Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Requested move at Talk:Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What to do about greenhouse gas inventory

I am struggeling with the article greenhouse gas inventory. It might contain some useful content but doesn't it overlap a lot with carbon footprint, carbon accounting and greenhouse gas emissions? Wondering if some of its content should be moved/condensed/updated and then the article could be re-focused. Pinging User:Dtetta. EMsmile (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree the article needs a lot of work. I think it should focus largely on national/international government inventory efforts. The production/consumption aspects could be shortened, IMO, buy they are still relevant to GHG inventory work. There is some overlap in these concepts, but that is what the “See also” links are for. I think they are largely distinct, and are all techniques in the more general field of measuring and assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Dtetta (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy your comments across to the talk page of greenhouse gas inventory and hope that someone will have time in future to work on this. I also think the production/consumption aspects could be shortened but I am undecided if bits should be deleted or merged into carbon footprint which also covers the production/consumption aspects. EMsmile (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Total equivalent warming impact?

I propose to delete the content that is currently at Total equivalent warming impact and to redirect it to carbon footprint as the nearest term/concept. Unless this term is up and coming? EMsmile (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Good idea Chidgk1 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It actually appears to have been a briefly considered alternative (since the only references are from 1990s), so it might be worth it to be briefly mention somewhere in the destination that it was an alternative term for the cumulative impact that's seemingly not used anymore. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I did a quick Google search and found that TEWI seems to be used to compare GHGEs from refrigeration systems. Therefore, I've added a quick paragraph about TEWI to the carbon footprint article like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#Trends_and_similar_concepts . I can then redirect the TEWI article to that section. EMsmile (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Done, redirect from Total equivalent warming impact to carbon footprint is in place. EMsmile (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge the article low-carbon economy to climate change mitigation?

Your inputs are invited to a discussion on the way forward for the low-carbon economy article which is currently in a rather poor state. I've just performed a major cull of outdated or poorly written content and am now wondering if the article is better off to be merged into climate change mitigation (or possibly into net zero emissions) or should stay (but in a shorter, more focused form than before). Your thoughts? The discussion is here. EMsmile (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The mitigation article is already quite large and attempts to cover so many things. I don't think that a merge would be beneficial. If anything, we might end up having to move certain details from the mitigation article if the need for more sections there arises. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That's also the direction in which the discussion headed here, I think. EMsmile (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Article on Kyoto Protocol - high pageviews, low quality

I noticed that the article on the Kyoto Protocol still has surprisingly high pageviews, given that the Paris Agreement is now the more current agreement. Both have around 1000 to 1400 pageviews per day, see here. Motivated by those high pageviews and the rather poor quality of the Kyoto Protocol article, I've made some quick improvements today. Mainly by culling out some outdated or digressing content that is now covered better in other Wikipedia articles. Would anyone like to provide some broad pointers or guidance for further improvements (either here or on the talk page of that article)? EMsmile (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge Antarctica cooling controversy into Climate change in Antarctica?

See the discussion here. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge marine ice sheet instability into Ice-sheet dynamics?

The discussion is here. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

What do do about Top contributors to climate change?

I've just come across this article for the first time: Top contributors to climate change. It has about 100 pageviews per day. It's been around for a while but has been expanded in June this year. To me it looks rather messy and I am not sure that such a simplistic article makes much sense. Perhaps its title should be changed to be more specific Top emission sources of greenhouse gases but then it'll overlap with greenhouse gas emissions. Do we really need this article? Isn't it more of a nightmare to maintain it? (I think it used to have a different article title in the past which might have been better) EMsmile (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I came across it some years ago but lost interest once there was no threat of a Turkish entry. I would support a rename which would define the scope as point sources, but I can only think of a clunky Biggest point sources of greenhouse gas pollution. It would need some definition of how large an area a point source could cover.

It should be easier to maintain nowadays as we could just copy some info from https://climatetrace.org/compare once we have agreed on ‘point’. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand it could be limited to organisations rather than points. Dunno Chidgk1 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It contains important information which clearly deserves a place here. However, I agree that its current state is not ideal. To me, it should be made into a list - i.e. I think List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions could work.

Additionally, we can resolve the issues with the recent carbon bomb (an article which barely meets notability criteria under WP:NEO and where much of the content is WP:SYNTH) by merging it there, since the actual meaning of the term is about proposed fossil fuel projects likely to join that list if they were carried out. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Infobox company#Add greenhouse gas emissions? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I like your proposal to convert the article to List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions, User:InformationToKnowledge. I think this could work. EMsmile (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:IPagelocation because they are the person who has done most work on that article. Will also write on the article's talk page (I guess the discussion should continue there). EMsmile (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now moved the page to List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions. EMsmile (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Carbon bombs

Hello everyone ! I just created the article Carbon bomb, translated from the French WP. I improved it a bit. Could you have a look ? Thanks ! Effco (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Effco: If you are quick you can put it up for Wikipedia:Did you know Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Effco I believe that this article currently has significant issues with WP:SYNTH. To put it plainly, the term comes specifically from a single paper authored last year - a paper which is very specifically focused on fossil fuel projects and does not discuss anything else. From what I can tell, this is also the way this term is used in reference 4 and 10, and the Francophone references 1, 5 and 11 (all of which would collectively more than satisfy the main WP:NEO criteria of three separate references using the term in the same manner.)

Yet, the article keeps trying to drag natural feedbacks into its scope, when there is no evidence that this kind of usage was intended by any of the paper's authors. I.e. there is no evidence that the author of reference #2 from CNN was aware of the paper and is using the word "bomb" in the same way, rather than colloquially. However, it at least uses the same word - references 12 and 13 do not, so their inclusion is pure WP:OR.

Further, the way this article uses reference 12 is explicitly contradicted by WP:RS. Not only does it make an error by referring to "melting permafrost", rather than "thawing" (see this discussion to understand the difference), but the largest, most authoritative review of permafrost's role in climate change to date strictly rejects any bomb analogies. Likewise, the idea of methane hydrates playing any real role in climate change in our lifetimes (let alone being a "bomb") has been conclusively rejected by the IPCC - see either that article, or clathrate gun hypothesis. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Good points, InformationToKnowledge. So the way forward would be to merge it into List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions (see above)? EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done the merger now and also removed the content about those climate feedback processes from the description of "carbon bomb". See here: List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions. EMsmile (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)