Template talk:Climate change

In today's world, Template talk:Climate change has taken a fundamental role in society. Whether as a topic of discussion, as the protagonist of an important event or as a representative figure in a specific area, Template talk:Climate change has captured the attention of people around the world. From its impact on popular culture to its influence on politics, Template talk:Climate change has proven to be a relevant topic that deserves to be analyzed and discussed. In this article, we will delve into the world of Template talk:Climate change and explore its importance and impact on different aspects of daily life.

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. Clayoquot (talk | 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. 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? Femke Nijsse (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
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)
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)
I don't know what happened after the discussions in 2019. Clayoquot (talk | 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. 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). 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 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. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 

| sect8 = ]
| state8 = <noinclude>expanded</noinclude>
| abbr8 = Adaptation
| list8 =
 {{navbox | child
  | groupwidth = 10.25em

  | group1 = Strategies
  | list1  =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

  | group2 = Programmes
  | list2 =
* ]
 }}
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. 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? 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, 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 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. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
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).
Pinging 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. 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. EMsmile (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree, it works well like this 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.) AnnetteCSteps (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
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)

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. 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 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". EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @EMsmile that looks great! Always exciting to see the navigational templates improved. 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. 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 talk page of WikiProject Climate Change about this to get a wider discussion going. 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? 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. 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 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)
    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? TERSEYES (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    pinging @EMsmile @RCraig09 - Do you have any thoughts on this? Recall that, over at climate change, the consensus (which I disagree with!) was to leave it under "Reducing and recapturing emissions." 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. EMsmile (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)