rather than "Effects", as "Risks" or "Possible effects"? (A ref to the scenarios used by the IPCC/Hedley centre models should also be included soemwhere) Ephebi 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think either of those titles would be more appropriate, as they don't imply the certainty that the current titles do. After all, everything is contingent on warming actually happens, which the IPCC and others concede could be mitigated or reduced if something like Kyoto is passed. Oren0 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• the most favourable scenario used in the models indicates a couple of degrees warming as inevitable and already in the system. Some of the effects have already been noted on a relatively minor scale, though direct attribution is often problematic. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence though, as Kyoto has been sufficiently ratified to come into force & the 5-year compliance period starts on 1 Jan 2008. The question is what follows it. Ephebi 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• With the US not signing on and other big polluters like China exempt, Kyoto isn't going to do much. What I meant in that sentence was "passed in the US and effective in the 3rd world." But I digress. Are there any objections to creating a new "potential effects" section and moving mass extinction and shutdown of thermohaline circulation there? Oren0 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Would suggest all "Effects" be moved under "Potential effects", not just those two, to avoid having to make a subjective choice on the significance of the probability/scenario Ephebi 08:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are still some illogicalities & I suggest some more moves:

• 1) move Scientists opposing the mainstream assessment => Models
• 2) add to Politics : Politics of global warming & UNFCCC
• 3a) move Ozone depletion & Ocean acidification => Potential effects
• 3b) rename heading Potential effects => Potential effects & issues

Ephebi 09:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1)Doesn't make any sense 2)Politics of global warming is already internally linked as politics but the UNFCCC would probably be good 3a)I would agree but I am not an expert on the subject 3b)Sounds good --Jorfer 06:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overview
• Warming of the Earth
  • Temperature record
    • various temperature records
• Causes
  • attribution of recent climate change
  • scientific opinion on climate change
    • greenhouse gas / Global warming potential
    • Keeling Curve
    • solar variation / solar variation theory / radiative forcing
    • others
      • Urban heat island
      • Cloud forcing
• Models
  • climate model
    • Global climate model
• Issues
  • Ozone depletion
  • global dimming
  • prehuman warming
    • climate change?
• Public controversy (Politics of global warming)
  • Global warming controversy
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  • scientific opinion on climate change
• Effects
  • Effects of global warming
    • Sea level rise
    • Glacier retreat
    • Global warming and agriculture
    • National Assessment on Climate Change (US)
• Mitigating and adapting to global warming
  • Mitigation of global warming
    • Kyoto Protocol
    • Carbon emissions trading
    • Carbon tax
    • Clean Development Mechanism
    • Renewable energy and Renewable energy development and soft energy path
    • Carbon sequestration
    • energy conservation
  • Adaptation to global warming
    • United Kingdom Climate Change Programme / European Climate Change Programme
• External links
  • by the bucket

• Climate change factors
  • Internal
    • Glaciation
    • Ocean variability
      • El Niño-Southern Oscillation
  • External
    • plate tectonics
    • Solar variability
    • Orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles)
    • Volcanism
    • Greenhouse gases
      • greenhouse effect
      • carbon dioxide
      • climate sensitivity
    • Human influences
      • Fossil fuels
      • Land use
• Interplay of factors
• Historical examples
  • Climate of the deep past
  • Climate of the last 500 million years
  • Climate of recent glaciations
  • Recent climate

So is this being discussed? Implemented? Worked on? Copypaste of my comment on the GW page

I think the 'Opinion and Controversy' infobox subsection should be promoted to a section, rather than buried under causes. The controversy and ethics etc are not just about causes, but also about whether it's real, and what the right response should be. I don't have a clue how to do this. (and then I got sent here)

So I don't know normal template etiquette, but why a wholesale change rather than incremental improvement? --Jaymax (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Under Causes -> Anthropogenic, I would like to add the article Aviation and climate change. Any objections? --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

sounds sensible - shame there isn't an equivalent article for shipping or other transportation (unless someone can direct me there? I also suggest we link the article Attribution of recent climate change to Causes. Ephebi (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the link to Aviation and climate change now, although I don't like the fact, that it is mentioned first. The carbon dioxide article is clearly more important. However, the topics are ordered alphabetically, so I just stick to the rules. As for linking Attribution of recent climate change to Causes: it is already linked. Only, when you are in the Attribution of recent climate change article, Causes does not appear to be a link, because you are already there. But I got confused about the same thing yesterday :) --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking more on this, the template would probably benefit from links to Weather control somewhere (though probably as no more than a placeholder at the moment), & items on Adaptation if we can get these articles in a suitable format. I'm thinking of some of the following: Coastal management / LULUCF / afforestation / water management / watershed management & attenuation, Emergency management/shelters, Critical infrastructure / Critical Infrastructure Protection, food security, sustainability. Suggestions? Ephebi (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can Bali roadmap be added, please? Yours optimistically Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 18:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• seems uncontentious & logical stablemate to Kyoto Agreement section. Consider it done. Ephebi (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this new list on the template, that had itemised:

• Drunken trees · Global dimming · Glacier retreat · Thawing permafrost · Thermokarst

While they are interesting, they are very much secondary effects, or tenuously linked to the main list of "Potential effects and issues". Given the sensitivity of getting agreement on that latter topic, I think we'd best exclude the "Related Phenomena" from being a major heading. The template is too long for my liking, already. However, I'd not be averse to seeing these articles linked into a new wikilist, called something like List of climate change-related effects and phenomena, or maybe there's already a category that could be used to the same effect? Ephebi (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with keeping this section as these are important effects of climate change. Glacier retreat does not belong in a climate change template?--Jorfer (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Of all the native English speakers on the planet, approximately two-thirds reside in the United States^† and speak American English dialects. In light of this, is there a particular reason why this template is presented in British English, or is there no policy or general consensus on the preferred use of the English language here? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

† Crystal, David (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-53032-6.

• There are lots of ways of coming up a "most relevant" statistic. WP MoS says that the first dialect used sets the precedent. It seems that this article started using British English, so stick with it unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. My vote is for the status quo & so stick with the programme (they are all European anyway). Ephebi (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that GW controversy and the skeptics list under politics. The idea would be something like this:

Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Seems a good idea to me. Thanks for spotting. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Why not delete controversy section altogether? It's not very helpful. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember that these threads are over a month old. The section is relevant. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it but this template is a good candidate for being portalized, it is way too big to be useful, and should be converted into a portal. Apteva (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not that big, it is auto-collapsed, and it serves as good direction for those that want to navigate from page to page without having to go back to a portal.--Jorfer (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. A portal does the same thing, but much better. There are way too many links for this to be a navblock. Saying that it is auto-collapsed fails to recognize that it still takes just as long to download whether it is collapsed or not. When I look it over all I see is a lot of fine print like at the bottom of a financial disclosure and none of the links are usable. Apteva (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the links are usable?--Jorfer (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to climategate under the Opinion and controversy section. If anyone opposes this, please provide an explanation. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no. It's a blatant POV term, the article is not at that name anyway, Wikipedia is not news and the incident is not sufficiently important to include in this template anyway - it's a subset of the general global warming controversy, not a high-level issue of the kind that should be included in a template like this. Otherwise we would have to include every single controversial episode, which would make the template far too long to be useful. Note that other controversial issues like the hockey stick controversy aren't included? That's because they're not high-level issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisO that we should not use the term Climategate as long as this is not the articles name. I've added both the Hockey stick controversy and Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. This is not a unimportant small events. Nsaa (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been better discussed in the section below, first. I've removed them, as before William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are removing internal relevant linking. Since you removed it from this template I hope you strongly agree with this addition Global warming controversy. Nsaa (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)