View source for Template talk:Climate change

{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Climate change}}
{{WikiProject Ecology}}
{{WikiProject Environment}}
{{WikiProject Geology}}
{{WikiProject Globalization}}
{{WikiProject Weather}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(230d)
|archive = Template talk:Climate change/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== Split template? ==

How about if we split this template to take out the stuff that's only relevant to [[Climate change (general concept)]], and just leave in the stuff that's about current climate change, i.e. [[global warming]]? We can create a new [[Template:Climate change (general concept)]] for the other stuff. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 23:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
:Could you use a word processor to turn the template links into a list, and then sort the list according to which you think goes where?  And maybe add third section for ones that arguable apply to both, such as [[Earth's energy budget]], [[climate system]], [[climate change feedback]]....  That way we can see what we're talking about. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 23:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
:: I think instead we might need a section called 'theory' or 'background' with [[climate sensitivity]], [[climate change (general concept)]] and the links NEAG mentioned. Wouldn't that work? What pages were you thinking would benefit from the 'climate change (general concept)' template? [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 08:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Delving further into it, the natural section could be cut so that only those things potentially relevant for current change are shown: * [[Albedo]] -> Theory
* <s>[[Bond event|Bond events]]</s>
* [[Climate oscillation|Climate oscillations]] -> change to climate variability
* [[Climate sensitivity]] -> Theory
* [[Cloud forcing]] -> Theory
* <s>[[Cosmic ray|Cosmic rays]]</s>
* [[Climate change feedback|Feedbacks]] -> Theory
* [[Glacial period|Glaciation]]
* [[Global cooling]] -> (rename to global cooling hypothesis?)
* <s>[[Milankovitch cycles]]</s>
* [[Thermohaline circulation|Ocean variability]] -> Remove link to thermohaline circulation
** [[Atlantic multidecadal oscillation|AMO]]
** [[El Niño–Southern Oscillation|ENSO]]
** [[Indian Ocean Dipole|IOD]]
** [[Pacific decadal oscillation|PDO]]
* [[Orbital forcing]]
* [[Solar cycle|Solar variation]]
* [[Volcanism]]
:: 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. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
::: Hi [[User:Clayoquot|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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 22:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I don't know what happened after the discussions in 2019. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 02:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: 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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 12:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

== Add new group for climate change adaptation? ==

I am wondering if we should add a group on [[climate change adaptation]] topics? If there is one for mitigation then perhaps we should also have one for adaptation. Admittedly it would be shorter. I was thinking of adding [[adaptive capacity]] but couldn't find a suitable spot (for example). [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 22:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
: 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 [[Template talk:Climate change/Archive 2#Content cut from template|from the talk page archive]]:

I removed the following and replaced them by a link to [[Climate change adaptation]] in the Overview. The articles listed here don't focus on climate change adaptation and some are excessively specialized. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 18:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

<syntaxhighlight lang="moin">
| sect8 = [[Climate change adaptation]]
| state8 = <noinclude>expanded</noinclude>
| abbr8 = Adaptation
| list8 =
 {{navbox | child
  | groupwidth = 10.25em

  | group1 = Strategies
  | list1  =
* [[Desalination]]
* [[Drought tolerance]]
* [[Sustainable development]]
* [[Weather modification]]

  | group2 = Programmes
  | list2 =
* [[Land allocation decision support system]]
 }}
</syntaxhighlight>

: These six would be worth adding to a group on climate change adaptation: [[Ecosystem-based adaptation]], [[Adaptive capacity]], [[Disaster risk reduction]], [[Flood control]], [[Nature-based solutions]], [[The Adaptation Fund]]. Pinging [[User:Richarit]] as he's currently working on the [[climate change adaptation]] article. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 12:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:: Hi [[User:Arcahaeoindris]] I've undone your edit where you grouped mitigation and adaptation together. I think they are sufficiently different to warrant separate groups. Or? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 17:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed! Thinking of groups, maybe we could add these: 
:::Group1 = concepts: [[adaptive capacity]], [[Climate change vulnerability]], [[climate resilience]],[[climate risk]]
:::Group2 = policies and governance :[[Paris Agreement]], [[Sustainable Development Goals|sustainable development goals]], [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]], [[Politics of climate change]]
:::Group3 = strategies: [[Ecosystem-based adaptation]], [[Disaster risk reduction]], [[Flood control]], [[Nature-based solutions]]
:::Group4 = economics and finance : [[climate finance]], [[The Adaptation Fund]], [[Green Climate Fund]], [[Climate Investment Funds]], [[National Adaptation Programme of Action]], [[Economics of climate change]] [[User:Richarit|Richarit]] ([[User talk:Richarit|talk]]) 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Ah sorry I should have checked the talk page before adding! Yes I was thinking a new section on adaptation should be added. Also don't forget to include [[loss and damage]] and maybe even [[managed retreat]] in the list. [[User:Arcahaeoindris|Arcahaeoindris]] ([[User talk:Arcahaeoindris|talk]]) 20:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks [[User:Richarit|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). 
::::: Pinging [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] who had originally removed the adaptation section from this template. Would you re-consider putting it back in but with the right articles? I would say these to start with: [[adaptive capacity]], [[Climate change vulnerability]], [[climate resilience]] (is already under social impacts?), [[climate risk]] (is already under social impacts?), [[Ecosystem-based adaptation]], [[Disaster risk reduction]], [[Flood control]], [[Nature-based solutions]], [[The Adaptation Fund]], [[National Adaptation Programme of Action]]. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 11:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::: 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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I agree, it works well like this [[User:Richarit|Richarit]] ([[User talk:Richarit|talk]]) 12:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::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.) [[User:AnnetteCSteps|AnnetteCSteps]] ([[User talk:AnnetteCSteps|talk]]) 22:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::: I agree with you [[User:AnnetteCSteps|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). [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 07:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

== Added a few more terms, am planning to add more ==

I've just added the following terms which I think are fairly important, please check: [[carbon budget]], [[instrumental temperature record]], [[sea surface temperature]], [[ocean temperature]], [[global surface temperature]]. I've also moved [[solar geoengineering]] out of the climate change mitigation group to Research. And have deleted [[climate engineering]] as IPCC does not use this term anymore. If we feel that we still need it, it doesn't fit under climate change mitigation as it combines CDR and solar geoengineering. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 22:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
: These are all the terms that I added to the template yesterday. Are any of them too detailed or too specific and should not have been added?
* Nationally Determined Contributions
* Ocean deoxygenation
* Cooperative Mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement
* Gold Standard (carbon offset standard)
* Cloud feedback
* Co-benefits of climate change mitigation
* Climate-smart agriculture
* Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
* Global surface temperature
* Carbon farming
* Carbon budget
* Effects of climate change on island nations
* Wetland methane emissions
* World energy supply and consumption
* Representative Concentration Pathway
* Sustainable Development Goal 13
* Marine heatwave
* Green Climate Fund
* Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
* Climate change and infectious diseases
* Climate change scenario
* Ocean heat content
* Carbon emission trading
* Oceanic carbon cycle
* Carbon accounting
* Climate resilience
* Arctic sea ice decline
* Biological pump
* Urban flooding
* Climate system
* Climate change vulnerability
* IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (for this report my thinking was to only include the latest AR report, not any others)
* Instrumental temperature record
* Water security
* Carbon sequestration
* Water scarcity
* Shared Socioeconomic Pathways [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 13:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
: 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". [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 13:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks @[[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] that looks great! Always exciting to see the navigational templates improved. [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 20:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
==New sidebar==
Hey all - FYI I've just made [[Template:Climate change sidebar]], which I evision will just include the core, key topics, whilst this one will cover more of them. Feel free to edit. [[User:Arcahaeoindris|Arcahaeoindris]] ([[User talk:Arcahaeoindris|talk]]) 17:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
: I would find it difficult to decide what the "core, key topics" are in each group. What's the guidance on how many topics should be listed in a side bar? I've also just posted on the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#Do we really need a climate change sidebar?|talk page of WikiProject Climate Change]] about this to get a wider discussion going. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 14:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

== Add [[solar radiation modification]]? ==

Should [[solar radiation modification]] be added under "mitigation"? I am hesitant and undecided. Some people would argue it's a "false climate solution" but in any case an important topic? Or not? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 15:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

: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. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 08:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

* By reflecting sunlight, SRM has the indirect effect of reducing GHGs in the context of positive-feedback processes like {{brown|'''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. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 15:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
*: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.
*:What about, under "Society and adaptation", add a row for "Geoengineering", which would include SRM and [[Arctic geoengineering]]? [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 05:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
*::pinging @[[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] - Do you have any thoughts on this? Recall that, over at [[Talk:Climate change#Solar radiation modification|climate change]], the consensus (which I disagree with!) was to leave it under "Reducing and recapturing emissions."  [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 05:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 08:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
*::::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.
*::::Thoughts? [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 12:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
*:::::OK, but I think we should be adding the parent article rather, i.e. [[geoengineering]]. Have done that now. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 10:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::: ✔ Good solution. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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? [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 06:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: 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? —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 07:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::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'. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: Does your suggestion imply that [[Geoengineering]] would have no place in the template at all? Maybe '''<nowiki>[[</nowiki>Geoengineering|Geoengineering (SRM and CDR)<nowiki>]]</nowiki>''' is a way of preserving a link to a term that is still used outside the IPCC (see [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=geoengineering&hl=en Google Trends for "Geoengineering"]) —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 17:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::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? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 21:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::'''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 @[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] floated); and (3) CDR and SRM collected as 'geoengineering' but no separate links to them. [[User:TERSEYES|TERSEYES]] ([[User talk:TERSEYES|talk]]) 14:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I see your concern. Is there an alternative overarching term for SRM and "other things" lumped together? Note also discussion about "space-based geoengineering" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_sunshade#Second_merge_proposal . It seems to me that the term "geoengineering" is still alive and kicking, but perhaps not as a summary term for CDR and SRM anymore (??). [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 15:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: In a nutshell: Over decades the ''geoengineering'' term may be falling out of favor, scientifically but less so popularly. But unless the [[Geoengineering]] ''article'' is moved/renamed/deleted, I think there should be a link to it somewhere in the template. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

== new article [[Air conditioning paradox]]==

ive just made a new article ([[Air conditioning paradox]]) and my inexperience was wondering if this should belong to this template, and if so, where. thanks! [[User:Plastixfy|Plastixfy]] ([[User talk:Plastixfy|talk]]) 23:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
: I've just added it under "Society and adaptation" / "Adaptation". —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 04:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
::thanks! [[User:Plastixfy|Plastixfy]] ([[User talk:Plastixfy|talk]]) 12:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
:::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". [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::: 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. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 16:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::the article was merged into [[air conditioning]], which I think was wise. So I'll remove it from this template. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 14:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)