Talk:Climate change feedbacks

Cleanup and references

Cleaned up some refs and code, switched some to LDR, others to {{Cite doi}}. We're using the latest AFAIK. Some references I think could be improved. For example, #2 from the University of Texas are lecture notes, and #4 is about planetary science in general—not really focused on climate change feedback.[1] ChyranandChloe (talk)

What to include in block diagram graphic

The "Negative feedbacks" section of the graphic has been re-worked in new Version 5 (05:54, 20 July 2023). —RCraig09 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sjsmith757, InformationToKnowledge, Dtetta, and Femke: Requesting concise input on what wording to include in this diagram. There may be some subtleties on what different sources define as a climate feedback per se (versus a parallel process), but let's define concisely what to include in the diagram with minimal theoretical digressions if possible. Specific wording is key at this point, keeping in mind space limitations in the graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• · The key here for me is making sure the image is accessible. I have difficulty reading the small font, especially in blue. The title can become "climate change feedbacks". CO₂ can be used rather than the full carbon diodide. I think we can omit soils for brevity. I would omit the words "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" as jargon (and in the article use the more lay-friendly "self-reinforcing and balancing" feedbacks). I would omit water vapor under Greenhouse gases (and just state CO₂, methane and NO₂), as it's not a forcing but only a feedback.

· The image gives the impression that removal of CO2 by ocean and plants is a "global warming" feedback, rather than a GHG emission feedback. Will require a bit of reshuffling to put this above global warming. Image gives the impression there are as many positive as negative feedbacks, which is not quite correct according to the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for excellent conciseness. Will deeply consider and implement many, to the extent practical. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• · Thanks for your continued efforts to improve this graphic RCraig09. I generally concur with with what Femke has said, although IMO your approach of positive/negative with those terms explained in the caption seems pretty clear -don’t have a strong opinion on this. Agree with Femke it would be better to try and introduce more lay friendly feedback terms into the body of the article. A few additional thoughts:

· On the left column you use “the” a couple of times, but not on the right. Suggest on the right side you describe plants and oceans as removing CO2 from “the” air.

· When you delete water vapor from the greenhouse section, as Femke has suggested, I’m assuming you will redirect the arrow from that text box directly to global warming, correct?

· Although it’s somewhat clear, for the text box on water vapor I might say something like ”increased water vapor in the atmosphere from warming” Dtetta (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks^∞ — I'll try to assimilate everyone's thoughts. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Femke. I will elaborate a little bit more in the section "sub-issues" below.EMsmile (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sub-issues

Version 9 uploaded 25 July. Suggestions were implemented except as noted in discussion here.
(refresh & by-pass cache, for newest version)

Please answer inline within each topic, so we can keep discussions separate. I've implemented (late 22 July) many of the above suggestions (exceptions discussed as follows). I'll post a new version if more time passes without further comment below.

• Friendly names for positive/negative feedback. It seems consensus is to mention friendly names for positive/negative feedbacks in narrative text. I was going to supplement (not replace) the narrative text and image caption with friendly names, but I could not find a pair of friendly terms that are agreed on. Proposals so far are:

— reinforcing/balancing (EMsmile, source not specified)

— enhancing/weakening (IPCC)

— amplify/diminish (AR6 WGI TechSummary Fig TS.17)

— stabilizing/destabilizing (Sjsmith)

— amplifying/reducing (NASA)

— self-reinforcing/balancing (Femke, source not specified).

Does anyone know of an authoritative source for friendly names? —RCraig09 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Both IPCC and NASA seem authoritative to me. Of the two, I think NASA doesn’t a much better job of explaining Climate Change concepts. Dtetta (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean "NASA does a much better job...". —RCraig09 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem I've encountered is that sources use verbs to describe the feedbacks, but don't actually say the pos & neg feedbacks are "also called xxx and yyy feedbacks". It's possibly interpretive editorial overreach to say pos & neg feedbacks, esp. climate feedbacks, are also called anything. Our image caption and first paragraph of lead currently make the definitions clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I am happy that Femke had the same comment that I had had, namely that "would omit the words "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" as jargon". In general, we can gently teach people about those terms by using the plainer wordings in different locations of the article. In particular, I don't like that we have a section heading called "Positive feedbacks", as I've said before. I don't mind if we use "self-reinforcing vs. balancing" or any of the other variations that you've listed. We could probably explain that there are different words used in the literature to describe these effects and that the "scientific terms" are positive/negative. EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Today I intend to introduce brief sentences immediately below the /* Positive feedbacks */ and /* Negative feedbacks */ sections summarizing how the respective feedbacks are defined, without changing the section names themselves. Since there are so many descriptive variations (list above), none are authoritative, and it's a distraction to list them all since "Positive" and "Negative" are the only terms that are ~universal. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just uploaded Version 10, with descriptive terms (amplify warming) and (reduce warming) at the bottom, based on NASA terminology. The original authoritative terms, Positive feedbacks and Negative feedbacks, are retained. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Water vapor: Forcings vs Greenhouse gases. Initially I'm leaning toward retaining "water vapor" within the "Greenhouse gases" block because, well, it's a potent greenhouse gas (per NASA). The graphic's box merely says "Greenhouse gases", which makes me wonder why the "forcings" issue is determinative or even relevant. Concise explanation or graphical suggestions requested. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I am confused about the water vapor issue so can't comment. But perhaps it comes down to the "impossible task" of having a concise/easy schematic for this. I still have my doubts that it's even worth trying to have such a schematic (see alos below).

The graphic presents a good sampling of feedbacks in relatively simple flowchart form. It's not "impossible". More below, in the "Gives the impression..." section. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• "CO₂" vs "Carbon dioxide". I'm continuing to avoid use of subscripts because they require use of an SVG <tspan> element, which is suspected of involvement in ongoing SVG font rendering problems (software bug in Wikimedia projects). "Carbon dioxide" is also less jargony. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

If it's a matter of subscript then you could just make it CO2 without a subscript. In spoken language, "CO2 emissions" has become much more common than "carbon dioxide emissions" (for example). CO2 is in effect a 3-syllable word whereas "carbon dioxide" is a 5-syllable word. So I think CO2 would indeed be better here than carbon dioxide.

Counting syllables (!) is a formality, especially in a written diagram that isn't even being pronounced. Choosing to avoid a chemical formula in a layman's encyclopedia relates to accessability and is thus more substantive, especially when the chemical formula can't be a properly rendered chemical formula. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Removal of CO2 by ocean and plants. Dotted lines do lead to the "Greenhouse gases" block—as they should. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in the graph or caption can I find an explanation what the dotted lines versus the solid lines mean? Please put that in the the image caption. Also, I don't think those vertical and horizontal arrows in the middle of the schematic work well. It looks like there is a direct connection (double ended arrow) for the boxes, e.g. there is a double arrow from the box "snow cover loss" to the box "warmed Earth emits". EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Dashed lines merely meant feedback paths, but issue is avoided in Version 9, uploaded 25 July. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Give the impression...". (... about + and - feedbacks being in balance, etc.). These "impression" comments are subjective, and at least for the time being I plan to leave the blocks as they are, since they show the science of CC feedbacks beyond the current era. Also, the blocks are visually/graphically balanced. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a major problem with this as well and agree with Femke who said "Image gives the impression there are as many positive as negative feedbacks, which is not quite correct according to the article". I don't think the "visually/graphically balanced" explanation helps either. The schematic currently looks very balanced which is misleading/confusing and comes from the graphical setup with those boxes (one individual box for each mechanism). It might help to use only one single box on each side (so one on the positive side and one on the negative side) which each contains a bullet point list of mechanisms). This way it might become clearer (visually) that this is just a shortened list and that there is no "balance" whatsoever. It would also make the schematic simpler.

Overall, I value your attempts/determination to have such a schematic but I have lingering doubts that it could really be made to "work". Either it would have to be more detailed (e.g. the thickness of arrows indicating the magnitude of the effects) or it should be much simpler (just a box with a bullet point list on each side). EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It "works", right now. First, the article and its lead image should not be only about Earth and only about the present time period, even if that's what we might be inclined to think about; there will be different (im)balances at different places and different times. Three boxes on each side simply don't imply feedbacks are balanced; that is a subjective projection. Combining into boxed lists destroys the purpose of a graphic, especially one that distinguish feedbacks from each other. Many of your concerns can be addressed, if necessary, in captions and narrative text. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedbacks to humans

Gore inconvenient truth loops

I do think that a feedback analysis of the links in Al Gore (2006). An inconvenient truth: the planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it. would be a useful contribution and i guess i agree that File:Gore inconvenient truth loops.png isn't high quality, so i've put it in the article about the book itself. i'd hoped that somebody might improve the image as it's a useful contribution to understanding the ultimately negative consequences of human population growth and technological development. if you know of anyone who'd like to pursue this, please let me know. Lee De Cola (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, User:Ldecola. Al Gore's diagram may be less-than-professional in its graphical presentation, but it does begin to show the complexity of feedbacks in the climate system. I see its main value is to demonstrate "Climate feedbacks are complicated!"—a proposition that can be stated in text backed up by reliable sources. Other than improving the graphical representation a bit, I can't conceive of a way to improve the graphic in a way that would crystallize readers' understanding of feedbacks. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually I regard the graphic's main point as that most of the important feedbacks to humans are negative and will reduce their numbers during this century, and we are seeing this playing out now. I think I'll post a similar graphic with page numbers on the AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH page, and see who reacts.Lee De Cola (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The primary causes and the wide-ranging impacts of climate change. Some effects act as feedbacks that intensify climate change.

References

Hi Ldecola, that "Al Gore" graphic looks to me like a layperson or teacher has drawn it up - it just doesn't look very professional (unless its main point is to say "it's complicated!"...) I think there are better ones out there already, like this one on the right:

Also we have better articles for this topic, like effects of climate change and effects of climate change on human health. This article here is meant to be very much focused on only those very specific feedback effects, and will remain rather techy and sciency. The easier-to-understand information is more likely available to people at the range of articles that we already, which are called "effects of climate change on...". EMsmile (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, we can drop the discussion of the graphic(s); but tho i'm an expert on global change, i AM anxious that Wikipedia may not be doing a good job of laying out the basics - but i expect that better heads than i are also aware of this. Lee De Cola (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You Lee De Cola may find it easiest to go to the Talk Pages of particular articles, and make suggestions or "Edit requests" that you think might remedy your concerns. It's critical to be very specific in any suggestions you make. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Some work done on the lead

I've just done some work on the lead:

• I used the table of content to come up with a summarised list of positive and negative feedbacks but it made me realised how poor some of the section headings, ordering and structure were. I've tried to make some quick changes (knowing that people already look at this article now for information) but I know this will require further work.
• I also tried to put them a bit more in order of "most important" to "least important". Please help if I got this wrong.
• Also, the information about the blackbody radiation is confusing. Femke had added: "it is typically not considered a feedback" whereas later in the main text we do list it under negative feedback and it says there: "It is called the Planck response, and sometimes considered a negative feedback". Here on the talk page, user InformationToKnowledge had quoted "Outgoing longwave radiation acts as the main major negative feedback, as hot things radiate more heat away". So I am confused now.
• Question: should we mention something about the lapse rate in the lead? Note: I have now moved that into a new section for things that can be either positive or negative. User:Sjsmith757 can you help further with the info on the lapse rate? EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@User:Bikesrcool or anyone else: could you help with cleaning up the content about blackbody radiation? Or has this already been sorted out? I see in the lead This blackbody radiation or Planck response has been identified as "the most fundamental feedback in the climate system" - do we need to provide both those terms or would one be sufficient? Are they the same thing? EMsmile (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Mathematical formulation" section

@Bikesrcool: WP:ONEDOWN is a general principle that I think editors in the climate change area intuitively follow, as we know we are communicating with the general public. Separately, I think the formulation itself is so similar to the early textual description, that a formulation doesn't really add anything more to the reader's knowledge. For these reasons, a "Mathematical formulation" section is not appropriate so early--and prominently--in the article. If it's retained in the article, I definitely think it should be moved down, before "See also" because all previous sections are meant for a lay audience and their likely concerns. I hope you'll consider these constructive remarks. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comment. The section has been moved to later for now. I feel the math is stripped down to a bare minimum while still succinctly linking the connected concepts of energy imbalance, forcings, and feedbacks. If placed earlier, the math complements the other introductory info in that sense, and would - in my opinion - be more logically situated before diving into the more gritty details of each individual component. Please also consider that highlighting a bit of low-level math can serve as a way of communicating the rigorous foundations of the science with the general public. Bikesrcool (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bikesrcool: Thank you for being open minded. Discussions like recent ones at Talk:Greenhouse effect are in line with a community approach that the techy stuff should be placed lower in articles or in separate subsidiary articles. Generally, the presence of mathematical discussion might suggest credibility of the subject to the lay reader; however, a stripped-down version of the math that is just an alternative expression of the already-existing textual description, tends to suggest we are straining to "sell" a subject's credibility. (Conversely, going beyond the stripped-down version would be too techy for 99% of readers here.) In the present case, I think we've arrived at a good solution. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I also have my doubts about this section. The formulae initially seem offputting but when reading through the section, I can see that they are very simple. Just putting the words into an equation. And then I wonder what's the point in even having them. I guess it's OK that they're so far down the article now but I would even be inclined to take the equations out and just leave the words (and in this case moving the section back towards the beginning again). I came to this article again because Bikesrcool was pondering over putting the same equations also at radiative forcing, see talk page there. EMsmile (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article title be "Climate change feedbacks", not "Climate change feedback"?

We aren't talking about a singular feedback. Even in our definitional sentence we begin by saying "Climate change feedbacks...". Sorry if this has been covered before, but it reads weird in the general climate change article as well, where climate forces are all plural except feedbacks. We have "aerosols", "clouds", "greenhouse gases", and then "climate change feedback". Any objection to doing a simple rename to this article? Efbrazil (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. I'm OK either way, but the plural does inherently convey more information, instantly. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. I agree with you. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in the lead

Examples of some effects of global warming that can amplify (positive feedbacks) or reduce (negative feedbacks) global warming Observations and modeling studies indicate that there is a net positive feedback to Earth's current global warming.

I am trying to improve the reading ease of the lead but this sentence really baffles me, it seems messed up: These are arctic methane release from thawing permafrost, peat bogs and hydrates, abrupt increases in atmospheric methane, decomposition, peat decomposition, rainforest drying, forest fires, desertification. Seems like a messy list. Also, the paragraph in the lead about positive feedbacks (currently the second one) should line up better with the graphic on the right. I suggest to use the same ordering, and ensure the most important one is first (?). EMsmile (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't the lead be changed to clarify that the total (net) feedback is negative when accounting for ALL feedbacks?

Quotation taken from top of page 978 AR6 WGI Chapter7 (and see table 7.10 at bottom of same page): "It is virtually certain that the net climate feedback is negative, primarily due to the Planck temperature response, indicating that climate acts to stabilize in response to radiative forcing imposed to the system. Supported by the level of confidence associated with the individual feedbacks, it is also virtually certain that the sum of the non-Planck feedbacks is positive. Based on Table 7.10 these climate feedbacks amplify the Planck temperature response by about 2.8 [1.9 to 5.9] times."

Likewise quoting from page 96 AR6 WGI Technical Summary (and see accompanying figure TS.17): "The combined effect of all known radiative feedbacks (physical, biogeophysical, and non-CO2 biogeochemical) is to amplify the base climate response (in the absence of feedbacks), also known as the Planck temperature response (virtually certain). Combining these feedbacks with the Planck response, the net climate feedback parameter is assessed to be –1.16 [–1.81 to –0.51] W m –2 °C –1 , which is slightly less negative than that inferred from the overall ECS assessment."

Could a simplified version of the Chapter 7 quotation replace the one now at the end of the lead?: It is virtually certain that the net climate feedback is currently negative and thus stabilizes climate over time, primarily due to Earth's blackbody radiation response. It is also virtually certain that the sum of all other feedbacks is positive and causes amplification of global warming. Bikesrcool (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you make it more understandable for lay persons (given that it's the lead)? I don't really understand what is meant with "that the net climate feedback is currently negative" and "the sum of all other feedbacks". Perhaps you could be more explicit or give examples or use "in other words, xxx". Sometimes it even works to ask Chat-GPT how something could be said simpler. For example the first quote that you mentioned (p. 978) could be simplified as follows, Chat-GPT suggests "The overall effect of climate feedback is likely to be negative, mainly because of the Planck temperature response, meaning that the climate tends to stabilize when there's extra heat added to the system." I am not saying this is necessarily right or better, it's just something worth using for inspiration. Also given that the IPCC reports are not compatibly licenced so have to be paraphrased in any case. EMsmile (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This is great input, thanks Bikesrcool! I tried to boil down that excellent synopsis on page 95 of AR6 WG1. As EMsmile says, best to avoid words like Planck response in the lead. Take a look and see if what I wrote works for you. Efbrazil (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Ping to RCraig09, who has put in a lot of the content characterizing feedbacks as positive. Make sure you read that page of the IPCC report. The key point as I understand things is that feedbacks are net negative right now, but will become less negative as an effect of emissions continuing and/or time going by. Efbrazil (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I provided the original motivation to even mention net positive vs. net negative feedback. I followed someone else's lead in even mentioning it, with my edit comment saying the content was added to avoid the inference expressed by another editor that positive and negative were balanced (I merely copied content from the lead text and placed it into the lead image caption; that particular sentence has just been deleted from the lead text.) The current lead image caption refers to AR5] (2014), which states on p. 82: "Therefore, there is high confidence that the net feedback is positive and the black body response of the climate to a forcing will therefore be amplified." I haven't studied AR6's apparent reversal of that conclusion—if they're talking about exactly the same issue. At this point, I think it wise to simply delete that sentence from the lead image caption until more knowledgeable editors have resolved the issue. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, let's go all the way to the top then and ask Femke :) Efbrazil (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

We should offer a consulting fee. :) —RCraig09 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

With my mathematician's hat on: the Planck response is not a feedback in the mathematical sense. A feedback is the amplification of an initial response, and the Planck response is that initial response / reference system (https://www.atmos.albany.edu/daes/atmclasses/atm551/OtherReadingMaterials/Roe_AnnuRevEarth2009.pdf). So the AR6 was a bit sloppy in their wording; perhaps written by physicists rather than by mathematicians. We also repeat this misclassification in our lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

My recommendation is to defer to AR6 and the large body of supporting research which treats the generic Planck response and other Earth-specific feedbacks in a similar manner. To RCraig's comment: I understand there is no basic change between the technical conclusions of AR5 and AR6... just difference nuance/emphasis in the wording. To Femke's comment: Feedbacks can be talked about in different ways, that is why the math accompanying there scientific/physics definition is unavoidable and necessary to reign in other possible wanderings. The brief math formulation section of this article aligns IMO with the math/physics discussion of AR5, AR6, and the majority of other scientific literature that I've seen. These show that the Planck response is a feedback in the most fundamental mathematical sense as defined by the broader scientific community. As such, it is also often recognized to be a special response being ONLY a function of temperature. I am satisfied with the changes made by Efbrazil and RCraig to my post to this point and thank them. Bikesrcool (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct. AR6 usually talks about the Planck response, rather than the Planck feedback. In some graphs they have the Plack response plotted separately from the radiative feedbacks (for instance 7.20), implying that it's not a radiative feedback. They also state: "The combined effect of all known radiative feedbacks (physical, biogeophysical, and non-CO2 biogeochemical) is to amplify the base climate response, also known as the Planck temperature response (virtually certain)." Overall, they're a bit messy in their wording here. In literature on climate sensitivity (my former field), you often see the statement like "Without feedbacks, you'd have 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2". That would be a non-sensical statement if the Planck response is considered a feedback. We could add the different perspectives to the article in footnotes, and use the more generic "Planck response" in our prose? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What's interesting for the lead is whether the climate response to a linear increase in greenhouse gas emissions going forward is going to accelerate or decelerate, or whether the geographic locations of amplified warming will change at all. That means taking everything into account as much as possible- the carbon cycle, Planck response, and maybe even socioeconomic responses. Do we have something definitive on the holistic issue?

Whether the Planck response is defined as a feedback or not can go in the definition section along with whether the carbon cycle is considered a feedback. It sounds like we should both-sides those issues since there are references in either direction. However, for general interest on the topic, I think the right thing to do is mention everything, because the holistic picture is what matters in the end. Efbrazil (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The carbon cycle is a feedback, it's just in a different categories of feedbacks than those we discuss when we talk about equilibrium climate sensitivity. Okay for me to change to Planck response? And write something about the Planck response sometimes being considered a feedback in a footnote? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously we'd love your help here, but I think the important thing we don't understand is the holistic effect. I'd love a paragraph in the lead saying "if GGE continue at their current rate, this is how the climate will change up to 2C, and this is what will happen up to 3C". I know that's a very difficult question to answer, which is why a lot of reports fall back to parsing individual components of the response instead of the overall response.

A lead that is instead focused on enumerating all possible feedbacks and saying what is or is not technically a feedback is a lot less interesting imho. As for the definitional issue, the carbon cycle is a "climate change feedback" if you are talking about the response to GGE, but if you are talking about feedbacks strictly in the context of given greenhouse gas levels (as AR4+ do with RCPs), then it is not. Efbrazil (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree definitions are not great in the lead. I think a footnote in the lead may work however. You think that's too much too? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a footnote is good, plus probably some text in the definition and terminology section to back it up. Efbrazil (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, it occurs to me that if feedbacks that included the Planck response as a feedback were net positive, then we could be talking about a runaway greenhouse effect, which nobody is predicting. Is that correct, or does a positive feedback value just mean warming would be amplified? Maybe a feedback value of over 1.0 = runaway greenhouse effect? The Internet is not helping with my blue sky questioning... Efbrazil (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am also concerned about risk that a casual reader of the lead might associate a statement of net positive feedback with tipping or runaway. Whether the Planck response is properly classified as a feedback seems to me like a distraction in the bigger scope of the article, but I guess one could add a section acknowledging this nuance later down. Still when I think of perturbation theory, the two basic elements that I associate with it are just forcings and feedbacks... or forcings and responses. Thanks for all the great discussion of this topic. Bikesrcool (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good! I just did a fairly substantive edit pass on the last 3 paragraphs of the lead. Hopefully things are approaching OK. Efbrazil (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)