Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Bloomery

2022-09-23T19:16:00Z

204.237.51.103: Eliminated Point Rosee references (since disproved) / Corrected details for L'Anse aux Meadows / Corrected a number of errors in described practical methods

{{Short description|Type of furnace once used widely for smelting iron from its oxides}}
{{Other uses}}
{{more citations needed|date=May 2018}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}
{{wikt | bloomery}}
[[File:Święto Śląska piec p.jpg|thumb|A bloomery in operation. The bloom will eventually be drawn out of the bottom hole.]]

A '''bloomery''' is a type of [[metallurgical furnace]] once used widely for [[smelting]] iron from its [[iron oxides|oxides]]. The bloomery was the earliest form of [[smelter]] capable of smelting iron. Bloomeries produce a porous mass of [[iron]] and [[slag]] called a '''''bloom'''''. The mix of slag and iron in the bloom, termed ''[[Direct reduced iron|sponge iron]]'', is usually consolidated and further forged into [[wrought iron]]. [[Blast furnace]]s, which produce [[pig iron]], have largely superseded bloomeries.

== Process ==
[[File:Iron bloom.jpg|thumb|An iron bloom just removed from the furnace. Surrounding it are pieces of slag that have been pounded off by the hammer.]]
A bloomery consists of a [[wikt:pit|pit]] or [[chimney]] with heat-resistant walls made of earth, [[clay]], or [[Rock (geology)|stone]]. Near the bottom, one or more pipes (made of clay or metal) enter through the side walls. These pipes, called ''[[tuyeres]]'', allow air to enter the furnace, either by natural draught or forced with [[bellows]] or a [[trompe]]. An opening at the bottom of the bloomery may be used to remove the bloom, or the bloomery can be tipped over and the bloom removed from the top.

The first step taken before the bloomery can be used is the preparation of the [[charcoal]] and the iron ore. Charcoal is nearly pure [[carbon]] which when burned, both produces the high temperature needed for the smelting process and provides the carbon monoxide needed for [[Redox|reduction]] of the metal.

The [[ore]] is broken into small pieces and usually roasted in a fire, to make rock based ores easier to break up, bake out some impurities, and (to a lesser extent) to remove any moisture in the ore. Any large impurities (as silica) in the ore can be removed as it is crushed. The desired particle size depends primarily on which of several ore types may be available, which will also have a relationship to the layout and operation of the furnace, of which there are a number of regional, historic/traditional forms. Natural iron ores can vary considerably in oxide form (Fe2O3 / Fe3O4 / FeO(OH) ), and importantly in relative iron content. Since [[slag]] from previous blooms may have a high iron content, it can also be broken up and may be[[recycled]] into the bloomery with the new ore.

In operation, after the bloomery is preheated typically with a wood fire, shifting to burning pre-sized charcoal, iron ore and additional charcoal are introduced through the top. Again, 'traditional' methods vary, but normally smaller charges of ore are added at the start of the main smelting sequence, increasing to larger amounts as the smelt progresses. Overall a typical ratio of total charcoal to ore added will in a roughly one-to-one ratio. Inside the furnace, [[carbon monoxide]] from the incomplete [[combustion]] of the charcoal [[redox|reduces]] the iron oxides in the ore to [[Iron|metallic iron]] without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore. As the desired product of a bloomery is iron which is easily [[Forging|forgeable]], it requires a low carbon content. The temperature and ratio of charcoal to iron ore must be carefully controlled to keep the iron from absorbing too much carbon and thus becoming unforgeable. Cast iron occurs when the iron absorbs 2% to 4% carbon. Because the bloomery is self-[[Flux (metallurgy)|fluxing]], the addition of [[limestone]] is not required to form a slag.

The small particles of iron produced in this way fall to the bottom of the furnace, where they combine with molten slag, often consisting of [[fayalite]], a compound of [[silicon]], [[oxygen]] and iron mixed with other impurities from the ore. The hot liquid slag, running to the bottom of the furnace, cools against the base and lower side walls of the furnace, effectively forming a bowl still containing fluid slag. As the individual iron particles form, they fall into this bowl and sinter together under their own weight, forming a spongy mass referred to as the '''bloom'''. Because the bloom is typically [[porous]], and its open spaces can be full of slag, the extracted mass must beaten with heavy hammers to both compress voids and drive out any molten slag remaining. This process may require several additional heating and compaction cycles, working at high 'welding' temperatures. Iron treated this way is said to be ''wrought'' (worked), and the resulting iron, with reduced amounts of slag, is called ''wrought iron'' or bar iron. Because of the creation process, individual blooms can often have differing carbon contents between the original top and bottom surfaces, differences that will also be somewhat blended together through the flattening, folding and hammer welding sequences. It is also possible to produce blooms coated in [[steel]] (higher carbon) by manipulating the charge of and air flow to the bloomery.<ref>[http://iron.wlu.edu/reports/Eindhoven%20Smelt%20Report.htm Smelting Enriched Bog Ore in a Low Shaft Bloomery]</ref>

As the era of modern commercial [[steelmaking]] began, the word ''bloom'' was extended to another [[word sense|sense]] referring to [[semi-finished casting products#Bloom|an intermediate-stage piece of steel]], of a size comparable to many traditional iron blooms, that was ready to be further worked into [[semi-finished casting products#Billet|billet]].

== History ==
{{See also|Smelting#Early iron smelting|l1=Early iron smelting|History of ferrous metallurgy|Bronze Age}}
[[File:PSM V38 D159 Persian method of smelting iron.jpg|thumb|A drawing of a simple bloomery and bellows.]]
[[File:Bas fourneau.png|thumb|Bloomery smelting during the [[Middle Ages]], as depicted in the ''[[De Re Metallica]]'' by [[Georgius Agricola]], 1556]]
The onset of the [[Iron Age]] in most parts of the world coincides with the first widespread use of the bloomery. While earlier examples of iron are found, their high nickel content indicates that this is [[meteoric iron]]. Other early samples of iron may have been produced by accidental introduction of iron ore in copper smelting operations. Iron appears to have been smelted in the Middle East as early as 3000 BC, but copper smiths, not being familiar with iron, did not put it to use until much later. In the West, iron began to be used around 1200 BC.<ref>{{cite web|title=The History of Forging - Now and Then|url=http://cantondropforge.com/history-of-forging|website=Canton Drop Forge|publisher=Canton Drop Forge}}</ref>

===East Asia===
China has long been considered the exception to the general use of bloomeries. It was thought that the Chinese skipped the bloomery process completely, starting with the [[blast furnace]] and the [[finery forge]] to produce wrought iron: by the 5th century BC, metalworkers in the southern [[state of Wu]] had invented the blast furnace and the means to both cast iron and to decarburize the carbon-rich pig iron produced in a blast furnace to a low-carbon, wrought iron-like material. Recent evidence, however, shows that bloomeries were used earlier in [[ancient China]], migrating in from the west as early as 800 BC, before being supplanted by the locally developed blast furnace. Supporting this theory was the discovery of 'more than ten' iron digging implements found in the tomb of [[Duke Jing of Qin]] (d. 537 BCE), whose tomb is located in [[Fengxiang County]], [[Shaanxi]] (a museum exists on the site today).<ref>"The Earliest Use of Iron in China" by Donald B. Wagner in ''Metals in Antiquity'', by Suzanne M. M. Young, A. Mark Pollard, Paul Budd and Robert A. Ixer (BAR International Series, 792), Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999, pp. 1–9.</ref>

===Sub-Saharan Africa===
All traditional sub-Saharan African iron smelting processes are variants of the bloomery process.<ref>Cline, W.W. (1937) ''Mining and Metallurgy in Negro Africa''. Menasha, WI: George Banta</ref> There is considerable discussion about the origins of [[iron metallurgy in Africa]]. Smelting in bloomery type furnaces in West Africa and forging of tools appeared in the [[Nok culture]] of central Nigeria by at least 550 BC and possibly several centuries earlier.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Nok: African Sculpture in Archaeological Context|last=Eggert|first=Manfred|publisher=Africa Magna Verlag Press|year=2014|editor-last=Breunig|editor-first=P|location=Frankfurt, Germany|pages=51–59|chapter=Early iron in West and Central Africa}}</ref><ref name="Eggert 2014 53–54">{{Cite book|title=Nok: African Sculpture in Archaeological Context|last=Eggert|first=Manfred|publisher=Africa Magna Verlag Press|year=2014|isbn=9783937248462|editor-last=Breunig|editor-first=P|location=Frankfurt, Germany|pages=53–54|chapter=Early iron in West and Central Africa|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BBn1BQAAQBAJ&q=Nok+Breunig&pg=PA38}}</ref> There is also evidence of iron smelting with bloomery style furnaces dated to 750 BC in [[Opi (archaeological site)|Opi]] (Augustin Holl 2009) and [[Lejja]] dated to 2,000 BC (Pamela Eze-Uzomaka 2009), both sites in the [[Nsukka]] region of southeast Nigeria in what is now [[Igbo people|Igboland]].<ref name=Eze-Uzomaka>{{cite journal|last1=Eze–Uzomaka|first1=Pamela|title=Iron and its influence on the prehistoric site of Lejja|url=https://www.academia.edu/4103707|website=Academia.edu|publisher=University of Nigeria,Nsukka, Nigeria|access-date=12 December 2014}}</ref><ref name=Holl-2009>{{cite journal|last1=Holl|first1=Augustin F. C.|title=Early West African Metallurgies: New Data and Old Orthodoxy|journal=Journal of World Prehistory|date=6 November 2009|volume=22|issue=4|pages=415–438|doi=10.1007/s10963-009-9030-6|s2cid=161611760}}</ref><ref name="Eggert 2014 53–54"/> The site of Gbabiri, in the [[Central African Republic]], has also yielded evidence of iron metallurgy, from a reduction furnace and blacksmith workshop; with earliest dates of 896-773 BC and 907-796 BC respectively.<ref name="Eggert 2014 53–54"/> The earliest records of bloomery-type furnaces in East Africa are discoveries of smelted iron and carbon in [[Nubia]] in [[ancient Sudan]] dated at least to the 7th to the 6th century BC. The ancient bloomeries that produced metal tools for the Nubians and Kushites produced a surplus for sale.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PZcX2jQFTRcC&pg=PA61|title=A History of Sub-Saharan Africa|first1=Robert O.|last1=Collins|first2=James M.|last2=Burns|date=8 February 2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|via=Google Books|isbn=9780521867467}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6tsaBtp0WrMC&pg=PA173|title=The Nubian Past: An Archaeology of the Sudan|first=David N.|last=Edwards|date=29 July 2004|publisher=Taylor & Francis|via=Google Books|isbn=9780203482766}}</ref><ref name="Humphris">{{cite journal | vauthors = Humphris J, Charlton MF, Keen J, Sauder L, Alshishani F | title = Iron Smelting in Sudan: Experimental Archaeology at The Royal City of Meroe | journal = Journal of Field Archaeology | volume = 43 | issue = 5 | pages = 399–416 | date = June 2018 | doi = 10.1080/00934690.2018.1479085 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

===South Asia===

Wrought iron was used in the construction of monuments like the [[Iron pillar of Delhi]], built in the 3rd century AD during the [[Gupta Empire]]. The latter was built using a towering series of disc-shaped iron blooms. Similar to China, high-carbon steel was eventually used in India, although cast iron was not used for architecture until modern times.<ref name="METALLURGICAL HERITAGE OF INDIA">Ranganathan, Srinivasa; Srinivasan, Sharada. (1997). [http://dtrinkle.matse.illinois.edu/MatSE584/articles/metallurg_heritage_india/metallurgical_heritage_india.html "METALLURGICAL HERITAGE OF INDIA"], in ''Golden Jubilee Souvenir'', Indian Institute of Science, pp. 29-36, ([[University of Illinois]], Department of Materials Science and Engineering web page). Accessed 30 October 2019.</ref>

===Early to Medieval Europe===
[[File:PSM V38 D175 A blomary fire.jpg|thumb|A Catalan furnace, with tuyere and bellows on the right]]
Early European bloomeries were relatively small, primarily do to the mechanical limits of human powered bellows and the amount of force possible to apply with hand driven sledge hammers. Those known archaeologically from the pre-Roman Iron Age tend to be in the 2 kg range, produced in low shaft furnaces. Roman era production often used furnaces tall enough to create a natural draft effect (into the range of 200 cm tall), and increasing bloom sizes into the range of 10 - 15 kg. <ref> Radomir Pliener, Iron in Archaeology - the European Bloomery Smelters, chapter XII, 2000 </ref> Contemporary experimenters had routinely made blooms using Northern European derived 'short shaft' furnaces with blown air supplies in the 5 - 10 kg range <ref> Darrell Markewitz, 'If you don't get any IRON - Towards an Effective Method for Small Iron Smelting Furnaces', EXARC Journal 2012-1 (https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10041)</ref> The use of [[waterwheel]], spreading around the turn of the first millennium and used to power more massive bellows allowed the bloomery to become larger and hotter, with associated trip hammers allowing the consolodation forging of the larger blooms created. Progressively larger bloomeries were constructed in the late 14th century, with a capacity of about 15 kg on average, though exceptions did exist. European average bloom sizes quickly rose to 300 kg, where they levelled off until the demise of the bloomery.

As a bloomery's size is increased, the iron ore is exposed to burning charcoal for a longer time. When combined with the strong air blast required to penetrate the large ore and charcoal stack, this may cause part of the iron to melt and become saturated with carbon in the process, producing unforgeable [[pig iron]] which requires [[finery forge|oxidation]] to be reduced into cast iron, steel, and iron. This pig iron was considered a waste product detracting from the largest bloomeries' yield, and it was not until the 14th century that early [[blast furnace]]s, identical in construction but dedicated to the production of molten iron, were built.<ref>Douglas Alan Fisher, The Epic of Steel, Harper & Row 1963, p. 26-29</ref><ref>Blast furnace, theory and practice, American Institute of mining, metallurgical, and petroleum engineers, Gordon and Breach science 1969, p. 4-5</ref>

Bloomery type furnaces typically produced a range of iron products from very low carbon iron to steel containing approximately 0.2% to 1.5% carbon. The master smith had to select pieces of low carbon iron, [[carburizing|carburize]] them, and [[pattern welding|pattern-weld]] them together to make steel sheets. Even when applied to a non-carburized bloom, this pound, fold and weld process resulted in a more homogeneous product and removed much of the slag. The process had to be repeated up to 15 times when high quality steel was needed, as for a sword. The alternative was to [[case hardening|carburize]] the surface of a finished product. Each welding's heat oxidises some carbon, so the master smith had to make sure there was enough carbon in the starting mixture.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html# |title=Some Aspects of the Metallurgy and Production of European Armor |access-date=14 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020422045406/http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html# |archive-date=22 April 2002 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>Alan R. Williams, Methods of manufacture of swords in medieval Europe, Gladius 1977, p. 70-77</ref>

In England and Wales, despite the arrival of the blast furnace in the [[Wealden iron industry|Weald]] in about 1491, bloomery forges, probably using water-power for the hammer as well as the bellows, were operating in the [[West Midlands (region)|West Midlands]] region beyond 1580. In [[Furness]] and [[Cumberland]], they operated into the early 17th century and the last one in England (near [[Garstang]]) did not close until about 1770.<ref name="English books">H. R. Schubert, ''History of the British Iron and Steel Industry'' (1957). R. F. Tylecote, ''History of Metallurgy'' (1991).</ref>

One of the oldest known blast furnaces in Europe has been found in [[Lapphyttan]] in [[Sweden]], carbon-14 dated to be from the 12th century.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.jernkontoret.se/en/the-steel-industry/the-history-of-swedish-steel-industry/blast-furnace-in-earlier-times/|title = The blast furnace in earlier times}}</ref> The oldest bloomery in Sweden, also found in the same area, has been carbon-14 dated to 700 BCE.<ref>Magnusson G (2015) Järnet och Sveriges medeltida modernisering. Jernkontoret, Stockholm</ref>

Bloomeries survived in Spain and southern France as [[Catalonia|Catalan]] forges into the mid-19th century,<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |url=https://www.britannica.com/technology/bloomery-process |title=Bloomery process |access-date=15 July 2017 |quote=The final version of this kind of bloomery hearth survived in Spain until the 19th century.}}</ref> and in [[Austria]] as the {{Interlanguage link multi|Stückofen|fr|3=Stückofen|vertical-align=sup}} to 1775.

===The Americas===
Excavations at [[L'Anse aux Meadows]] Newfoundland have found considerable evidence for the processing of bog iron and the production of iron in a bloomery by the Norse.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Bowles, G., R. Bowker, and N. Samsonoff|date=2011|title=Viking expansion and the search for bog iron|url=https://docplayer.net/47076189-Viking-expansion-and-the-search-for-bog-iron.htmlhttps://docplayer.net/47076189-Viking-expansion-and-the-search-for-bog-iron.html|journal=Platforum|volume=12|pages=25–37}}</ref> The cluster of Viking Age (c 1000 - 1022 AD) at L'Anse aux Meadows are situated on a raised marine terrace, between a sedge peat bog and the ocean. Estimates from the smaller amount of slag recovered archaeologically suggest 15 kg of slag was produced during what appears to have been a single smelting attempt. By comparing the iron content of the primary bog iron ore found in the purpose built 'furnace hut' with the iron remaining in that slag, an estimated 3 kg iron bloom was produced. (At a yield of at best 20% from what is a good iron rich ore, this suggests the workers processing the ore had not been paticularly skilled.<ref name=":2" /> This supports the idea that iron processing knowledge was widespread and not restricted to major centers of trade and commerce.<ref name=":2" /> 98 nail, and importantly, ship rivet fragments, were also found at the site as well as considerable evidence for woodworking - which points to boat or possibly ship repairs being undertaken at the site.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite book|title=Vinland Revisited: The Norse World at the Turn of the First Millennium|last=Lewis-Simpson, Shannon|publisher=St. John's, Newfoundland: Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, Inc.|year=2000|isbn=0-919735-07-X|location=St. John's, Newfoundland}}</ref> (An important consideration remains that a potential 3 kg raw bloom most certainly does not make enough refined bar to manufacture the 3 kg of recovered nails and rivets!)

[[Image:Mission San Juan Capistrano 4-5-05 100 6559.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A view of the bloomeries ('Catalan forges') at [[Mission San Juan Capistrano]], the oldest (''circa'' 1790s) existing facilities of their kind in California.]]
In the [[Spanish colonization of the Americas]], bloomeries or "Catalan forges" were part of 'self sufficiency' at some of the [[:Category:Spanish missions in the Americas|missions]], ''[[encomienda]]s'', and ''[[pueblo]]s''. As part of the [[Spanish missions in California|Franciscan Spanish missions]] in [[Alta California]], the "Catalan forges" at [[Mission San Juan Capistrano]] from the 1790s are the oldest existing facilities of their kind in the present day [[California|state of California]]. The bloomeries' sign proclaims the site as being "...part of [[Orange County, California|Orange County]]'s first industrial complex."

The archaeology at Jamestown Virginia (cira 1610-15, citation needed), had recoved the remains of a simple short shaft bloomery furnace, likely intended as yet another 'resource test' like the one in Vinland much earlier. The English settlers of the [[13 colonies]] were prevented by law from manufacture; for a time, the British sought to situate most of the skilled artisanry at domestic locations. In fact, this was one of the problems which led to the revolution.{{citation needed|date=November 2018}} The [[Falling Creek Ironworks]] was the first in the United States. The [[Neabsco Iron Works]] is an example of the early [[Virginia]]n effort to form a workable American industry.

In the [[Adirondacks]], New York, new bloomeries using the [[hot blast]] technique were built in the 19th century.<ref name="Adirondacks">Gordon C. Pollard, 'Experimentation in 19th century bloomery production: evidence from the Adirondacks of New York' ''Historical Metallurgy'' 32(1) (1998), 33–40.</ref>

==See also==
* [[Double hammer]]
* [[Tatara (furnace)]]

== References ==
[[File:Bloomery_Iron_Furnace_Bloomery_WV_2013_09_03_06.jpg|thumb|right|Bloomery iron furnace along Bloomery Pike (West Virginia Route 127) near Bloomery, West Virginia, United States.]]
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category|Bloomeries}}
* [http://www.ironsmelting.net/ Technology and archaeology of the earliest iron smelting and smithing]
* [http://iron.wlu.edu/Bloomery_Iron.htm Rockbridge bloomery]
* [http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/index.html Experimental Iron Smelting (at the Wareham Forge) ]
* [http://www.darkcompany.ca/iron/ Viking-Era Norse techniques by DARC]
* [http://www.wealdeniron.org.uk/Expt/index.htm WIRG experimental bloomery]
* [http://www.davistownmuseum.org/toolPreBlastFurnace.html Precursors of the blast furnace]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070614173348/http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/mines_and_iron/Roger_Smith/roger/BLOOM4.htm Roger Smith's article on bloomery construction]
* [http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron3.htm How Stuff Works]
* [http://iron.wlu.edu/ The Smelter's Art Experimental Iron Production at The Rockbridge Bloomery]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060718053841/http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/EARFE/EARFE.html Early use of iron in China]
*[http://publicacions.iec.cat/repository/pdf/00000022/00000029.pdf The Catalan process for the direct production of malleable iron and its spread to Europe and the Americas PDF] by Estanislau Tomàs (retrieved 23 March 2010)

{{Iron and steel production}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Industrial furnaces]]
[[Category:Steelmaking]]
[[Category:Iron]]
[[Category:Archaeometallurgy]]
[[Category:Smelting]]
[[Category:Iron Age Europe]]

Candidates of the 2022 Ontario general election

2021-05-13T02:33:15Z

204.237.51.103: /* References */

{{More references|date=October 2020}}

The following tables list by region the nominated candidates for the [[43rd Ontario general election]].

==Candidates and results==
◊ = not seeking re-election 
‡ = running for re-election in different riding 
§ = represents that the incumbent was defeated for nomination 
$ = represents that the incumbent was announced as nominated by their party but later chose to retire 
<nowiki>#</nowiki> = represents that the incumbent was announced as nominated by their party but later lost that party's nomination through departure from caucus 
<nowiki>*</nowiki> = candidate has officially registered with Elections Ontario 
© = candidate won their party's nomination race for the riding 
''italics'' indicates contestant for nomination or declared interest 
'''bold''' indicates party leader 
<s>strikethrough</s> indicates nomination candidate disqualified or withdrew 

===East===

====Ottawa====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Others}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Carleton (Ontario provincial electoral district)|Carleton]]
|
|[[Goldie Ghamari]]
|
|
|
|
|
|Cody Zulinski<ref>https://gpo.ca/find-candidate/</ref>
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Goldie Ghamari
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Kanata—Carleton (provincial electoral district)|Kanata—Carleton]]
|
|[[Merrilee Fullerton]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Merrilee Fullerton
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Nepean (provincial electoral district)|Nepean]]
|
|[[Lisa MacLeod]]
|
|
|
|Tyler Watt<ref>{{cite tweet|user=tylerwatt90|author=Tyler Watt|number=1376621681779834880|date=March 29, 2021|title=I have some exciting news to share!! @OntLiberal #Nepean #VoteFordOut2022 #onpoli Donate or sign up to help at: http://tylerwatt.ca}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Lisa MacLeod
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Ottawa—Orléans (provincial electoral district)|Orléans]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Stephen Blais]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|Stephen Blais
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Ottawa Centre (provincial electoral district)|Ottawa Centre]]
|
|
|
|Joel Harden<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/ottawa-centre-nomination-meeting</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Joel Harden]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Ottawa South (provincial electoral district)|Ottawa South]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[John Fraser (Ontario MPP)|John Fraser]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|John Fraser
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Ottawa—Vanier (provincial electoral district)|Ottawa—Vanier]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Lucille Collard]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|Lucille Collard
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Ottawa West—Nepean (provincial electoral district)|Ottawa West—Nepean]]
|
|[[Jeremy Roberts (politician)|Jeremy Roberts]]
|
|Chandra Pasma<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1385390463503388675 |date=April 22, 2021 |title=Ottawa West-Nepean has officially nominated @ChandraPasma for election. Congratulations/Félicitations, Chandra! #onpoli #ottawa https://t.co/szOn3EibyE |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507052234/https://twitter.com/OntarioNDP/status/1385390463503388675 |archive-date=May 7, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Jeremy Roberts (politician)|Jeremy Roberts]]
|}

===Eastern Ontario===
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Bay of Quinte (provincial electoral district)|Bay of Quinte]]
|
|[[Todd Smith (politician)|Todd Smith]]
|
|''Alison Kelly''<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Trustee Norm Di Pasquale TCDSB Ward 9 |user=normsworld |number=1355298488775536651 |date=January 29, 2021 |title=@AlisonKellyPEC Congrats on putting your name forward for the NDP nomination in Bay of Quinte! Rooting for you! |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210129233535/https://twitter.com/normsworld/status/1355298488775536651 |archive-date=January 29, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|Emilie Leneveu<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario Liberal Party {{! }} Parti Libéral de l'Ontario |user=OntLiberal |number=1333133967734747137 |date=November 29, 2020 |title=.@EmilieLeneveu is an entrepreneur and advanced biotechnologist. We’re happy to announce that Emilie is officially your @OntLiberal 2022 candidate for Bay of Quinte: https://t.co/uWGILJwBRx! #onpoli https://t.co/5L4mHpFLMU |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Todd Smith
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Glengarry—Prescott—Russell (provincial electoral district)|Glengarry—Prescott—Russell]]
|
|
|
|''Sylvie Paquette''<ref>https://www.editionap.ca/comte-de-prescott-county/tribune-express/ndp-nominates-malakos-as-federal-candidate-9a32665a8f4c587bcbc94b13702f63cb</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|[[Amanda Simard]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Hastings—Lennox and Addington (provincial electoral district)|Hastings—Lennox and Addington]]
|
|[[Daryl Kramp]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Daryl Kramp]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Kingston and the Islands (provincial electoral district)|Kingston and the Islands]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Ted Hsu]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario Liberal Party {{! }} Parti Libéral de l'Ontario |user=OntLiberal |number=1325265376805064705 |date=November 7, 2020 |title=.@TedHsu est un physicien et un ancien Membre du Parlement. Nous sommes heureux d'annoncer que Ted est officiellement votre candidat @OntLiberal 2022 pour Kingston et les Îles : https://t.co/uDuHY7BaGX ! #onpoli https://t.co/IfceiBseKl |language=fr |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Ian Arthur]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston (provincial electoral district)|Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston]]
|
|''Bill King''<ref>https://lake88.ca/2020/11/05/lanark-highlands-councilor-king-seeking-ontario-pc-nomination-in-lanark-frontenac-kingston/</ref> or ''Ron Higgins''<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ron Higgins |user=HigginsRon |number=1343946824332181505 |date=December 29, 2020 |title=A few things 2 complete on my @ONPC nomination papers 2 run for the @LFK candidacy in spring 2021 & run for MPP in spring 2022. Any LFK PC members (min 3 week membership) want to endorse my paperwork? @FrontenacCounty @LanarkCountyFB @PerthOntNews @CPlaceNews @KingstonON (rural) |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230034302/https://twitter.com/HigginsRon/status/1343946824332181505 |archive-date=December 30, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Ind|background}}|
|Randy Hillier
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Leeds—Grenville (provincial electoral district)|Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes]]
|
|[[Steve Clark (politician)|Steve Clark]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Steve Clark
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke (provincial electoral district)|Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke]]
|
|[[John Yakabuski]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|John Yakabuski
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry (provincial electoral district)|Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry]]
|
|[[Jim McDonell]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Jim McDonell
|}

===Central Ontario===
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Barrie—Innisfil (provincial electoral district)|Barrie—Innisfil]]
|
|[[Andrea Khanjin]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Andrea Khanjin]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte (provincial electoral district)|Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte]]
|
|[[Doug Downey]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Doug Downey]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound (provincial electoral district)|Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound]]
|
|[[Bill Walker (Canadian politician)|Bill Walker]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Bill Walker
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock (provincial electoral district)|Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock]]
|
|[[Laurie Scott (politician)|Laurie Scott]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Laurie Scott
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Northumberland—Peterborough South (provincial electoral district)|Northumberland—Peterborough South]]
|
|[[David Piccini]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[David Piccini]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Peterborough (provincial electoral district)|Peterborough—Kawartha]]
|
|[[Dave Smith (politician)|Dave Smith]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Dave Smith (politician)|Dave Smith]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Simcoe—Grey (provincial electoral district)|Simcoe—Grey]]
|
|''[[Stella Ambler]]''<ref name="SGPC">{{cite news |last1=Adams |first1=Ian |title=Candidates line up to replace Simcoe-Grey's Jim Wilson |url=https://www.simcoe.com/news-story/10313002-candidates-line-up-to-replace-simcoe-grey-s-jim-wilson/ |access-date=21 January 2021 |work=Collingwood Connection |publisher=simcoe.com |date=20 January 2021}}</ref> or ''Brian Saunderson''<ref name="SGPC"></ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Ind|background}}|
|Jim Wilson ◊
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Simcoe North (provincial electoral district)|Simcoe North]]
|
|[[Jill Dunlop]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Jill Dunlop]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[York—Simcoe (provincial electoral district)|York—Simcoe]]
|
|[[Caroline Mulroney]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Caroline Mulroney]]
|}

===905 Belt===
====Durham====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Ajax (provincial electoral district)|Ajax]]
|
| [[Rod Phillips (politician)|Rod Phillips]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
| Rod Phillips
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Durham (provincial electoral district)|Durham]]
|
| [[Lindsey Park]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
| Lindsey Park
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Oshawa (provincial electoral district)|Oshawa]]
|
|
|
|[[Jennifer French (politician)|Jennifer French]]<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/oshawa-nomination</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
| [[Jennifer French (politician)|Jennifer French]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Pickering—Uxbridge (provincial electoral district)|Pickering—Uxbridge]]
|
| [[Peter Bethlenfalvy]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
| Peter Bethlenfalvy
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Whitby (provincial electoral district)|Whitby]]
|
| [[Lorne Coe]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
| Lorne Coe
|}

====Peel====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Brampton Centre (provincial electoral district)|Brampton Centre]]
|
|
|
|
|
|Safdar Hussain
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Sara Singh
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Brampton East (provincial electoral district)|Brampton East]]
|
|
|
|[[Gurratan Singh]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1337475696919252992 |date=December 11, 2020 |title=Congratulations to @GurratanSingh who's been officially nominated for reelection in Brampton East! https://t.co/eo7OyUQMZu |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Gurratan Singh
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Brampton North (provincial electoral district)|Brampton North]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Harinder Malhi]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Kevin Yarde
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Brampton South (provincial electoral district)|Brampton South]]
|
|[[Prabmeet Sarkaria]]
|
|
|
|Marilyn Raphael<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario Liberal Party {{! }} Parti Libéral de l'Ontario |user=OntLiberal |number=1339601562545528838 |date=December 17, 2020 |title=Marilyn Raphael, an accomplished leader at an asset management firm, has a track record of promoting BIPOC talent and more diverse leadership teams at some of Canada’s largest companies, and she will support us in recruiting the most diverse slate of candidates in our history. 2/ https://t.co/ZYYzqEDDHf |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Prabmeet Sarkaria
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Brampton West (provincial electoral district)|Brampton West]]
|
|[[Amarjot Sandhu]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Amarjot Sandhu
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Dufferin—Caledon (provincial electoral district)|Dufferin—Caledon]]
|
|[[Sylvia Jones]]
|
|
|
|
|
|Laura Campbell<ref>https://gpo.ca/find-candidate/</ref>
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Sylvia Jones
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Mississauga Centre (provincial electoral district)|Mississauga Centre]]
|
|[[Natalia Kusendova]]
|
|
|
|Sumira Malik
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Natalia Kusendova
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Mississauga East—Cooksville (provincial electoral district)|Mississauga East—Cooksville]]
|
|[[Kaleed Rasheed]]
|
|
|
|[[Dipika Damerla]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Kaleed Rasheed
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Mississauga—Erin Mills (provincial electoral district)|Mississauga—Erin Mills]]
|
|[[Sheref Sabawy]]
|
|
|
|Imran Mian
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Sheref Sabawy
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Mississauga—Lakeshore (provincial electoral district)|Mississauga—Lakeshore]]
|
|[[Rudy Cuzzetto]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Rudy Cuzzetto
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Mississauga—Malton (provincial electoral district)|Mississauga—Malton]]
|
|[[Deepak Anand]]
|
|
|
|Aman Gill
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Deepak Anand
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Mississauga—Streetsville (provincial electoral district)|Mississauga—Streetsville]]
|
|[[Nina Tangri]]
|
|
|
|Jill Promoli<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario Liberal Party {{! }} Parti Libéral de l'Ontario |user=OntLiberal |number=1339601566915969029 |date=December 17, 2020 |title=Jill Promoli is a passionate advocate for public vaccination, and she will be a key voice in Ontario Liberal calls for widespread and fair access to the COVID-19 vaccine for Ontarians from all walks of life. 3/3 https://t.co/HPpLz9XKIV |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Nina Tangri
|}

====York====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill (provincial electoral district)|Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill]]
|
|[[Michael Parsa]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Michael Parsa]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[King—Vaughan (provincial electoral district)|King—Vaughan]]
|
|[[Stephen Lecce]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Stephen Lecce
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Markham—Stouffville (provincial electoral district)|Markham—Stouffville]]
|
|[[Paul Calandra]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Paul Calandra
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Markham—Thornhill (provincial electoral district)|Markham—Thornhill]]
|
|[[Logan Kanapathi]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Logan Kanapathi
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Markham—Unionville (provincial electoral district)|Markham—Unionville]]
|
|[[Billy Pang]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Billy Pang
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Newmarket—Aurora (provincial electoral district)|Newmarket—Aurora]]
|
|[[Christine Elliott]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Christine Elliott
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Richmond Hill (provincial electoral district)|Richmond Hill]]
|
|[[Daisy Wai]]
|
|
|
|''Roozbeh Farhadi''<ref>{{cite tweet |last=Farhadi |first=Roozbeh |user=_Roozbeh |number=1318612949792137217 |date=October 20, 2020 |title=Excited to announce I am seeking the @OntLiberal nomination in #RichmondHill! Find out more by going to https://t.co/QadBgAtJml. #onpoli https://t.co/yysoDI9aPn |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Daisy Wai
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Thornhill (provincial electoral district)|Thornhill]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Gila Martow]] ◊
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Vaughan—Woodbridge (provincial electoral district)|Vaughan—Woodbridge]]
|
|[[Michael Tibollo]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Michael Tibollo
|}

===Toronto===
====Scarborough====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Scarborough—Agincourt (provincial electoral district)|Scarborough—Agincourt]]
|
|[[Aris Babikian]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Aris Babikian
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Scarborough Centre (provincial electoral district)|Scarborough Centre]]
|
|[[Christina Mitas]]
|
|''D. Tyler Robinson''<ref>https://www.dtylerrobinson.ca/</ref>
|
|Mazhar Shafiq
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Christina Mitas
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Scarborough—Guildwood (provincial electoral district)|Scarborough—Guildwood]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Mitzie Hunter]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|Mitzie Hunter
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Scarborough North (provincial electoral district)|Scarborough North]]
|
|[[Raymond Cho (politician)|Raymond Cho]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
| Raymond Cho
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Scarborough—Rouge Park (provincial electoral district)|Scarborough—Rouge Park]]
|
|[[Vijay Thanigasalam]]
|
|Felicia Samuel<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1340800556881874945 |date=December 20, 2020 |title=Congratulations to @feliciansamuel, who today was nominated as our candidate for Scarborough-Rouge Park! https://t.co/Ud7rpGMqVH |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Vijay Thanigasalam
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Scarborough Southwest (provincial electoral district)|Scarborough Southwest]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Doly Begum
|}

====North York====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Don Valley East (provincial electoral district)|Don Valley East]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Michael Coteau]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|Michael Coteau
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Don Valley North (provincial electoral district)|Don Valley North]]
|
|[[Vincent Ke]]
|
|
|
|[[Jonathan Tsao]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Vincent Ke
|-
|style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Don Valley West (provincial electoral district)|Don Valley West]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|[[Kathleen Wynne]] ◊
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Eglinton—Lawrence (provincial electoral district)|Eglinton—Lawrence]]
|
|[[Robin Martin]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Robin Martin
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Willowdale (provincial electoral district)|Willowdale]]
|
|[[Stan Cho]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Stan Cho
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[York Centre (provincial electoral district)|York Centre]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Ind|background}}|
|Roman Baber
|}

====Central Toronto and East York====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Beaches—East York (provincial electoral district)|Beaches—East York]]
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Mary-Margaret McMahon]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario Liberal Party {{! }} Parti Libéral de l'Ontario |user=OntLiberal |number=1330324199064350722 |date=November 21, 2020 |title=.@marymargaretbey is a two-term Toronto City Councillor and environmental champion. We’re happy to announce that Mary-Margaret is officially your @OntLiberal 2022 candidate for Beaches-East York: https://t.co/6abrOlgXq2! #onpoli https://t.co/SwP4qiGdVX |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
| Abhijeet Manay <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Green Party of Ontario |user=OntarioGreens |number=1384667174191738881 |date=April 20, 2021 |title=The Green Party of Ontario is proud to announce that @AbhijeetMonet has been nominated as our candidate for the Beaches-East York riding ahead of the 2022 provincial election! Learn more about Abhijeet here 👇 #onpoli #GoGreen https://t.co/WeKkgJcp72 |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422001947/https://twitter.com/OntarioGreens/status/1384667174191738881 |archive-date=April 22, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Rima Berns-McGown
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Davenport (provincial electoral district)|Davenport]]
|
|
|
|[[Marit Stiles]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1332789612134113281 |date=November 28, 2020 |title=Congratulations to @maritstiles who is seeking reelection! https://t.co/HUakg3Qb6U |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Marit Stiles
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Parkdale—High Park (provincial electoral district)|Parkdale—High Park]]
|
|
|
|[[Bhutila Karpoche]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Bhutila Karpoche
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Spadina—Fort York (provincial electoral district)|Spadina—Fort York]]
|
|
|
|[[Chris Glover]]<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/SpaFY-nomination</ref>
|
|''Chi Nguyen''<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Chi Nguyen |user=RunChiNguyenRun |number=1364245682060746752 |date=February 23, 2021 |title=Hello new folks, and thanks for the follow! Let me re-introduce myself... I'm running to be the Ontario Liberal candidate for Spadina-Fort York. https://t.co/hL4XQi7sYN |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418004559/https://twitter.com/RunChiNguyenRun/status/1364245682060746752 |archive-date=April 18, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Chris Glover
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Toronto Centre (provincial electoral district)|Toronto Centre]]
|
|
|
|[[Suze Morrison]]
|
|David Morris
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Suze Morrison
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Toronto—Danforth (provincial electoral district)|Toronto—Danforth]]
|
|
|
|[[Peter Tabuns]]<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/TorDan-nomination</ref>
|
|[[Mary Fragedakis]]
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Peter Tabuns
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[St. Paul's (provincial electoral district)|Toronto—St. Paul's]]
|
|
|
|[[Jill Andrew]]<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/TSP-nomination</ref>
|
|
|
|Ian Lipton<ref>https://www.stpaulsgreens.ca/ianlipton</ref>
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Jill Andrew
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[University—Rosedale (provincial electoral district)|University—Rosedale]]
|
|
|
|[[Jessica Bell]]
|
|
|
|[[Dianne Saxe]]<ref>https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/11/13/news/former-environmental-commissioner-dianne-saxe-running-ontario-greens</ref>
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Jessica Bell
|}

====Etobicoke and York====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Etobicoke Centre (provincial electoral district)|Etobicoke Centre]]
|
|[[Kinga Surma]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Kinga Surma
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Etobicoke—Lakeshore (provincial electoral district)|Etobicoke—Lakeshore]]
|
|[[Christine Hogarth]]
|
|''Bri Gardner''<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Bri Gardner |user=brigardner23 |number=1383858579094999041 |date=April 18, 2021 |title=In the wake of all of the reckless and chaotic decisions the Ontario government has made this weekend, I have some exciting news to share. I’m planning to seek the nomination to be the Ontario NDP candidate in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. #EtobicokeLakeshore #VoteFordOut2022 |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418190320/https://twitter.com/brigardner23/status/1383858579094999041 |archive-date=April 18, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> or ''Jason Baryluk''<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Jason Baryluk 🍊 |user=JasonBaryluk |number=1375219907135160321 |date=March 25, 2021 |title=Ontario deserves better. That's why I'm seeking the nomination to be your Ontario NDP Candidate for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Help is on the way. #LongBranchTO #EtobicokeLakeshore #Etobicoke #EtobTO #onpoli #votefordout2022 https://t.co/9h0ujpHsqH |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507053431/https://twitter.com/JasonBaryluk/status/1375219907135160321 |archive-date=May 7, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Christine Hogarth
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Etobicoke North (provincial electoral district)|Etobicoke North]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|'''[[Doug Ford]]'''
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[York West (provincial electoral district)|Humber River—Black Creek]]
|
|
|
|[[Tom Rakocevic]]<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/HRBC-nomination</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Tom Rakocevic
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[York South—Weston (provincial electoral district)|York South—Weston]]
|
|
|
|[[Faisal Hassan]]
|
|Nadia Guerrera
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Faisal Hassan
|}

===Hamilton, Halton and Niagara===
====Halton====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Burlington (provincial electoral district)|Burlington]]
|
|Jane McKenna
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Jane McKenna
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Milton (provincial electoral district)|Milton]]
|
|Parm Gill
|
|
|
|Sameera Ali<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario Liberal Party {{! }} Parti Libéral de l'Ontario |user=OntLiberal |number=1321980589495517186 |date=October 29, 2020 |title=.@SameeraAli is a Milton Town Councillor and a dedicated community volunteer. We’re happy to announce that Sameera is officially your @OntLiberal 2022 candidate for Milton: https://t.co/rwV2NkTLIs! #onpoli https://t.co/UrNMTdOfQy |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Parm Gill
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Oakville (provincial electoral district)|Oakville]]
|
|Stephen Crawford
|
|
|
|Alison Gohel<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario Liberal Party {{! }} Parti Libéral de l'Ontario |user=OntLiberal |number=1325252150033788935 |date=November 7, 2020 |title=.@AlisonGohel is a first-generation Canadian and a manager with a multinational professional services firm. We’re happy to announce that Alison is officially your @OntLiberal 2022 candidate for Oakville: https://t.co/ndIoilOVQN! #onpoli https://t.co/7U66d2xCVA |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Stephen Crawford
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Oakville North—Burlington (provincial electoral district)|Oakville North—Burlington]]
|
|[[Effie Triantafilopoulos]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Effie Triantafilopoulos
|}

====Hamilton====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Flamborough—Glanbrook (provincial electoral district)|Flamborough—Glanbrook]]
|
|Donna Skelly
|
|Allison Cillis<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/FlamGlan-nomination</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Donna Skelly]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Hamilton Centre (provincial electoral district)|Hamilton Centre]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|'''[[Andrea Horwath]]'''
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Hamilton East—Stoney Creek (provincial electoral district)|Hamilton East—Stoney Creek]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Paul Miller
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Hamilton Mountain (provincial electoral district)|Hamilton Mountain]]
|
|
|
|[[Monique Taylor]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1373726106365362177 |date=March 21, 2021 |title=Hamilton Mountain has officially nominated @MTaylorNDP for re-election. Congratulations, Monique! #onpoli #HamOnt https://t.co/51IUsZUCP5 |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507052534/https://twitter.com/OntarioNDP/status/1373726106365362177 |archive-date=May 7, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Monique Taylor]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas (provincial electoral district)|Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas]]
|
|Fred Bennink <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Stephen Lecce |user=Sflecce |number=1367635069528121346 |date=March 4, 2021 |title=Proud to join my friend @SkellyHamilton to congratulate @BenninkFred on his nomination as the @OntarioPCParty candidate & next MPP for #Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas! Under @fordnation, we are focused on protecting our people & jobs, & driving Ontario’s economic recovery. https://t.co/WX1dwLDcTc |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305003637/https://twitter.com/Sflecce/status/1367635069528121346 |archive-date=March 5, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|[[Sandy Shaw (politician)|Sandy Shaw]]<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/hwad-nomination</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Sandy Shaw (politician)|Sandy Shaw]]
|}

====Niagara====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Niagara Centre (provincial electoral district)|Niagara Centre]]
|
|Bob Gale <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario PC Party |user=OntarioPCParty |number=1372716948291612674 |date=March 18, 2021 |title=We are proud to have strong candidates like Bob Gale as part of our PC team! Congratulations on being nominated as our candidate for Niagara Falls in the next provincial election. |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210319011010/https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1372716948291612674 |archive-date=March 19, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|[[Jeff Burch]]<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/niagara-centre-nomination-meeting</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Jeff Burch]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Niagara Falls (provincial electoral district)|Niagara Falls]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Wayne Gates]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Niagara West (provincial electoral district)|Niagara West]]
|
|Sam Oosterhoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Sam Oosterhoff]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[St. Catharines (provincial electoral district)|St. Catharines]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Jennie Stevens]]
|}

===Midwestern Ontario===
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Brantford—Brant (provincial electoral district)|Brantford—Brant]]
|
|[[Will Bouma]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Will Bouma]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Cambridge (provincial electoral district)|Cambridge]]
|
|
|
|Marjorie Knight<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1339262137378746370 |date=December 16, 2020 |title=Congratulations to Marjorie Knight, who is officially running as our NDP candidate in Cambridge! https://t.co/nKSFUg8UOq |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|New Blue|background}}|
|[[Belinda Karahalios]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Guelph (provincial electoral district)|Guelph]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|[[Mike Schreiner]] <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Green Party of Ontario |user=OntarioGreens |number=1379587436167172096 |date=April 6, 2021 |title=GPO is proud to announce that @MikeSchreiner has been officially nominated as the Guelph candidate for 2022! 💚 👇 Read & share to show your support! #onpoli https://t.co/MS0xtPADqC |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422003351/https://twitter.com/OntarioGreens/status/1379587436167172096 |archive-date=April 22, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Green|background}}|
|'''[[Mike Schreiner]]'''
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Haldimand—Norfolk (provincial electoral district)|Haldimand—Norfolk]]
|
|Toby Barrett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Toby Barrett]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Huron—Bruce (provincial electoral district)|Huron—Bruce]]
|
|[[Lisa Thompson (politician)|Lisa Thompson]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Lisa Thompson
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Kitchener Centre (provincial electoral district)|Kitchener Centre]]
|
|
|
|[[Laura Mae Lindo]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Kitchener Centre NDP🍞🌹 |user=KitCentreNDP |number=1338254122487779328 |date=December 13, 2020 |title=We're thankful for everyone who joined us this afternoon to nominate @LauraMaeLindo as the candidate for re-election in Kitchener Centre! #VoteFordOut2022 #votendp |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Laura Mae Lindo]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Kitchener—Conestoga (provincial electoral district)|Kitchener—Conestoga]]
|
|[[Mike Harris Jr.]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Mike Harris Jr.]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Kitchener South—Hespeler (provincial electoral district)|Kitchener South—Hespeler]]
|
|[[Amy Fee]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Amy Fee]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Oxford (provincial electoral district)|Oxford]]
|
|Ernie Hardeman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Ernie Hardeman]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Perth—Wellington (provincial electoral district)|Perth—Wellington]]
|
|Randy Pettapiece
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Randy Pettapiece]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Waterloo (provincial electoral district)|Waterloo]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Catherine Fife]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Wellington—Halton Hills (provincial electoral district)|Wellington—Halton Hills]]
|
|[[Ted Arnott]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Ted Arnott]]
|}

===Southwestern Ontario===
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Chatham-Kent—Leamington (provincial electoral district)|Chatham-Kent—Leamington]]
|
|[[Rick Nicholls]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Rick Nicholls]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Elgin—Middlesex—London (provincial electoral district)|Elgin—Middlesex—London]]
|
|[[Jeff Yurek]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Jeff Yurek]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Essex (provincial electoral district)|Essex]]
|
|Anthony Leardi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Taras Natyshak]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Lambton—Kent—Middlesex (provincial electoral district)|Lambton—Kent—Middlesex]]
|
|[[Monte McNaughton]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Monte McNaughton]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[London—Fanshawe (provincial electoral district)|London—Fanshawe]]
|
|
|
|[[Teresa Armstrong]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Teresa Armstrong
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[London North Centre (provincial electoral district)|London North Centre]]
|
|Jerry Pribil <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario PC Party |user=OntarioPCParty |number=1367279110825775104 |date=March 3, 2021 |title=We would like to congratulate Jerry Pribil for being acclaimed as our PC candidate for the great riding of London North Centre in the next provincial election! If elected, Jerry will help deliver positive change for the riding. |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304010335/https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1367279110825775104 |archive-date=March 4, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|[[Terence Kernaghan]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1337865810677657600 |date=December 12, 2020 |title=London North Centre has just nominated @kernaghant for reelection, congrats Terence! https://t.co/BY8HhLgpgQ |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|Kate Graham
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|Terence Kernaghan
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[London West (provincial electoral district)|London West]]
|
|
|
|[[Peggy Sattler]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1338228450495262720 |date=December 13, 2020 |title=A sincere congratulations to @PeggySattlerNDP who's officially been nominated for reelection! https://t.co/xjucGa7dVW |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Peggy Sattler]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Sarnia—Lambton (provincial electoral district)|Sarnia—Lambton]]
|
|[[Bob Bailey (politician)|Bob Bailey]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|Bob Bailey
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Windsor—Tecumseh (provincial electoral district)|Windsor—Tecumseh]]
|
|Andrew Dowie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Percy Hatfield]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Windsor West (provincial electoral district)|Windsor West]]
|
|John Leontowicz <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario PC Party |user=OntarioPCParty |number=1372700113928265728 |date=March 18, 2021 |title=Congratulations to John Leontowicz for being acclaimed as our PC candidate for the great riding of Windsor West in the next provincial election! If elected, John will help deliver positive change for the riding & ensure the community’s concerns are part of the provincial agenda. |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210319000318/https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1372700113928265728 |archive-date=March 19, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|Lisa Gretzky<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/ww-nomination</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Lisa Gretzky]]
|}

===Northern Ontario===
====Northeastern Ontario====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Algoma—Manitoulin (provincial electoral district)|Algoma—Manitoulin]]
|
|
|
|
|
|Tim Vine
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Michael Mantha]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Mushkegowuk—James Bay]]
|
|
|
|[[Guy Bourgouin]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1340371322942140419 |date=December 19, 2020 |title=Félicitations Guy Bourgouin, qui se présente à titre de candidat pour réélection dans Mushkegowuk James Bay! https://t.co/lCste2o76X |language=fr |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Guy Bourgouin]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Nickel Belt (provincial electoral district)|Nickel Belt]]
|
|Randy Hazlett <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario PC Party |user=OntarioPCParty |number=1367629725498183681 |date=March 4, 2021 |title=Congratulations to Randy Hazlett on being nominated as our PC candidate for Nickel Belt in the next provincial election! As your representative in Government, Randy would work hard to ensure the needs of his community are a top priority. |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305001517/https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1367629725498183681 |archive-date=March 5, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[France Gélinas]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Nipissing (provincial electoral district)|Nipissing]]
|
|[[Vic Fedeli]]
|
|Erika Lougheed<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1335276750553706498 |date=December 5, 2020 |title=Erika is our first non-incumbent candidate to be officially nominated for the next election! She will be a fierce representative for Nipissing at Queen's Park. https://t.co/utvPyUFJ8j |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Vic Fedeli]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Parry Sound—Muskoka (provincial electoral district)|Parry Sound—Muskoka]]
|
|Norm Miller
|
|
|
|
|
|Matt Richter<ref>https://gpo.ca/2020/11/29/matt-richter-nominated-as-green-party-candidate-for-parry-sound-muskoka/</ref>
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Norm Miller]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Sault Ste. Marie (provincial electoral district)|Sault Ste. Marie]]
|
|Ross Romano
|
|Michele McCleave-Kennedy<ref>https://www.ontariondp.ca/sault-ste-marie-nomination-meeting</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Ross Romano]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Sudbury (provincial electoral district)|Sudbury]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Jamie West]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Timiskaming—Cochrane (provincial electoral district)|Timiskaming—Cochrane]]
|
|
|
|[[John Vanthof]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1339749220811567104 |date=December 17, 2020 |title=Timiskaming Cochrane has officially nominated @john_vanthof for reelection. Congratulations John! https://t.co/rOregzvQwN |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[John Vanthof]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Timmins (provincial electoral district)|Timmins]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Gilles Bisson]]
|}

====Northwestern Ontario====
{{Canadian politics/candlist header|province=ON|PC|NDP|Liberal|Green|Other}}
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Kenora—Rainy River (provincial electoral district)|Kenora—Rainy River]]
|
|Greg Rickford
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|PC|background}}|
|[[Greg Rickford]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Kiiwetinoong]]
|
|
|
|[[Sol Mamakwa]]<ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario NDP |user=OntarioNDP |number=1340107330667495425 |date=December 18, 2020 |title=.@solmamakwa has been a tremendous advocate for Kiiwetinoong this term. So we are glad to announce that he is officially running for reelection. https://t.co/ijngVJzgPB |language=en |access-date=December 24, 2020}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Sol Mamakwa]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Thunder Bay—Atikokan (provincial electoral district)|Thunder Bay—Atikokan]]
|
|Maureen Comuzzi <ref>{{cite tweet |author=Ontario PC Party |user=OntarioPCParty |number=1372349632190189571 |date=March 17, 2021 |title=Congratulations to Maureen Comuzzi on being nominated as our candidate for Thunder Bay–Atikokan in the next election! If elected, Maureen will be a great local representative and will ensure the community’s needs are a top priority. https://t.co/dkckbi8eRr |language=en |access-date=May 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318005242/https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1372349632190189571 |archive-date=March 18, 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|NDP|background}}|
|[[Judith Monteith-Farrell]]
|-
| style="background:whitesmoke;"|[[Thunder Bay—Superior North (provincial electoral district)|Thunder Bay—Superior North]]
|
|Peng You Peng <ref>https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/peng-yu-to-run-for-conservatives-in-tb-superior-north-3369062</ref>
|
|''Lise Vaugeois''<ref>https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/wakefield-joins-ndp-race-in-tb-superior-north-3449259</ref> or ''Joy Wakefield''<ref>https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/wakefield-joins-ndp-race-in-tb-superior-north-3449259</ref>
|
|[[Michael Gravelle]] <ref>{{cite news |last1=Dunick |first1=Leith |title=Gravelle says he'll run again |url=https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/gravelle-says-hell-run-again-3551283 |access-date=22 March 2021 |agency=[[Dougall Media|TBNewsWatch]]}}</ref>
|
|
|
|
|{{Canadian party colour|ON|Liberal|background}}|
|[[Michael Gravelle]]
|}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Politics of Ontario]]
[[Category:Future elections in Canada]]
[[Category:2020s elections in Canada]]

Talk:Climate change

2021-03-10T15:49:31Z

204.237.51.103: /* Slideshow not working */ new section

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=cc|style=long}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
|action1date=2006-02-28, 13:19:19
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Global warming/archive1
|action1oldid=41603101

|action2=FAC
|action2date=2006-05-17, 03:21:25
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Global warming
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=53624868

|action3=FAR
|action3date=08:35, 4 May 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Global warming/archive1
|action3result=kept
|action3oldid=127907108

|action4=PR
|action4date=26 March 2020
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Global warming/archive2
|action4results=reviewed
|action4oldid = 947380073

|action5 = FAR
|action5date = 2021-01-21
|action5link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Climate change/archive1
|action5result = kept
|action5oldid = 1001723859

|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=June 21, 2006
|itn1date=5 March 2004
|itn2date=11 October 2018
}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=yes}}
{{WikiProject Banner Shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Antarctica|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Arctic|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Environment|class=FA|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|class=FA|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Geography|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Meteorology|class=FA|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Geology|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Globalization|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sanitation|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Science Policy|class=FA|importance=High}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Geography|coresup=yes|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Science|class=FA}}
}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{tmbox
| image = [[File:ref.svg|44px]]
| text = This page has [[Talk:Global_warming/Citation standards|agreed on a consistent citation style]]. Please follow those standards when adding sources. Ask on the talk page if you need help or have questions.
}}
{{Old moves
|title1=Global warming|title2=Climate change
|list=
*RM, Global warming → Climate change, '''Not moved''', 11 June 2018, [[/Archive_74#Requested_move_3_June_2018|discussion]]
*RM, Global warming → Climate change, ''Moved'', 21 August 2020, [[/Archive 83#Requested_move_3_August_2020|discussion]]
}}
{{top 25 report|October 27, 2013|until|November 17, 2013}}
{{external peer review|date=April 30, 2007|org=The Denver Post|comment="a great primer on the subject", "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen", pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.", wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. Please [[Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post|examine the findings]].}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Press
|author=Sarah McBroom
|title=Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right
|org=[[Scripps Howard News Service]]
|url=http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/20601
|date=March 27, 2007

|author2=Michael Booth
|title2=Grading Wikipedia
|org2=[[The Denver Post]]
|url2=http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064
|date2=April 30, 2007

|title3=Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed
|org3=[[BBC News]]
|url3=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
|date3=July 18, 2013

|date4=August 15, 2015
|url4=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150814145711.htm
|title4=On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage
|org4=''[[Science Daily]]''
|author4=[[Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies]]
|collapsed=yes

|date5=November 11, 2020
|url5= https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-wikipedia/
|title5 = The guardians of Wikipedia's climate page: An intensely devoted core keeps a bastion of climate science honest
|org5 = [[Mashable]]
}}
}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Climate change/Archive index|mask=Talk:Climate change/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 85
|minthreadsleft = 8
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = Talk:Climate change/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|image=|auto=short|index=/Archive index|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=21|1=<div style="text-align:center">[[/Terminology section]] [[/General discussion]]</div>}}

== Edits in the lead; impacts ==

{{u|Bogazicili}} has made some bold comments in the lede. In the past, we agreed that significant changes in the lead should always go via talk first, to make sure there aren't any mistakes. I think the edits were fine overall, but there are a couple of remarks I'd like to make.
* We now mention agriculture twice; the old cite doesn't quite cover the entire preceding sentence, so I propose we refocus that sentence only on extreme weather, with a new cite.
**{{done}}. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 10:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
* The lead now talks about future warming when discussing impacts. If I recall right, we have agreed that for conciseness, we should group current and future impacts together. Furthermore, the framing of climate change as a future thing has been largely fallen out of favour.
** {{done}}
* I have a great distaste of midsentence cites. They frustrate readability. In the past I have compromised on having citations in the lead at all, but we should still try to keep them to minimum and only use them if necessary for controversial statements.
* When we have the adaptation section up and running, we should put migration there, as framing it as being caused by climate change is somewhat controversial.
* We should follow the sentence order reflecting the article. Physical effects first, then ecosystems, then humans. Currently there is no logic, and the article starts and ends with physical effects, underplaying the human impacts (the first and the last sentence of the paragraph draw the most eyes).
**{{done}}
* I've also removed the feedbacks from the impacts paragraph, as they got disproportiate attention in the lede compared to the article, as are already discussed in the drivers paragraph. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 10:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
**{{done}}
* We should leave out the more speculative effects, to make the sentence more manageable. Specifically, armed conflict, which is considered to be barely affected by climate change up to the present. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 10:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Re: mid-sentence cites: the other alternative is like having 15 sources at the end of the sentence which is not nice I think, and makes it harder for readers to verify claims. I just tried to come up with a summary sentence that covers multiple topics.
:::Re: "more speculative effects": There's an entire chapter here for armed conflict (Chapter 12 [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability]). Eg:
::::"Some of the factors that increase the risk of violent conflict within states are sensitive to climate change (medium evidence,medium agreement)."
::::"Climate change will lead to new challenges to states and will increasingly shape both conditions of security and national security policies (medium evidence, medium agreement)."
:::Given above, I don't think 5 words in the lead is undue ("increasing risk of armed conflict"), especially considering the sentence starts with "Warming '''may''' also cause"
:::Re: migration: we can try to find more secondary sources, and see what fits best.
:::Good call with paragraph reorganization (reflecting order of the article), I was going to do the same.[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: That section (12.5 is about armed conflict, not the entire chapter) was written before a review-type article showed systematic errors in this type of research: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0068-2. We should (and do) use review-type articles that came out afterwards, showing weakened support for the armed conflict-climate change link. If others do show support, I'm okay with having it re-inserted. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 14:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::It seems to be categorized under "Letters". Doesn't look like a secondary source. Please find up-to-date secondary sources if you want to go against IPCC. Even then we'll have to be neutral.[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::: Basically all articles in Nature (Climate Change) are letters, they just have a weird name for it. It does review other articles, like the 100% article we talked about earlier: it's a systematic review. We don't use this directly even, but use a paper that came out afterwards, which is an expert elicitation, a method also used by IPCC. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, we'll look at other secondary sources and see what happens (along with migration). [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

The ordering of sentences is now somewhat disjointed, and conflates present and future impacts. Like Femke, I suggest that the citations be combined into a grouped citation at the end of the a given sentence. I also want to reinforce Femke’s point about the importance of proposing language here before it is posted, particularly with changes to the lede paragraphs. Right now it is difficult enough to address changes that have been suggested in the FAR review page, such as modifying the adaptation section, without having to also monitor and respond to significant changes in the article that are not vetted here first. Significant edits to the lede that have not been posted here first should be reverted.

I propose this text for the paragraph. I put the tipping point sentence further down, to better focus the statements on ecosystem and human health impacts. I also made some other changes to clarify existing and future effects. Lastly, I put the sentence on climate inertia at the end of the paragraph, where it originally was, as it is more of a parenthetical idea in the context of this paragraph.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Because land surfaces heat faster than ocean surfaces, deserts are expanding and heat waves and wildfires are more common. Temperature rise is amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost and the retreat of glaciers and sea ice. Increasing rates of evaporation cause more intense storms and weather extremes, damaging infrastructure and causing a variety of ecosystem and human health impacts. <s>Temperature rise is amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost and the retreat of glaciers and sea ice. Additional warming also increases risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.</s> Impacts on ecosystems include the relocation or extinction of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic. Human health impacts include: undernutrition from reduced agricultural yields; declines in fish stocks; and increases in infectious disease. Further <s>W</s> warming may also cause <s>reduced crop yields, declining fish stocks,</s> potentially severe economic impacts, increased global economic inequality, increasing number of people living in an uninhabitable climate, and <s>environmental</s> large scale human migration. Current and anticipated effects from undernutrition, heat stress and disease alone have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.
|}
Just converted the above proposed edit to underline/strikeout format per Femke's suggestion below.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

:You are repeating some of the things like undernutrition (agricultural yields and WHO declaration). The order doesn't follow the article layout (physical changes, ecosystems, humans). You are going back to physical effects after humans (which I find is less organized). Did you delete anything or is it just reordering? I find the format of these talk pages discussions difficult to follow without something like Microsoft Word track changes. I like the part "Human health impacts include", could be "human impacts include." We also need "physical impacts include" so we know where that part starts and ends (it starts at the beginning). But I'm also fine with the current version.
:This is more organized to me, following article structure: "Physical impacts include.....Ecosystem impacts include....Impacts on humans include...." [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:''I am ok with changing the start of The WHO sentence to a more generic "Current and anticipated human health effects" as a way of addressing your first concern. I think if you read the paragraph carefully you will see that it does generally follow the 1)physical, 2)ecosystem, 3)human order in the main part of the article. Adhering to a more rigid "Physical impacts include.....Ecosystem impacts include....Impacts on humans include...." approach seems to me to lead to a boring writing style. Agree about the need to do things in track change type formatting. Hope you can follow the underline/strikeout approach I switched to.''[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::* (edit conflict) I'm okay with reverting to old version, or boldly changing as is. There are improvements to old text. For future; and from now on, let's keep to talk first. We track changes using strike-through and underlining (see adaptation). [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::* I didn't understand the sentence order before, it seemed really jambled, but I see it's about the distinction of (current + future) and (potential future). There are some problems with that, as that a continuously changing and grey distinction. This proposal wrongly implies that climate change hasn't yet increased inequality, and that there haven't been an increasing number of people living in an uninhabitable climate. Tipping points, for instance in Greenland, may have been passed already (current wording only slightly implies they haven't).
:::''I think it is crucial that we try to make a distinction between current and future impacts, even if we do it imperfectly. It's important for the reader to understand how much impacts have already occurred (just like we describe how much warming has already occurred). The current lede paragraph (and some the the main article text) confuses this important concept. I agree that we could describe inequality and uninhabitability in present terms, and then briefly mention that these will be exacerbated in the future. I did not change the wording in the tipping point sentence,but agree that it should also recognize already identified tipping points.''[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::* Don't have an opinion, but why single out infectuous disease? Vector-borne seems the more important one?
:::''Good point - vector borne is the correct way to say this.''[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::* We cite our migration number guesstimates to outdated source, so prefer Bogazicili's wording, as temporary before we have adaptation up. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::''Sorry, don't understand this comment''.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

::::I should also say each subsection discusses both current and future/potential impacts. The article doesn't have a section for current effects and a different section for future effects and a different section for potential impacts. The lead should summarize the article, and not follow a different structure, that's confusing. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::::''I think that's an argument for making that distinction in the article, not removing it from the lede. I had tried to do that in my earlier rewrite of the Humans subsection.''[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::::: The reason that idea didn't gain consensus last time it was proposed was (a) that would lead to repetitive prose, as most impacts have been felt already to some extent (b) English has the present perfect tense, which covers both past and present (and by logical extension often the future), so we can elegantly combine past and future changes. Because it didn't gain consensus for the body, we shouldn't change to that ordering in the lead. Of course, consensus can change, but there's so many discussions were having currently that I'm overwhelmed. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{u|Bogazicili}} and {{u|Femkemilene|Femke}}, I made some further revisions to the paragraph to try and address your comments. I also added AR5WGII Ch 10 to the sentence on temperature rise, and eliminated a couple of references in the human impacts sentence, such as SRCCL Ch5, as I think the amount of referencing for this lede sentence is way overdone. I also moved all of these human impacts references to the end of the sentence, where they would exist as a combined citation in the actual article. Please let me know if you still have concerns with this proposal. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 05:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Because land surfaces heat faster than ocean surfaces, deserts are expanding and heat waves and wildfires are more common[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf]. Temperature rise is amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost and the retreat of glaciers and sea ice.[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf] Increasing rates of evaporation cause more intense storms and weather extremes, damaging infrastructure and causing a variety of ecosystem and human health impacts [https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/] [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FINAL.pdf]. <s>Temperature rise is amplified in the Arctic, where it has contributed to melting permafrost and the retreat of glaciers and sea ice. Additional warming also increases risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.</s> Impacts on ecosystems include the relocation or extinction of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic.[[https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-ecosystems_.html#Extinction] Human impacts include undernutrition from reduced crop yields, declines in fish stocks, increases in vector borne disease, <s>Warming may also cause reduced crop yields, declining fish stocks</s>, potentially severe economic impacts, increased global economic inequality, an increasing number of people living in <s>an</s> uninhabitable climate zones, and large scale human <s>environmental</s> migration[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584412/] [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf]. [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf] [https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-missing-economic-risks-in-assessments-of-climate-change-impacts-2.pdf] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6525504/] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40572-020-00291-4] [https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/mrs-31_en.pdf] Effects such as these <s>Current and anticipated effects from undernutrition, heat stress and disease</s> have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[https://www.who.int/globalchange/global-campaign/cop21/en/] Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.
|}

* I really don't like it if we split glacial melt from sea level rise. By starting and ending the paragraph with physical effects, readers that skim the text may get the impression this entire paragraph is about physical effects.
:: ''Completely confused by this comment. This wording is the exact same that’s currently in the article, which I believe you left there after your earlier edits. Have you changed your mind about this wording? Do you have suggestions for new wording?'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:::The sentences about glacial melt, tipping points and sea level rise follow logically in the current lead. In your suggested lead, half of the idea is in the beginning of the paragraph and the other half of this idea is at the end. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
::::''See you point, as you specify further in a comment below...still think the "Even if.." sentence is parenthetical, but will look at which approach reads better.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
* At the featured article review page, you gave large page range to quote the sentence about infrastructure from an IPCC report. Considering the IPCC is written really densely, verification is sometimes already difficult when it's only one page cited. It defeats the point to use such citations in the lead , where citations are optional. Infrastructure damage from extreme weather is still not mentioned in the body of the article, and cannot be mentioned in the lead until it is.
:: ''?????? Again, don’t understand some of this comment. What is it I did on the Featured review page? And how is it relevant to this proposed edit? My intent in this proposal was only to eliminate some citations. The only one I added was related to infrastructure, and of course I will add the appropriate page number in the citation when I actually make the edit. Totally agree with your point about citations in the lead being optional....I would prefer if we did not use any at all, but since we have an overabundance in the current version of this paragraph, I used one about infrastructure for consistency. I will add a sentence on infrastructure impacts to the main article when I make this edit. Is that all that you are suggesting be done?'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:::In the featured article review, you proposed a citation to support the sentence about infrastructure. That citation had a 10-page page range, which my limited brain cells find too difficult to verify. This point is moot anyway, as we need to mention infrastructure in the body before we can add it to the lead. Infrastructure used to be in the body, but was deleted as the context was outdated and we were citing the third assessment report. Feel free to add it boldly. As a personal preference, I think we shouldn't mix up physical, nature, and human impacts on this paragraph, so we should the sentence about extreme weather simple. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
::::''OK - will keep that sentence simple'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
* Unfortunately, U.S. Global Change Research Program's chapter on extreme storms is focused on a single country. A quick look at that source indicates there are only few sentences that are global, none of which really cover the sentence you're citing. The source doesn't mention infrastructure for instance. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 10:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
:: ''Another ????...For the first part of the sentence I am just using the same reference that is currently in this paragraph. I added an additional reference on infrastructure. Please clarify.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:::This was mostly about the second half of the sentence if I understand myself what I was saying.. Let's disregard that.
:::
:::We now use a citation about the most intense subcategory of storms (tropical cyclones), which if we really want to be accurate should be replaced by a more general source, but I'm okay with discussing that later (even though I very very much need a wiki break), as this was the text before. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
::::''OK - will leave as is for the time being.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
* The discussion around migration is difficult, with climate change also functioning as a break because people become too poor to migrate. I prefer Bogazicili's more neutral wording of an environmental migration over large-scale migration. We currently quote scary numbers in the body, but that sourcing is outdated, and will be replaced once we all have to time to discuss what to replace it with.
:: ''I have no idea what is meant by “environmental migration” ... birds? insects? large primates? humans? Both the Brown reference and Balsari (which immediately precedes it in the sentence) are about human migration, not birds or other animals..that is why I edited it to include humans. I can change “large scale” to “increased”, if that is preferable wording. We could also just cite Balsari for this sentence, since that is more current.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I understand your proposed change now. This is probably an example of professional brain deformation, were I don't recognise jargon. Increased migration works for me. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
* I like how the sentence about health has gotten less long, it felt a bit undue before.
* I like the bundling of citations.
* vector-borne diseases* [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 10:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC) ''Got it.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Femkemilene}} Today it looks like you changed the wording back to infectuous (sp?), which was how I originally wrote it, but then changed to vector borne at your request. Can you please explain your change. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I think I was wrong. I'm now following the WHO source we cite. Sorry for confusion. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 15:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

:* I don't like "damaging infrastructure and causing a variety of ecosystem and human health impacts". Why are we specifying only "intense storms and weather extremes" for this effect? A lot of climate change impacts may damage infrastructure and cause "a variety of ecosystem and human health impacts".
::: ''Understand - will look at a new way of saying this'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:* I don't like putting this sentence at the end, these are physical effects: "Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification." {{u|Dtetta}}, if you have proposals about the structure of the article, you have to do those first before trying to change the structure of the lead.
::: ''I am ok with putting tipping points back with the sentences on other physical effects, as you are requesting, but disagree completely with your assessment of the sentence on climate change inertia (the one starting with “Even if...”. To me the main message of this sentence is that GW/CC will continue even once emissions are brought to zero. We happen to cite physical effects here, but that is not the more powerful idea in the sentence. You’re correct in that the article itself groups these effects with tipping points, but I think that is a flaw in the article. It is also a more powerful sentence if put at the end of the paragraph, basically saying that all of the above effects can be expected to continue, since the warming itself will continue. Admittedly, it is a nuanced issue.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:* I like this sentence: "Human health impacts include: undernutrition from reduced agricultural yields; declines in fish stocks; and increases in infectious disease." We can also add '''hunger''' in addition to undernutrition (there's an additional sentence for that in humans section).
::: ''Good idea - Will add that.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
::::It's a common myth that warming will continue after emissions have been brought to net-zero. Even the NASA website made this mistake at some point. It is however well-established that the uptake of carbon by the carbon cycle compensates for inertia elsewhere in the climate system. See page 65 of the SR1.5 IPCC report; the blue and the yellow line. The temperature stays mostly flat, whereas sea level rise and ocean acidification will get worse. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::''Understand your point...still think the "Even if..." sentence is parenthetical to the main ideas in the paragraph, but will looks at which approach reads better.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:* I like environmental migration better, there are already large-scale migrations in this world. If you want, we can say "large-scale environmental migration".
::: ''As I mentioned in my earlier response to Femke, for me the term “envionmental migration” could also refer to birds, insects, or other animals. The references specifically refer to humans, so that is why I changed the wording.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:* I don't like bundled sources. Some claims may have multiple sources, so you might lose the order of which source backs up which claim. Makes harder for readers to verify claims.[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
::: ''OK..I will leave the citations unbundled, and let Femke bundle them if she feels strongly that they should be.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: I feel strongly about accessibility, and I believe readability decreases when there are too many citations in the text. It is true that this is a trade-off between verifiability and readability. Ideally, we want to find a summary source that covers all these effects, but is peer-reviewed (a short peer-reviewed report is probably our best hope; can't imagine scientific articles will help us here). I don't have the energy for this. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::''In looking at this again, I am concerned about too many citations bundled at the end of the sentence, which I would find even more confusing. Agree that a more comprehensive citation would be the best approach, but until we identify that, I think having the cites at the end of each sentence clause is the lesser of two evils.'' [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Femkemilene}} and {{u|Dtetta}}, not bundling sources was a soft suggestion. So feel free to bundle (and be prepared for 10+ sources at the end lol). But it might also appear as the most important sentence in the article since it has so many sources. Dtetta, your point about environmental migration makes sense. I think we also agreed with "Human health impacts include" sentence. Not sure where the rest of the issues are. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Bogazicili}}, thanks for that perspective on source bundling. At this point I think I have a pretty good idea of how to incorporate your and Femke’s concerns with the two draft versions I have posted when I make the edits. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I will also add a sentence on infrastructure to the main article when I do the edit. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Femkemilene|Femke}} and {{u|Bogazicili}} ...made the changes that we have discussed. Also changed the first sentence, as I don’t think it follows that deserts are expanding ''because'' the land surfaces are heating faster than the ocean, they would probably be expanding even if the rates were the same, just at a slower rate. Also that 2:1 ratio is important to point out...it's a pretty big difference (and it's what is in the cite that was already there). Left out infrastructure (seems like it's loosely covered by the economic impacts clause), though I still plan to add a sentence on that in the main article. Realized that another advantage of having the "Even if...." sentence at the end is that although the effects listed are physical, they in turn have subsequent human and environmental impacts. It’s not just a question of these physical systems continuing in their warming-induced paths. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 01:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I think there was agreement about adding "hunger" above, but it wasn't added. Made the change. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 04:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::NYT has a nice recent visualization about risks of climate change [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/28/opinion/climate-change-risks-by-country.html]. Flooding is shown as one of the major risks. I think we should also add flooding into the lead, into "human impacts include" sentence. It's already in the body of the article. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Done [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree, but that sentence is now too long and needs to be split. Also, why are we mentioning both undernutrition and the almost synonymous hunger? Let's drop the latter. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::In the text we have separate sentences and sources for hunger and undernutrition. Hunger is a subset, but they are not synonymous. But go ahead if you think it's redundant. We can say (adding "heat stress" is also optional):
:::::::::::"Human impacts include undernutrition and hunger from reduced crop yields,[11] declining fish stocks,[12] increases in vector-borne diseases,[13] and heat stress. Effects such as these have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[19] Other impacts include flooding,[14] potentially severe economic impacts,[15] increased global economic inequality,[16] more people living in uninhabitable climate zones,[17] and increased migration.[18]"
:::::::::::[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
Going back to this, this is the WHO quote: [https://www.who.int/globalchange/global-campaign/cop21/en/]
"Health professionals have a duty of care to current and future generations. You are on the front line in protecting people from climate impacts - from more heat-waves and other extreme weather events; from outbreaks of infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue and cholera; from the effects of malnutrition; as well as treating people that are affected by cancer, respiratory, cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases '''caused by environmental pollution'''."

This is what IPCC says, IPCC AR5 SYR 2014, p. 15, SPM 2.3:
"In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks
from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, '''air pollution''', drought, water scarcity,
sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure
and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}"

Based on above I think we should add pollution into impacts, not just mention reduction of pollution as a co-benefit of mitigation (that is not in the lead anyways). Similar wording is already within the Humans section. So here's my suggestion. I dropped "hunger". This is only 7 words more than the current text:

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Human impacts include undernutrition from reduced crop yields,[11] declining fish stocks,[12] increases in vector-borne diseases, heat stress, as well as diseases caused by environmental pollution. Effects such as these World Health Organization declared climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[19] Other impacts include flooding,[14] potentially severe economic impacts,[15] increased global economic inequality,[16] more people living in uninhabitable climate zones,[17] and increased migration.[18]
|}
[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

:If there are still length concerns, we can shorten this part "Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification.[20]" by adding only "rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification" into an earlier part of the paragraph. "Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries" part is rather vague and without context, or not quantified. For example those effects could be minimal or easily adaptable, after going to net zero and deploying negative emissions technologies. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
::You predicted my reaction. Ideally, we cut about 30% of the third paragraph. I rather like that sentence about long-term effects, but I think ''rising ocean temperatures'' are undue, and should be removed. If we simply enumerate too many impacts, our readers will likely be bored, so let's keep this separated. I think fish stocks are also undue (didn't we already agree to drop them all together?)
::I have argued and provided sources in the past for not including air pollution as a consequence of climate change, as air pollution due to fossil fuels instead of temperature is an order of magnitude larger. you seem to have dropped some words before World Health Organisation . Maybe we can drop the word global before economic as well. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Lol yes, I dropped some words when I was copy pasting and didn't notice. I think given the above quotes we are justified in adding pollution (especially per IPCC), especially given that it is not mentioned elsewhere in the lead. What do you think about the following? This is actually 2 words shorter than the current text:
:::
{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|"Human impacts such as undernutrition, increases in vector-borne diseases, heat stress, and diseases caused by environmental pollution have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[19] Other impacts include flooding,[14] potentially severe economic impacts,[15] increased economic inequality,[16] more people living in uninhabitable climate zones,[17] and increased migration.[18]"
|}
:::Since we are mentioning undernutrition, we do not have to specifically say crops or fish stocks. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Not convinced and not going to be convinced that we add four words to this already bloated paragraph with a logical blurp. I'm also proposing removing a couple of sentences that were clumsily worded and not very prominent in summary sources. We really should cut this paragraph down. The lede is too long and not sufficiently engaging.
::::
::::In terms of order, let's do most logical one first (heat stress), change vector-borne to infectuous per WHO and making article understandable to broad public.
::::
::::"Human impacts such as heat stress, malnutrition and infectuous diseases have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[19] Further impacts include flooding,[14] increased economic inequality,[16] and increased migration.[18]"
::::
::::We now agree on: dropping fishing, dropping rising ocean temperatures?
::::
::::We disagree on: adding sentence about environmental pollution (which type??)
::::
::::We might agree on: dropping results from studies that aren't prominent in summary sources (second element of economic damage, second element of heat stress (the uninhabitalbe zone one)). Changing order. Changing to infectuous diseases. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 22:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::Nope, the lead is not long per the discussion during FAR process. We are below 600 words. CMD had said there is flexibility with number of paragraphs and we can also just merge first and second ones. You just prefer shorter articles (your goal was 8k). In this case, this is detrimental as the lead needs to provide a good summary per [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section]]

:::::I also did not say anything about dropping rising ocean temperatures. So no agreement there. I agree with simplifying the language ("infectious diseases") though. Also no agreement on dropping economic damage and the uninhabitable zone. It doesn't make much difference in terms of conciseness, as it's just few words, but dropping those would reduce how the lead summarizes the Humans section.

:::::You suggested highlighting things prominent in summary sources. Then we definitely need to add pollution as it's in the WHO quote. The relationship between air pollution and climate change seems to be circular (air pollution causes climate change which, in turn, exacerbates air pollution):

:::::"Climate change might also affect human health by making our air less healthy to breathe. Higher temperatures lead to an increase in allergens and harmful air pollutants. For instance, longer warm seasons can mean longer pollen seasons – which can increase allergic sensitizations and asthma episodes and diminish productive work and school days. Higher temperatures associated with climate change can also lead to an increase in ozone, a harmful air pollutant." [https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/pubs/AIR-QUALITY-Final_508.pdf CDC]
:::::"In urban areas, climate change is likely to influence outdoor air pollution levels because the generation and dispersion of air pollutants, such as ozone and particulate matter, depend in part on local patterns of temperature, wind, solar radiation and precipitation [4]. In some regions, air quality is projected to further worsen due to the increased frequency of wildfires that cause the release of gaseous and particulate pollutants into the atmosphere. In addition, changes in wind patterns and desertification will modify the long-range transport of pollutants emitted by human activities and biomass burning [4]. Changing patterns of disease are occurring in response to changing environmental conditions. It is widely recognised that air pollution has a significant impact on human health, with a great burden on respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, rhinosinusitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory tract infections [5]. Changes in climate are expected to further aggravate the effect of air pollution on these diseases." [https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/42/3/826 review article]
:::::I think this circular relationship can be explained better with a sentence in Humans section, perhaps replacing "Other major health risks associated with climate change include air and water quality." But for the lead, not including air pollution seems like a big omission. It needs to be either in the impacts sentence per WHO or in a new sentence about cobenefits of mitigation. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::You're still not providing summaries sources about climate change, but only about a subtopic of climate change (health). At 577 words and one paragraph too many the lede is very long, compared to featured articles that have recently been promoted. Pre-FAR, we got the comment that 600 is suboptimally long. And we're back at that approximate length. I'm not too worried about having a paragraph too many; shorter paragraphs help make the article easier to understand. Our third paragraph is too long to digest. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 15:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I actually got back to this, because I noticed it was directly mentioned in the WHO source, which is a very top-line source [https://www.who.int/globalchange/global-campaign/cop21/en/]. I also don't understand why you are so against this? What about a short sentence about cobenefits of mitigation, something like "mitigation and adaptation have also cobenefits such as reduced air pollution, ..., ...?" in 4th paragraph? Also the lead length was only mentioned once in the previous FAR (except your and my comments) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FClimate_change%2Farchive1&type=revision&diff=995697058&oldid=995693135 cases can be made for deviations]. {{u|SandyGeorgia}} and {{u|Chipmunkdavis}}, would you have any advice about lead length in terms of word count? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::::FYI, WHO source could be repurposed to support cobenefits of mitigation: "Actions that both reduce climate change and improve health, including reducing the number of deaths from cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases that are caused by air pollution (currently over 7 million each year)." [https://www.who.int/globalchange/global-campaign/cop21/en/] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bogazicili|contribs]]) 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC) 
:::::::: Pinged to this discussion. I have ''not'' read this full discussion, which is daunting even for regular times, but particularly considering I have been enduring considerable back pain for a week. So, in general terms, I agree with [[MOS:LEADLENGTH]] in that ''this'' lead (per the size of the article) is optimal at four paragraphs, and "The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic ... a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." On that scale, this lead ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&oldid=1006011756 this version]) is veering already on the long side and also contains a lot of detail. I suggest focusing less on word count and number of paragraphs, though, and making sure the lead is simply a summary, minimizing the excess detail that may only be of interest to specialists. The idea is an easily digestible overview. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''Georgia]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for the advice SandyGeorgia, really appreciated! [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
Thanks for outside perspective, SG.

I'm not per se against inclusion of air pollution. I'm against the inclusion of more topics, especially in a paragraph already difficult to digest. Air pollution is more important than having a second element about heat stress, and a second element of economic damage. Having a summary source about CC (not about health&CC), helps us bundle the ideas. The NCA for the human effects in US would have been wonderful if it were global (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/). SYR IPCC AR5 works better (https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf, p13-15). The paragraph will feel less bloated when we bin those mid-sentence citations, just using a summary source for all human effects.

We can say food security instead of undernutrition, making the link to CC more direct.

(Instead.. of human impacts, just start with 'Climate change threatens food security, impacts health via infectious disease and heat stress. It further increases risks via flooding and blah blah...' .

We can also leave out the idea of the WHO, as it's not a fact repeated by IPCC, nor by NCA. Femke logged out.

:Air pollution is in SYR IPCC AR5, in the very pages you specified. '''page 15:'''
:"In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, '''air pollution''', drought, water scar-city, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}" [https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf Climate Change 2014Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers p15] 68% of the world population will be urban by 2050 [https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html]. We need to provide a good summary in the lead, not do giant omissions. But going back to your response, we can drop some secondary elements (while adding some more topics compared to current text), I'll come up with a suggestion later. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

:: If I can get consensus for better prose by including air pollution, let's do it.
{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|Climate change threatens food security and access to water, undermines poverty reduction, and is projected to increase displacement of people. Risks to humans are further magnified by flooding, infectious diseases, air pollution and extreme heat, with the World Health Organization calling it the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.(ipcc syr 13-16, WHO)
|}
::Advantages of the new proposal:
::# Maximum of four impacts per sentence, to not overwhelm the readers
::# Not relying on very specific papers instead of summary sources; uninhabitable is not (yet) mainstream wording and should not be in our lede.
::# No repetition of the word include
::# No mid-sentence citations!!
::# No inference of what the WHO thought when doing the declaring. Maybe the lizard people made them declare CC as the greatest threat.
::# Air pollution is in there!
::# More consistent paragraph length in lede (at least 2,3,4)

::::This is good! Can we just add economic impacts too, per the IPCC quote above for urban areas and for this: "Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate." p.16

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|Climate change threatens food security and access to water, leads to economic losses, undermines poverty reduction, and is projected to increase displacement of people. Risks to humans are further magnified by flooding, infectious diseases, air pollution and extreme heat, with the World Health Organization calling it the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.(ipcc syr 13-16, WHO)
|}

OR

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|Climate change threatens food security and access to water, leads to economic losses, <s>undermines poverty reduction,</s> and is projected to increase displacement of people. Risks to humans are further magnified by flooding, infectious diseases, air pollution and extreme heat, with the World Health Organization calling it the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.(ipcc syr 13-16, WHO)
|}

::::It seems difficult to quantify, but there is high agreement with economic losses, so i think it should be added. Also a lot of people take economy very seriously, so it's good for our engaging prose. Also poverty reduction could be secondary to economic activity; economic losses to me imply increasing poverty. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I've implemented your second proposal for brevity. Considering we talk about both food security and access to water, having another topic framed in a way more common to the global North is fine. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 19:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{u|Bogazicili}} and {{u|Femkemilene}} - I think a lot of good research and effort has gone into discussing these human health issues and the research/reporting around them, but I think the two current sentences on human health impacts need to be revised to address a variety of concerns:
* Although the first sentence reads well, the second sentence doesn’t make sense grammatically. Do you mean climate change induced flooding, infectious disease, etc? And what is the “it” the WHO is now referring to - Flooding? Disease? Or Climate change itself? The sentence needs to be rewritten to make these things clearer. Originally, the sentences focused on a few specific effects, and then said that “effects such as these” were what led the WHO to make its designation. I still think that phrasing is a simpler, more effective way of describing human health impacts and highlighting their importance.
* The two human health sentences a whole are overly detailed, and don’t address the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia in her reference to the [[MOS:LEADLENGTH]] policy, specifically the idea that “The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic ... a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway" I think that overall guidance is relevant for individual lede sentences/paragraphs as well, particularly in terms of the amount of detail they contain.
* The two human health impacts sentences as a whole now exaggerate the relative importance of human impacts versus ecosystem impacts, in as much as those are currently described in a more brief, earlier sentence in the paragraph. One option might be to include a bit more detail in the ecosystem impacts sentence. Or simplify the human health impacts sentences.
* The reference to air pollution as being, in and of itself, one of the human health climate change impacts seems weak, and does not merit inclusion in the lede. The more detailed portions of AR5WGII Part A indicate to me that it’s unclear as to whether or not climate change increases overall air pollution and it’s resulting health effects in a significant way. The phrase starting with “In urban areas....”that is quoted from the AR5 report is repeated a number of times in that document, but the topic seems to be covered best in Chapter 8.2.3 of AR5WGII Part A. Section 8.2.3.5, age 556 of that report highlights the large uncertainties in predicting the effect of climate change on air pollution per se. This uncertainty/variability is also consistent with more research, such as [[https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/15471/2018/ Nolte 2018]]. The CDC web page is interesting, but it doesn’t provide much in the way of specifics, and I could not find any mention of air pollution in the executive summary of the NCA report it appears to refers to, which says a lot to me on the importance the NCA report places on climate change induced air pollution impacts. In think the more detailed treatments in the IPCC AR5WGII report Chapter 8.3, as well as more recent research such as Nolte 2018, are more reliable sources, and these seem to paint a mixed picture. An exception to this might be a reference to increased wildfire smoke, but I don’t think that wildfire smoke’s overall importance warrants inclusion in the lede. Note that this is an entirely different issue from the idea that reducing fossil fuel use to combat climate change will also improve air pollution. The idea that the fossil fuels sources of climate change are also sources of air pollution does not at all mean that climate change itself aggravates air pollution. On that latter topic the predicted impacts globally appear fairly inconclusive. Femke, you are the climate change researcher, so your thoughts on this specific issue would be very helpful.

Again, I don’t mean to be overly critical, and I think there has been good research and discussion on these issues. But the way this has been captured in the two human health sentences in the article still needs improvement. Curious as to other perspectives on this, perhaps from {{u|Clayoquot}}, {{u|RCraig09}}, or {{u|Efbrazil}} [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

:Thanks for chiming in!
:* As there isn't yet consensus on adding air pollution (I agree with Dtetta as stated above), I've reverted to leave it out for now.
:* Not a chemical scientist, and not a health person. I trust Dtetta's reading of the sources for air pollution.
:* The two sentences on human impacts (I only count one sentence mostly about human health) are in proportion to the body (human impacts vs ecological). I welcome a small expansion of the ecological section in the body, but the lede should follow. Overall, the lede has shortened, and I welcome further suggestions to further shorten it.
:::I agree with your point that the Nature and Wildlife/humans treatment in the paragraph are in proportion to the current body. I do think some consideration should be given to a slight expansion of nature/wildlife effects in the body, and then a minor augmentation of the sentence in the lede.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
:* Changed 'it' to climate change. I don't like repeating stuff, but unclear prose is worse. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 19:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I think your edit today is an improvement. I also like the cleaner look of the sentences without all of the mid sentence citations, just as you had suggested earlier.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

::Dtetta cited a 2018 primary source which goes against IPCC. We had a similar discussion before, in [[Talk:Climate_change/Archive_84#climate_change_induced_mortality]]. I don't like ignoring secondary sources like IPCC (or WHO or [https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMra1807873?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed]) based on personal interpretations.
:::It seems I wasn’t clear about my purpose for including the Nolte source - I actually cited it because I thought it was a piece of more recent research that supported the ozone and PM impacts summarized in AR5WGII Part A p.566. I was not proposing that the IPCC report citation be replaced with Nolte - I think the IPCC does a better job of summarizing the issue in general, I cited Nolte just as a way of indicating that the IPCC statements are consistent with more recent research.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
::I had also quoted secondary sources how "climate change itself aggravates air pollution" above. Perhaps {{u|Dtetta}} did not read it. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Bogazicili}} Do you mean the European Respiratory Journal report? When I read that, I come to the conclusion that there is evidence of a pollution/temperature relationship, particularly for ozone, but that the overall conclusion is that more research is needed. The level of effects mentioned in the articles I have read don’t seem to be on the same scale and of the same certainty level as the other human health impacts we mention in the article; I don’t see any quantifiable epidemiological data like that which exists for malnutrition and disease, which is why I think these air pollution impacts are not yet ready to be included in the article. But I could be misinterpreting the research, and would welcome any other interpretations of these articles.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
:::He cited the IPCC as well, actually reading into their overall assessment instead of summary. The SYR spends very little attention to it (2 words out of three pages), whereas other issues we point out typically have at least an entire sentence dedicated to them. So we're summarizing IPCC better now. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 20:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Again you two are displaying the same type of behaviour in [[Talk:Climate_change/Archive_84#climate_change_induced_mortality]], using your subjective opinions to disregard sources. Pollution is mentioned in a sentence that summarizes overall impacts in IPCC source and it's mentioned very prominently in WHO source. Those are the 2 sources that are cited for that sentence in the lead. At the very minimum the sentence should include everything that is mentioned in BOTH sources. As such, I don't think the current version provides a good summary of both sources. Also here's another secondary source [https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/air-quality/air-quality-and-climate-change]. And another [https://www.lung.org/clean-air/climate-change/climate-change-air-pollution]. It's also getting annoying to discuss same things over and over. Maybe we can revert to last stable version before Femkemilene's changes. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::Again you're not providing overview sources. With the edits in line with SandyGeorgia's comment, and considered an improvement by Dtetta and me, I think there is rough consensus for the current text. Ideally, more people would respond, but I'm assuming they're intimidated by the length of our discussion which is indeed repetitive. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
=== Arbitrary break: air pollution as co-benefit ===
::::::WHO is an overview source. Those two last sources were examples how Dtetta was misinterpreting the research. Also "pollution" has 382 hits here [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change]. As I said many times, which is repetitive as you said, not including this either in impacts or in a cobenefits sentence is a big omission. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 23:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::: Including air pollution as co-benefit makes 10x more sense. I welcome any proposal that doesn't expand the lede. I think the paragraph on mitigation and adaptation has potential for condensing. For instance the abstract definition of mitigation can be removed, as we're already providing concrete examples. Ideally, we'd not include the word cobenefit, as it's jargonny/not engaging. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 08:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::: This is an encyclopedia though. It should explain basic concepts before giving examples. You are assuming an a priori knowledge if you jump directly to examples. There could be secondary or high school students reading this for example. Are you ok with a short benefits sentence without removing anything 4th paragraph? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

== Fifth paragraph in lead ==

I know there are several issues, but since we are debating lead...The last paragraph could use addition of few things such as (maybe a sentence): uncertainty in carbon budget/two-thirds chance in limiting warming to 1.5, negative emissions, uncertainties in such tech, etc.

And, after that, maybe another sentence about if we are on track with Paris goals, after this section is expanded a bit [[Climate_change#National_responses]]. I'd consider the lead pretty much complete after then. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:I think that will be the most difficult sentence to add to the lead, judging from discussions we've had about all these issues, and the fact that paragraph is already quite heavy on numbers (I really wish the US would stop using their own units). I'm open to suggestions. Maybe weight on the featured article review for more guidance on length? I suspect it's fine to add one sentence. [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
::Will get back to this. After a large amount of recent changes into the article, I'm good with a slower pace. :) [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Bump (I'll get back to this) [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
So this paragraph is quite deficient as it omits several key concepts, such as Carbon dioxide removal and consequences of delaying CO2 reductions. [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter2_High_Res.pdf SR15 p. 96]:

"All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no
or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize
emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures
have been identified and, in most cases, also to achieve
net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C
following a peak (high confidence). The longer the delay in
reducing CO2 emissions towards zero, the larger the likelihood
of exceeding 1.5°C, and the heavier the implied reliance on
net negative emissions after mid-century to return warming to
1.5°C (high confidence)."

"CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such
technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to
1.5°C. CDR is needed less in pathways with particularly strong
emphasis on energy efficiency and low demand. The scale and
type of CDR deployment varies widely across 1.5°C pathways,
with different consequences for achieving sustainable
development objectives (high confidence)."

Here's my suggestion:

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050<s>.[21]</s>, as well as use of [[Carbon dioxide removal|carbon dioxide removal]]. At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero.[SR 15 p. 95-96]
|}
[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

::Although the point I think you’re making here may be important, and maybe warrants a brief mention in the lede, I don’t think the fifth paragraph is the appropriate place for it. The fifth paragraph is largely about comparing current efforts at mitigation with what will be needed to limit warming to 1.5C. Adding your suggested text at the end of that paragraph seems to muddy what is already a fairly clear set of sentences, from my perspective, and I think the clause about the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 C doesn’t add much value to the current last sentence, which is saying what it will take to achieve the 1.5 C goal. So, as it currently reads, the second sentence you propose seems like it is a bit of a tangent to the theme of the paragraph, as well as a little too technical (and a bit confusing) for a lede in the way it’s currently worded. The text and citations in the carbon sequestration subsection of the article make it clear that carbon dioxide removal is currently envisioned under some, but not all, 2050 scenarios, and that it is currently limited in scale, but that it may be a more feasible option by 2050. So I think carbon dioxide removal is worth mentioning in the lede, and it currently is, but perhaps could use a bit more detail.

::It seems like the point you are trying to make is that the longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more carbon dioxide removal becomes necessary, do I have that right? If so, I would suggest that it fits better, in a more condensed form, as part of an expansion of the sentence in the fourth paragraph dealing with mitigation methods, particularly the current clause about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You might want to look at ways of dividing that sentence up into two separate sentences, and then emphasizing carbon dioxide removal in a slightly more detailed way, including adding your wiki link to the carbon dioxide removal article. Since the sentence does already talk about removing carbon from the atmosphere, I would suggest you focus on what value you would be adding with your edit, above and beyond what’s already in that sentence. Is it the point I think you are trying to make in your second sentence, or something else? Either way, I think any reference to carbon dioxide removal fits better as part of the mitigation text in the fourth paragraph, rather than as an add-on at the end of the fifth paragraph.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Dtetta}}, please read the quotes before answering, because you seem to make suggestions or respond to suggestions based on incorrect knowledge. You said: "that carbon dioxide removal is currently envisioned under some, but not all, 2050 scenarios". Read the IPCC quote: "All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent." The sentence I'm suggesting we add more information into talks about "Limiting warming to 1.5 °C". In its current form, it's deficient. Fourth paragraph talks about definitions. Limiting climate change to 3C as opposed to not doing anything is also a form of mitigation to a degree (but it's not enough). Fifth paragraph talks about specific goals (1.5C or 2C). [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

::::I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I started my post by saying that I think the point you’re making may be important and might warrant a brief mention in the lede. When I described 2050 scenarios, and the fact that not all of them envision carbon dioxide removal, that's because some of them are working off of a 2C target rather than a 1.5 C target. Apologies for the confusion by this reference. I don’t disagree with your read of the IPCC report; I agree that 1.5 C scenarios envision some level of CDR. But that doesn’t change the gist of what I’m suggesting, which is that the idea doesn’t belong in the fifth paragraph, but would be better as a bit of additional detail in the fourth paragraph, where it is already mentioned. I think you would also be contributing to the article by adding that citation (and a short bit of text reflecting the essence of it) to supplement the last sentence in the first paragraph of the carbon sequestration subsection, since that specifically focuses on the net negative emissions concepts that the IPCC language you’re referring to is relevant for. Hope that clarifies my comments a bit.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

::::Another option, if you are determined that the idea be in the fifth paragraph, would be to simply add a clause along the lines of "and incorporating large scale carbon dioxide removal" to the end of the last sentence in the paragraph, along with the IPCC cite. This would be more in line with the general tone of the paragraph.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::There's no space in 4th paragraph, and it explains concepts (what are responses to climate change? what is mitigation? what is adaptation?). 5th paragraph talks about specific goals (1.5 and 2C). That's why it's better for the logical flow to put this info into 5th paragraph.
:::::Looks like we have agreement on "and incorporating large scale carbon dioxide removal" (or similar wording, I'll finalize at the end). Can you explain succinctly why you are against this part: "At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero."? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 02:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::The clause about CO2 removal being unproven seems too detailed for the lede, and it doesn’t fit in with the general theme of that paragraph, which as you pointed out focuses on goals. The clause about the likelihood of exceeding 1.5C is a more detailed way of stating the obvious...I don’t think it adds any understanding to the ideas already in the paragraph, and just takes up more text space. I think it’s worth thinking about how those might be incorporated into the carbon sequestration subsection, but I don’t think they belong in the lede.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 05:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
Per IPCC: "CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and '''reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C'''." Mentioning this sounds too detailed for the lead to you? 5th paragraph is about goals, so a major risk to that goal is very relevant and fits with its "theme".

As for the earlier part, I suggest simplifying wording before adding large scale CO2 removal:

"<s>Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030, then reaching near-zero emissions by 2050</s>
Limiting warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would require halving emissions by 2030 and near-zero emissions by 2050, along with large scale carbon dioxide removal" [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 06:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

:Made the above change. {{u|Dtetta}}, do you still maintain the position that a "major" risk to 1.5 C goal is too detailed for the lead, even with a short sentence? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

::Yes I still think that it is an inappropriate bit of detail that get’s in the way of clearly communicating the main ideas of the paragraph, particularly since we don’t even mention this idea in the main part of the article. I generally like the sentence you have constructed, but I think eliminating “then reaching” makes it a bit more awkward. Putting “reaching” or “achieving” before “near-zero” would seem helpful to me. I think {{u|MurrayScience}} or {{u|Efbrazil}} originally wrote this sentence, so maybe they have some thoughts on this.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 19:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Sorry for keeping quiet in the discussion so far.
:::That large-scale carbon dioxide removal bit may be outdated; other options to reach net-zero have become feasible over the last 3 years, with prices of hydrogen, batteries, wind and solar dropping. Also, the IPCC didn't assess a group of models (evolutionary models) that reach different conclusions in this assessment cycle. These models will be back in AR6!
:::'and - in most cases - include reaching "net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak.' feels like undue given this may be outdated, is vastly controversial (many of these simulations have unphysical amounts of BECCS). I prefer out treatment of this in the carbon sequestration section. (and contains too many formatting/prose errors (wrong dashes, missing space before degree, unnecessary quote) [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 08:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I was going to copy edit wording in mitigation section, but am running out of time. SR 15 is not outdated though.

::::"For aiming to keep global warming well-below 2 °C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C, as set out in the Paris Agreement, a full-fledged assessment of negative emission technologies (NETs) that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is crucial to inform science-based policy making.....In line with previous research, we find that keeping warming below 1.5 °C requires a rapid large-scale deployment of NETs, while for 2 °C, we can still limit NET deployment substantially by ratcheting up near-term mitigation ambition." [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02516-4 2019 review article]
::::[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 09:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
I adopted Dtetta's suggestion of adding "achieving", and adjusted the wording a bit. Also added "over the 21st century" to make the scope of CO2 removal clearer. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
: I reverted this edit and have gone back and forth with Bogazicili a few times on it. The basic issue is that I do not believe negative carbon emissions has a place in the intro, particularly as the concluding idea in the entire summary section. The sources say that negative emissions are only a part of getting to net zero, for the purpose of offsetting emissions that may not be able to be be brought to zero. Featuring the issue on its own without context gives it outsized importance, particularly as the concluding thought of the section. If this content were further down in the article and included other information related to net zero pathways I would not be complaining. I'm hoping {{u|RCraig09}} {{u|dtetta}} {{u|MurrayScience}} {{u|Femkemilene}} can chime in here as well on whether they support Bogazicili's edit. If nobody else opposes this edit then I'll allow it to go forward, but otherwise this will need to go through a contested edit request. Here is the relevant edit (the addition of ", along with use of large scale carbon dioxide removal over the 21st century"): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&type=revision&diff=1008716819&oldid=1008716667 [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

::I basically agree with {{u|Efbrazil}} on this. Especially because earlier in the lead, we have the following sentence: "Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere; methods include the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar, a phase-out of coal, enhanced energy efficiency, reforestation, and forest preservation." If you want to add [[carbon dioxide removal]] to that sentence, I'm happy with that. But we shouldn't get overly detailed in the lead on something which I guess we could think of largely unproven in the present state, just like we don't talk about a [[generation_IV_reactor]] or green cement and steel in the lead. —{{blue|MurrayScience}}

:::I think Efbrazil's response illustrates why we need it though. The sources do NOT say negative emissions are only part of getting to net zero. You need to get to net zero, and then need negative emissions in addition to that "to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak" (from IPCC). If this is confusing to even the long-term editors of this article, that means the lead does not do a good job of explaining this concept. Net zero by 2050 is not enough for limiting warming to 1.5C. As such the lead at its current form misrepresents IPCC and sources. {{u|MurrayScience}}, the fact that it is largely unproven is one of the reasons why I had wanted to add in the first place. See my earlier proposal for what I think should be added:

:::",as well as use of carbon dioxide removal. At scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal is "unproven", and likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) increases with delays in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero."

:::[[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
:::: Behavior of warming after net zero is an interesting topic, but of marginal importance compared with warming that happens before we get to net zero. My understanding is that after net zero global surface temperatures will not be changing much relative to how things will change leading up to that point, because the effects of continued heat absorption from radiative imbalance will be offset by methane absorption and oceans absorbing heat and CO2. Behavior on the time scale of hundreds or thousands of years is really entering the realm of conjecture, as we don't know how the natural world is going to react as a CO2 sponge and because humans will likely continue to have major planetary impacts. For the purpose of a summary, the way I think of things is that emissions are raising the planetary temperature to a new set point that will be difficult to get away from, and that acidification and ocean warming and sea level rise are going to continue long after net zero is achieved. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 21:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
:: On balance, I agree with MurrayScience's reasoning, and I would favor adding CDR to the list earlier in the intro rather than granting it a special position as the climax of the intro. Bogazicili's interpretation of the IPCC, as I understand it—that negative emissions "follow" a "peak"—doesn't reflect the recognition that negative emissions can occur in sectors concurrently with conventional mitigation as we progress toward net zero. The intro is for summaries and conclusions, rather than detailed explanations of conditions and implications. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 20:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

::::Thanks for that post {{u|Efbrazil}}...given the concerns you, {{u|MurrayScience}}, and {{u|RCraig09}} express, some of which I share, I would suggest that we focus efforts on improving the carbon sequestration subsection, and then revisit how to incorporate the concept of carbon dioxide removal/CCS into the lede. That way we can best ensure that the lede is an accurate summary of the main article. From my reading of the sources that {{u|Bogazicili}} has cited, I do think carbon dioxide removal merits a mention in the lede, but I’m not sure where is best.
::::I notice now that there have been a few NET related sentences added recently to the second paragraph of the Mitigation introductory section, rather than in the carbon sequestration subsection. Two of those sentences - starting with “Net negative emissions...” and “However, carbon dioxide...” should probably be deleted and incorporated into the carbon sequestration subsection, as part of updating it. I can take a shot at that, or if someone else wants to give it a go, that’s fine with me as well. I would also suggest creating a new thread on the Talk page along the lines of “Carbon sequestration update”, and proposing a complete revised new language entry there. We might even want to change the title of the subsection to “Carbon dioxide removal” [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 21:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
Lol, I thought there was no disagreement to this, but it seems like everyone so far disagrees. For those that are new to lengthy discussions, like {{u|MurrayScience}} and {{u|RCraig09}}, I basically think the lead doesn't do a good job of explaining why immediate action is required; I think 2050 goal would seem far away enough for those that do not know built in assumptions. Instead of negative emissions, and that they are unproven, perhaps we can talk about carbon budget then? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
: I appreciate the urge to "explain why immediate action is needed" though we have to be aware it can be interpreted as contrary to the acceptable tone of encyclopedia articles. I think the placement of predictions in the final paragraph—which may be considered the "climax" of the intro—imparts a fairly strong impact on the reader. My opposition was to an overly detailed, technical, conditions-and-implications, story-telling in the intro—not (obviously) to the well-sourced predictions themselves. In fact, I actually think a brief, broad statement of well-sourced predictions would even be appropriate at the end of the ''first'' paragraph (!), to complement the ''past'' "unprecedented impact..." phraseology that's already there, though I predict many editors would object that such would give predictions ''too much'' prominence. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
:: If {{u|Bogazicili}} wants to put [[direct air capture]] in the mitigation sentence in the lead. By all means, propose an edit. [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|MurrayScience}}, it doesn't actually make sense by itself, I wanted to tie it to the overall point that immediate action is required/delays will lead to missing goals, by explaining one limitation of pathways that rely on technologies currently unproven at scale.
:::{{u|RCraig09}}, it's actually in the executive summary of SR 15. SR 15 is already a top line source, so it's executive summary is "double top line" lol:
{{Blockquote|text=If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very
small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence).[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf SR 15 p. 177]}}
:::Is there a consensus for a sentence mentioning remaining carbon budgets are low? Eg: [https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html 6 and 24 years for 1.5C and 2C] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 08:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:::: I get the sense that carbon budgets are confusing. The idea that you're converting a total amount of carbon into a period of time based on the rate of additions to the atmosphere every year. I feel like the explanatory model that the world has switched to is emphasizing zero emissions/carbon neutral/net-zero by a certain year. Keep in mind that we don't have ways of making cement, steel, fertilizer, plastic, or even flying, or cargo shipping that don't emit greenhouse gases. The zero emissions by 2050 implies that we have 30 years to innovate and bring down the price of carbon capture or biofuels, etc. I feel like that's clearer than saying we have 6 years and then we're at 1.5C or something like that. [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::{{u|MurrayScience}}, I wasn't exactly thinking about mentioning 6 years, but just that remaining budget is low and immediate action is needed. If the emissions remained constant until 2050, and then went to 0 overnight (not that this is possible but just giving an example for the sake of argument), we'd still not be able to stop 2C warming, let alone 1.5. I'm just trying to make the idea that emission reductions need to start now more clear (and then halve by 2030 and go to net 0 by 2050). [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

== Featured picture: [[Warming stripes]] ==

[[File:20181204 Warming stripes (global, WMO, 1850-2018) - Climate Lab Book (Ed Hawkins).png|thumb|(simple caption:) Stripes show timeline of global average temperatures since 1850 from cooler (blue, left) to recent warming (red, right).]]
FYI: I've just learned that this image was chosen as a Featured picture. It's one of the earlier [[Warming stripes]] graphics generated by their developer, [[Ed Hawkins (climatologist)]]. See:
* [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Warming stripes]]
* https://web.archive.org/web/20210118015423/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Sciences
* https://web.archive.org/web/20210119171614/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_thumbs/69
:—[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 17:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
: All he did was take the temperature graph and change it to color bands. Not accessible, says nothing about how much warming has happened or where. I'm not a fan, but oh well. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 17:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:: These graphics are purposefully not designed to precisely portray "how much warming has happened". They're designed to immediately convey to non-technical viewers the trend. They are immediately "accessible". —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 18:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
::: [[Accessibility|Accessible means works for people with disabilities]]- these graphics don't work for people that are color blind. I also doubt they convey information better or have more impact than a graph where X is time and Y is temperature. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: What you say is true about ''total'' color-blindness, but incidentally the designer of these graphics is actually involved in initiatives ([https://web.archive.org/web/20141121012326/https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/end-of-the-rainbow/ e.g., 2014]) to make graphics more accessible to those with at least limited (e.g., esp blue-green) colorblindness. Stripe diagrams aim to convey ''different'' information in a simpler and striking way to a non-techy audience that yawns at conventional graphs they may not have paid attention to since they were forced to junior high school. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 22:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
::::: Yeah, well, you know I agree with making this information as accessible and clear as possible, but I disagree that color bar charts are an improvement over a graph. What's next, just making drawings of an angry face cloud and calling him "mr climate change yuck"? [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 01:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::: Accurately representing data in ranges defined by colors, is no less valid than representing them as vertical positions on a graph, especially considering an audience that with one sentence of explanation, instantly and intuitively appreciates change from blue to red as being change from cool to warm. Stripe graphics do not even move in the direction of an angry face cloud. "What's next" is shown in examples in the [[Warming stripes]] article. Applications are cool, actually.
:::::: On this talk page, I've seen some bodaciously impressive discussions on subtle technical details that will pass unnoticed, or at least unappreciated, by probably 90-95% of the article's audience—details that are great for a thesis review but misplaced for communicating with that insurance agent or restaurant manager. Part of the reason for poor public understanding of science in general, and slow acceptance of the reality of climate change in particular, has been poor communication by scientists who know how to communicate with each other... but not so much with the public. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 04:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::: That's why I've worked so hard to make the graphics better. I think our value at wikipedia is to clearly convey basic information to ground public discussion on this issue. What I disagree with is that the color bars are effective at that. Whether the temperature difference was 1 degree or 100 degrees they'd look the same. Whether climate change took place in 6 months or 600 years they'd look the same. All they say is "blue changes to red if you read left to right". That's obviously ineffective at grounding climate change understanding in facts. They seem to be more about trying to generate an emotional reaction from the audience, and that's not what wikipedia should be for. If someone is coming to wikipedia, it's because they want facts. Consider how we reach people that read [https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/no-joe-were-not-in-a-climate-crisis/ this article]. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: Stripes do not evoke "emotional reaction". They merely make use of the part of the human cognitive (not emotional) apparatus that's deeper than the school-taught analysis needed to puzzle through conventional graphs that are far from intuitive to vast swaths of the population, open-minded and closed-minded alike.
::::::::: Stripe diagrams are usually accompanied by a suitable text caption in the same manner that conventional graphs have tick mark labels, and, with progressive shades of blue and red, probably convey scale with more cognitive efficiency than stark line graphs.
::::::::: I'm "fixated" on clear, distraction-free, instantly intuitive communication for the greatest number of people when trends are more important than quantitative detail. Stripe diagrams are arguably a subset of [[heat map]]s. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::: Sorry about the fixated comment- I deleted it shortly after writing it- I was trying to understand where you are coming from but it came off wrong. I'm very not sorry about hating color bars where all the actual information is buried in the caption :) [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 03:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: No problemo. The information is in the color bars; the explanation (probably needed only the first time a person sees a stripe graphic) is in the caption. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 04:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::: No doubt that the color bars are more instantly accessible than the NASA plot. They'd require a legend if they stood alone. But the existing graph should not be skipped with its valuable distinction of human/natural impacts. I wonder if we could combine bars & graph placing the color bar under the years. Saying this and starting to draft, I realize that the color bar file raises some questions: In theory, one year should have 3780/169=22.4 pixels. But the bars have an irregular width: sometimes only 10 or 12px. And the color palette is small. Annoying details. But I could offer to process the original NASA data and compose a solution.[[User:Hedgehoque|Hedgehoque]] ([[User talk:Hedgehoque|talk]]) 07:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::: {{reply|Hedgehoque}} Though I like the concept of warming stripes for some purposes (I drafted almost all of the [[Warming stripes]] article), they have been discussed here previously and never passed consensus. I think that was partly because they're simply "new", and not "standard". I'm not sure how you'd "combine bars and graph" (something like [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErtXc2-W4AE20Vk?format=png&name=small this] or the bottom part of [[:File:20190909 STACKED country warming stripes AND global average (1901- ).png|this]]?) but to avoid consuming too much of your time, you should probably get consensus here first to see whether your idea would fly. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 08:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
[[File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_1.svg|thumb]]
So here we go. Self-explaining... [[User:Hedgehoque|Hedgehoque]] ([[User talk:Hedgehoque|talk]]) 09:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
{{reply|Efbrazil}} This is just a draft. If we could agree on this, you could upload the new version for continuity of the file and keep the copyright of course. I know it's a different size - but it would only take a few minutes to adjust the script. The palette here is continous. Each year has its own calculated RGB value. [[User:Hedgehoque|Hedgehoque]] ([[User talk:Hedgehoque|talk]]) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 
: I actually like the visual appearance, though it might require a sentence of explanation in the caption of any article in which it is used (currently 10 around the world in various languages). Since the stripes don't add any quantitative information to the existing line graph, I can picture some editors being opposed.
: Did you generate the colors manually (as I did, through Excel --> Powerpoint --> Photoshop) or is there a snazzy automated shortcut? FYI: In general it's best (especially in this neighborhood) to generate an SVG. :-) —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 23:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Thank you for the advice. Just learning about SVG. Right now it's a PHP script processing the NASA text file and including it into the existing image, probably not the right approach here. But some additional lines for the SVG could be processed, too. [[User:Hedgehoque|Hedgehoque]] ([[User talk:Hedgehoque|talk]]) 23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::: I'm opposed to this change. The bars make the graph more busy and confusing rather than improving it. There's a basic design principal that less is more, and I think the warming stripes are simply "more". They add no information, but instead add more visual information you need to decode as a user, creating a color cacophony that clashes with the color coding already on the graph. So, please, no. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 21:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: Now I have exchanged the file on the right with an SVG (only on this talk page as a proposal). {{reply|Efbrazil}} Please have a look at 0.2 °C in your file. It shows 0 in some languages. I have fixed it here. Height is extended to 1150px, years start at y=915, class "w" added for rect without strokes. For full transparency my RGB calculation from averages ($av) in 1/100 °C from the [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt NASA data]
$r=round(max(0,($av>0?255-sqrt($av*30):240+$av*2.4)));
$g=round(max(0,255-$av*2.5*($av>0?1:-1)));
$b=round(max(0,($av<0?255-sqrt(-$av*30):240-$av*2.4)));
:::: The stripe emphasizes instant understanding of the most important part: the observed temperature. Without it, unexperienced users see lines diverging into two directions. I think it is a benefit. [[User:Hedgehoque|Hedgehoque]] ([[User talk:Hedgehoque|talk]]) 22:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::: Aside: [[User:Hedgehoque|Hedgehoque]]: It's impressive you've come up with a continuous-color representation of temperature. The developer of Warming stripes ([[Ed Hawkins (climatologist)]]) might be interested in your approach. I've been using crude general-purpose tools (Excel --> Powerpoint --> Photoshop) to generate the graphs (took me 60-90 minutes each), and I understand there are tools that can convert automatically using a discrete set of colors (but they are too expensive for me!). You may want to share your technique with Hawkins at his [https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/ '''Climate Lab Book'''] website or to [https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins '''@ed_hawkins'''] directly. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}When I first saw the Hawkins stripes I thought it was too obscure for the layman to understand, and not useful here for that reason. In Hedgehoque's [[:File:Global Temperature And Forces 1.svg]] with diverging lines making the pattern clear, I like how the Hawkins lines are incorporated. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 07:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

:<nowiki>I like how the warming lines have been incorporated, but my motto remains "less is more", so I'm weakly opposed to this change. ~~~~</nowiki> [[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

:: '''Another idea:''' Maybe have the warming stripes extend from the horizontal axis up to the "observed temperature" trace (leave the other two traces unchanged). This suggestion is vaguely similar to the right side of [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErtXc2-W4AE20Vk?format=png&name=small '''this graph''']. This approach would visually separate the conceptually different "drivers" (theory) versus "observed" (reality), which does add to the ''presentation'' even if it doesn't add "data" per se. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 00:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::: No problem to code. But I am afraid that the red and green line would interfere with the coloured stripes if they'd lead all the way up. I will wait anyway until we find some more voices in favour of the idea. [[User:Hedgehoque|Hedgehoque]] ([[User talk:Hedgehoque|talk]]) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::: '''''New!''''' I've developed an MS Excel spreadsheet that semi-automates generation of warming stripes in SVG format. See [[Talk:Warming stripes#spreadsheet]]. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
'''Attn graphics people,''' esp [[User:Hedgehoque]] and [[User:Efbrazil]] and [[User:Femkemilene]] (inserted transcluded list):
{{Excerpt|User talk:RCraig09|Excel .xlsx spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for .SVG graphics}}

Feel free to download and use, and provide feedback. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 07:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
{{clear}}

** On the merits, I think this graphic is worse than what's there now, for the reasons I mentioned above. What's there now is also semi-auto-generated. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
* I like this elegant bar diagram a lot and I would be in favor of including it in the article. [[User:Mottezen|Mottezen]] ([[User talk:Mottezen|talk]]) 05:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

== Maybe worth discussing industrial/manufacturing more in mitigation ==

I came across a [https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/10/10/20904213/climate-change-steel-cement-industrial-heat-hydrogen-ccs great article in Vox]. I attached my favorite line from it, which may have some relevance to the mitigation section:

"About 10 percent of global emissions — comes from combustion to produce large amounts of high-temperature heat for industrial products like cement, steel, and petrochemicals.

To put that in perspective, industrial heat’s 10 percent is greater than the CO2 emissions of all the world’s cars (6 percent) and planes (2 percent) combined. Yet, consider how much you hear about electric vehicles. Consider how much you hear about flying shame. Now consider how much you hear about ... industrial heat."[[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

:We have half a sentence about electric vehicles (encompassing more than only cars), so having another half sentence about industrial heat wouldn't be amiss. The sentence with the OECD may be rephrased slightly more condensed to make space. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 19:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|MurrayScience}} - I think this information is a good addition (as was your edit of the sentence on energy storage and transmission issues). I suggest we refocus the last part to more strongly emphasize the difficulties in decarbonizing steel and cement and the need for research, rather than the fact that OECD is proposing certain research (others are doing the same - it’s a major theme in Bill Gates’ book). Let me know what you think of this proposed edit.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}
{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Industrial efforts would focus on increasing <s>the</s> energy efficiency, <s>for instance in cement production,[237]</s> designing less energy intensive products, and increasing product lifetimes.[238] Steel and cement production, which together are responsible for 13% of total CO2 emissions, present particular challenges, and will require research driven efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from those processes. <s>The OECD has also pressed the need for research and innovation to develop low or zero-carbon ways of manufacturing cement and steel, which together are responsible for 13% of total CO2 emissions (excluding land use).</s>[239]
|}

::: I like it. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

:::: Yeah I think that's better. Maybe we can have a sentence on nuclear power also.[[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
:::: By the way, I should add that I'm happy the mitigation section finally mirrors the physical drivers/greenhouse gasses section in terms of cement and steel lol.[[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

== Variability (split from above) ==
 Split from the above discussion as topic has changed by Femke 
:::::Glad you all think that works...just made the changes. {{u|MurrayScience}} - what kind of sentence on nuclear power were you thinking about?[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 19:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::At {{u|Dtetta}}. I think this qualitative sentence is very accurate, and holds over a wide range of possible future costs (encompassing current trends): "Intermittency can also be solved cost-effectively by supplementing a solar and wind-dominated electricity grid with on-demand low-carbon technologies such as [[nuclear power|nuclear]] or [[combined cycle]] with carbon capture, or renewables like geothermal or hydro dams." There are plenty of peer reviewed studies that reach this conclusion which could be used for the citation. It would go after this currently-included sentence: "The primary obstacle for solar and wind is their intermittency and seasonal variability, which can be mitigated by energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and expanding long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas." [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::: {{u|MurrayScience}}, I like the general idea of this sentence, but I have a couple of concerns. One is that it seems written for a reading level above the typical Wikipedia audience. I would suggest something a little simpler, such as the following:
{{od}}
{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
For solar and wind power a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Ways to reduce this limitation include improved energy storage (such as pumped-storage hydropower and battery storage), demand flexibility, and transmission grid improvements. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to address intermittency and variability concerns, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production.
|}

I left out the reference to combined cycle, mainly because that seems like a bit of jargon for what is essentially a slightly higher efficiency fossil fuel system with CCS. And if the issue is just to address intermittency, I don’t think it is really necessary to include this item; the reality is that some level of fossil fuel/CCS will probably be included in the electricity mix by 2050, and we discuss that elsewhere in the article.

I am also a little concerned that the idea in that second sentence reads like a somewhat biased, pro RE talking point. I think {{u|Hedgehoque}} and {{u|Efbrazil}} have been involved in previous incarnations of this paragraph, so they might have some ideas here as well, along with {{u|Femkemilene}}. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

:Could you guys give me a week to figure out how controversial the nuclear and geothermal mentions are in this context? Energy system literature I'm familiar with typically says baseload energy is unsuited for flexibility. Most current nuclear is designed as baseload instead of as dispatchable energy, and running nuclear as dispatchable energy would give it a lower capacity factor, which would ramp up the costs as costs from nuclear mainly come from construction instead of fuel. I don't know enough about geothermal energy to evaluate whether this is a sentence we can say in wiki voice, or whether it needs to be attributed.
:What source were you thinking of? Hopefully, we can get a 2020/2021 source, as statements like these (what are feasible future options), still depend on price trajectories), but I appreciate we might need to got back as far as 2019.. ([[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 08:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

::I like Dtetta’s re-edit. I’ll find a good source and come back with it. [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 08:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
:: Here's a [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9|fine paper]. Quote from it "Wind and solar energy can produce decarbonized electricity, but to reliably meet demand these intermittent resources require other technologies such as energy storage, supplemental generation, demand management, and transmission expansion. Many studies estimate the costs of supplying electricity with renewables for particular storage cost assumptions... We estimate that cost-competitively meeting baseload demand 100% of the time requires storage energy capacity costs below $20/kWh" Here's a [https://www.google.com/search?q=li+cost+per+kwh+over+time&sxsrf=ALeKk00hI92v90exZCvNxYL81XDmFJxmSw:1614093767749&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjin6Ttp4DvAhW0QRUIHfqeBFgQ_AUoAXoECBUQAw&biw=1492&bih=1270#imgrc=LJK_QVfviFRNaM simple google search] if you want a sense of the various trends/projections.
{{od}}
::{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|

There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewable energy in [[electrical grid|electrical grids]]. For solar and wind power, a key challenge is their [[Variable renewable energy|intermittency and seasonal variability]]. Ways to reduce this limitation include expanding [[grid energy storage]] (such as [[Pumped-storage hydroelectricity|pumped-storage hydropower]] and [[Battery storage power station|battery storage]]), [[Demand response|demand flexibility]], and expanding long-distance [[Electric power transmission|transmission]] to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic areas. As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, on-demand, low-carbon power sources such as [[nuclear power|nuclear]], geothermal, and hydro dams can also be used to cost-effectively address intermittency and variability, while still maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production.
|}
::I think it's important to clarify that we're talking about the electrical grid. This is obvious to us but may not be clear to an unfamiliar reader. I also think it's important to briefly explain why transmission needs to be expanded, storage is probably a bit more obvious and doesn't need explaining. Also the cost-effective part is where the paper I showed comes in. We also need to emphasize that these sources are on-demand. [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
::Not sure why the link didn't work but here's the doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.06.012 [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

::: The source is primary, so not ideal, but we may be able to use its introduction as a secondary source. It described nuclear as baseload, not as on-demand. (I like on-demand as lay term for dispatchable, was looking for a simple synonym here). It doesn't seem to mention geothermal. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
::: For reasons laid out soemwhere else, I think going into the discussion of costs is outside the scope of this article, as work on it is contradicoty. Ideally you want to use a review paper that only reviews 2020 estimates, which is too high a bar. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm not yet convinced, but I will read some more literature so that you don't have to waste your time in the case my current opinion isn't quite supported by science. Fortunately, my current job involves me reading this literature :). [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::I've read more :). The old text in the article is {{tq|As the grid evolves to include higher percentages of renewable energy, reliable low-carbon power sources such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydro dams can address intermittency and variability, while maintaining progress towards net zero electricity production}}
:::::* It implies that temporally 'reliable' low-carbon techniques are used at the end of the transition, whereas the literature is arguing about to what extent dispatchable energy can be decreased.
:::::* The source cited doesn't talk about geothermal
:::::* The source is a primary source on a sub-country scale, and I'm still under the impression it's not generally accepted that baseload can play a major role in compensating . As such, higher-quality sourcing is necessary if we want to keep this is. The primary source by Jenkins cited in the previous sentence only talks about nuclear adjusted for flexibility.
:::::* Whether geothermal / nuclear / hydro is reliable depends on the local circumstances; that word can be left out. (f.i. in Belgium, nuclear has proved quite unreliable over the last couple of years)
:::::I have based the rewrite more on a secondary source now (the 2019 emission gap report). I hope my rewrite works for you too :). [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

== Jesse Jenkins study ==

I just removed a singe review study by Jesse Jenkins, which I don't think we should use as a source. For one the paragraph was too detailed, delving deep into the debate of the percentage of dispatchable energy / nuclear / CCS, which isn't quite the topic of this article. The section on clean energy is long enough imo; this article is on the long side, which makes the threshold for adding more details quite high.

Furthermore, the paper came out in 2018 and mostly reviews optimisation models. The thing is that those type of models have not been able to model the price declines of wind, solar and batteries that took place over the last five years. Mathematically, the empirical [[learning curve]] is extremely difficult to implement in these type of models, and they revert to exogenous price declines, which consistently underestimate younger techniques such as solar and wind. Considering that a) evolutionary models have vastly different outcomes [https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/no-2021-01-estimating-the-costs-of-energy-transition-scenarios-using-probabilistic-forecasting-methods/ Estimating the costs of energy transition scenarios using probabilistic forecasting methods]) b) these more conservative model studies have reached a tipping point, with the IEA's 2020 forecast now indicating that solar is going to play a massive role, we should not be using an this old review. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:Is this even peer-reviewed? It's filed under "commentary". [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 02:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::From the Joule website, it says "Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team." The cost estimates seem largely to have been based on the cost of Li batteries, for which they assume a three-fold reduction. To be clear, the article is not anti-renewables. Jesse Jenkins has many times written that renewables should take center stage in deep decarbonization of the electricity grid. The article review 40 studies which show why it is very different (primarily variability on seasonal scales and weather fronts) making a grid 80% VRE versus 100% VRE. The variability can be supported by clean firm sources such as nuclear, or non-variable renewables. Please see the quote in the citation for more info on the costs or the article itself. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MurrayScience|contribs]]) 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 
:::It's an opinion piece [https://www.cell.com/joule/article-types] (click Commentary tab), not a proper review article. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 02:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The wording firm for baseload + dispatchable is one I've never seen before, so I don't feel it's due. The cost declines are not only exogenous for storage, but also seen to be outdated, with lithium ion projected to reach that level in three years. More importantly, this discussion is too detailed for the current article. And I agree with bogazicili that commentaries shouldn't be in here. Not saying we can't cite Jenkins at all, but I think most of his work goes in more detail than warranted for the current article. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 08:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Climate change|answered=yes}}
Before the sentence "The human cause..." in the introduction, it might be appropriate to insert a short comment on agriculture. The reason is that recent research has shown that most analysts until now have only considered the negative side of agriculture and not the positiv side of it. That means they have more or less neglected the photosynthesis going on at every plant in world agriculture. So I sugest this comment to be inserted here: "Regarding agriculture recent research has shown that it is not only a negative contributor to negative greenhouse gases. Through the photosynthesis CO2 is captured by crops and bound in both what is later harvested and in the part being left in the fields and slowly bound into the soil. Improving soil organic carbon capturing can be an option for coping with climate change." Source: Frankelius, Per (2020). A proposal to rethink agriculture in the climate calculations, Agronomy Journal, vol 112, issue 4, pp. 3216-3221. doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20286 [[User:Per Frankelius|Per Frankelius]] ([[User talk:Per Frankelius|talk]]) 13:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' The lead section of a Wikipedia article is meant to summarise it's most important contents, see [[MOS:LEAD]]. Agriculture is talked about in the article, but only briefly, that whole sentence would not be appropriate for the lead. Feel free to re-open this request (change 'answered=yes' to 'answered=no') if you think additional content regarding agriculture should be added elsewhere in the article though, for instance the section on "changes on land surface" or "agriculture and industry". [[User:Volteer1|Volteer1]] ([[User talk:Volteer1|talk]]) 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
== "Heat emission" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect [[:Heat emission]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Heat emission]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] [[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]] 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
== "Heat emissions" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect [[:Heat emissions]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Heat emissions]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] [[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]] 22:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

== Proposed changes in how carbon dioxide removal is described ==

I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction as follows:

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] most scenarios and strategies see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] <s>Net negative emissions happen when the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount.[212] However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C.[213]</s> Solar radiation management methods also have been explored as a possible supplement to deep reductions in net emissions. However, SRM would raise significant ethical and legal issues, and its risks of unwanted effects are poorly understood.[214]
|}

The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph:

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Where energy production or CO2-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO2, the gas can be captured and stored instead of being released to the atmosphere. Although its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] As with CCS, it remains highly uncertain as to whether BECCS will actually be able to significantly help in limiting warming to 1.5 °C.[213]
|}

I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and modifying some of the text in these two paragraphs. So the numbered citations are the same as the corresponding footnotes that currently exist in the article. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me at first reading, haven't checked text-source integrity. Can we reflect that beccs is more uncertain than CCS? What does the source say? [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 07:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks for the quick response {{u|Femkemilene|Femke}}. The relevant text from the p.34 of the [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf IPCC citation] that I was restating here (which Bogazicili has also cited), says that “CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C.” Are you thinking we would revise that to specifically say that BECCS is more uncertain? Not sure if I draw that specific conclusion from reading the IPCC report, at least from the summary page that is referred to in the citation. We do talk about bioenergy’s potential negative consequences for food security in the clean energy subsection, which in and of itself seems like an additional uncertainty. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Okay, I've had time to look at the source now. I propose we change your latter sentence to {{tq|It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C}}. I think that stays a tiny bit closer to the source, drops CCS (which is not as uncertain and its use is more an (expensive) policy choice as I read in IPCC than a fundamental uncertainty), and drops the word actually (not needed).
:::Overall, tone and prose are an improvement to the former.
:::I'm very much looking forward to having a general report as opposed to the 1.5 report to make sure we don't give undue weight the the most ambitious climate goal. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 18:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Sounds good. I will wait another day, and if no other comments I will make the edit, incorporating your suggested wording. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 06:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::I think the wording misrepresents the sources. You are changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant. Also specific ones such as beccs and CCS might not be in the page numbers given. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::BECCS is mentioned in the the second paragraph of CDR. Overall, I believe it does represent the source well, considering that the rather outdated details<ref> There are two main reasons these models are outdated, and we cannot use SR15 for even qualitative statements around BECSS, solely for mechanistic ones. As they are technical, I'm putting them in a note. First of all, [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3545718 these energy models] used the wrong physics, which make 'future' solutions such as BECCS seem more attractive. Secondly, these models, for mathematical reasons, don't appropriately model cost reductions, so that solutions including hydrogen, batteries, solar and wind were vastly underestimated. With new price data (but future prices still estimated conservatively), the outcome for lowest-costs solutions has dramatically changed, f.i. in the 2020 IEA model, which I don't think is freely available)</ref> about how BECCS plays a vital role in all model scenarios reaching 1.5 isn't supported by new modelling. As a compromise, we can attribute the model outcomes and put them in the past tense. {{tq|While carbon dioxide removal played a major role in 1.5 C-consistent model scenarios asssessed by the IPCC in 2018, it remains highly uncertain whether they can play such a role}}.
::::::{{reflist-talk}} [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{u|Bogazicili}}- I understand your interest in including text about the limitations of mitigation assumptions, but I think that particular point would be better covered in the Climate change mitigation article, which has room to go into that kind of nuance (which may also need to be updated, as {{u|Femkemilene|Femke}} has pointed out). In this paragraph (and article), I think the goal should be to give the reader a more general sense of the feasibility of CCS and BECCS. Femke and I seem to be in agreement on the general wording. So I will wait another day to see if there are any other editors who share your concerns. Otherwise, I plan to make the changes along the lines Femke and I have discussed. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Femkemilene}}, I was talking more about removal of this part: "Net negative emissions happen when the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount.[212] However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C.[213]", not for BECSS specifically. The fact that at scale CDR is unproven and presents a major risk to mitigation goals is not outdated.

:{{u|Dtetta}}, have we moved from building consensus to 2/3 majority voting (with only 3 editors) with one day deadlines? I think we should be able to work something out with latest research [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02516-4]. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::I'm just noticing some close paraphrasing in the old wording: IPCC says: <nowiki>''</nowiki>''CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C''.<nowiki>''. We say ''</nowiki>''However, carbon dioxide removal technologies deployed at scale are unproven, which presents a major risk in being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C''<nowiki>''. This means that my previous comment about tone having improved should be discarded, but that we do have a copyright issue here and should seek a new text. I'</nowiki>m a bit low in inspiration. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, I agree it's not a good idea, for a variety of reasons, to take text pretty much verbatim from an IPCC report, which is why I phrased the last sentence in my proposal the way I did. I thought your proposed Feb 26 revision was also a good way of phrasing the general idea that footnote 213 is referring to. {{u|MurrayScience}} and {{u|Efbrazil}}, do either of you have thoughts on how this paragraph should be worded? Are you ok with the proposal + Femke's Feb 26 revision to the last sentence? Again, one of the goals of this revision is to try and build some consensus for how carbon dioxide removal should be handled in the lede, the idea being that is should be consistent with how we describe it in this subsection. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Femkemilene|Femke}} - I am confused by your Feb 28 comment - why exactly are you taking back your 26 Feb comment about the tone of the proposed edit being an improvement? Is it that you want specific text about the unproven nature of CDR being a risk in reaching 1.5C...beyond the way you stated it in your 26 Feb proposed wording? As I mentioned to Bogazicili, I think this is more detail than belongs in the text itself, although I think we could include it as an in-citation quote. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 01:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: In general, this change looks fine to me. Regarding the lede, I guess this idea could be wedged into the list of methods in the mitigation sentence, although that sentence is already overstuffed. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::I actually hadn't looked at the IPCC wording before my last copy edit, so that was a mistake. I copy edited again so it doesn't look too close to the source, while discussion here takes place. I still think it's DUE to mention this presents a major risk for mitigation if emission cuts are delayed. I might be busy over the next few weeks by the way. Hopefully the current wording is fine. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 23:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
So, just to summarize again, I would suggest deleting two of the sentences in the Mitigation introduction and moving rephrased versions of them to the Carbon sequestration subsection. The revised paragraph from the introduction would read as:

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),[207] most scenarios and strategies see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions.[208] To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be necessary in sectors such as forestry and agriculture.[209] Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] including reaching net negative emissions in most cases.[211] <s> Net negative emissions would mean that greenhouse gasses are removed from the atmosphere at a faster rate than they are emitted.[212] However, at scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies is "unproven"; delaying progress towards zero CO2 emissions increases reliance on such technology, which is a "major risk" for being able to limit warming to 1.5 °C.[213] </s> Solar radiation management methods also have been explored as a possible supplement to deep reductions in net emissions. However, SRM would raise significant ethical and legal issues, and its risks of unwanted effects are poorly understood.[214]
|}

I think the ideas in the two sentences I proposed to move are generally useful ones to have in the article, but I propose both of these fit better as part of the carbon sequestration subsection. The net negative emissions sentence is an expanded explanation of the last clause of the previous sentence, and doesn’t really fit the rest of the tone of the paragraph - we don’t define carbon sequestration or carbon dioxide removal, for instance. The next sentence then gets into some nuances regarding the risks of CO2 removal - again, this is out of character with the basic themes of the paragraph, which is to give an introduction to the key features of mitigation strategies designed to limit GW. Starting the CO2 removal sentence with “However” also doesn’t make sense given the preceding sentence, and illustrates the difficulty with having the sentence in this paragraph.

The information removed would be included in the first carbon sequestration paragraph. I have modified this from m earlier proposal by including Femke’s 26 Feb suggested sentence.

{| style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|
Where energy production or CO2-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO2, the gas can be captured and stored instead of being released to the atmosphere. Although its current use is limited in scale and expensive,[237] carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century.[238] Carbon capture and storage in combination with bio-energy (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into atmosphere are smaller than the sequestered or stored amount in the bio-energy fuel being grown.[212][239] It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques such as BECCS will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C”.[213]
|}

I am not proposing changing any of the citations, just reorganizing and rephrasing some of the text in these two paragraphs.

From reading the earlier comments, I believe {{u|Efbrazil}} is ok with these edits, but that {{u|Bogazicili}} has some concerns about “changing something that explains a limitation of mitigation assumptions to something that reads like carbon removal is largely irrelevant”, and also states a belief that the current sentence, taken from the IPCC report (slightly rephrased) regarding risks associated with depending on CO2 removal, is DUE. My view is that DUE or not DUE is not really the issue... it’s that this idea is more detailed than appropriate for this article, and would be better suited for the Climate change mitigation article. I think Bogazicili’s concern about keeping it in this article could also be accommodated with an in-line citation, with the article text being the simpler last sentence that Femke proposed, but with the IPCC report quote included as part of the citation. Although I recognize that there is some discrepancy between calling something uncertain and saying there is a risk associated with depending on it, I think going with the simpler uncertainty sentence is a better choice for the target reading level of this article, and I don’t think that the sentence is saying that carbon removal is irrelevant, as Bogazicili contends, just that it’s feasibility is uncertain.

I am unclear as to what {{u|Femkemilene|Femke}}’s current thoughts are. But I would still propose to make these edits as an improvement to the text that is there, in particular to reposition those two sentences that really don’t belong in an introductory paragraph.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 03:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

: I don't have a strong opinion. I think the placement and prose of dtetta's proposal is marginally better. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 07:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|Dtetta}}, the fact that emission cuts delays would increase dependence on unproven tech and risk mitigation goals is a core issue. It's not too detailed for where it is now. Your edits deletes explanation of that entire core concept. I'd consider your addition about BECCS more detailed than the core concept of consequences of emission cuts delays. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Bogazicili}} I agree with you about the importance of including the idea that emission cut delays will increase dependence on unproven tech. I disagree completely that what’s written ”deletes explanation of that entire core concept”. I think the last sentence of the proposed text for the first carbon sequestration paragraph generally gets at that point in a way that’s more appropriate for the reading level of our target audience. I also don’t understand your last statement. BECCS is just an example of the unproven tech that you’re referring to. How does providing an example make something more detailed? In your post, you also don’t directly address the points I made about why the two sentences I am moving need to be switched from the introductory paragraph and placed in the carbon sequestration paragraph. But to address your first point, and put additional emphasis on the risks of relying on unproven tech, I would propose that we add a clause at the end of the last sentence of the carbon sequestration paragraph (beginning with “It remains highly uncertain”) along the lines of, “and reliance on them increases the risk of global warming increasing beyond 1.5 C”, which is also consistent with page 34 of the IPCC report that is cited. What are your thoughts on that attempt at compromise.[[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

::::{{u|Dtetta}}, removing general statement about CDR and giving an example of CDR like BECCS is more detailed IMO. I'm not against your proposed addition by the way, just against the proposed deletion. I think consequences of emission cuts delays is suited for intro paragraphs, as it's a core concept; that's why I wanted to keep them there. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Bogazicili}}, re: your first point, I guess we agree to disagree on what makes something more detailed. Re: your second point, you’ve made it very clear you consider your paraphrasing of the IPCC p.34 statement to be a core concept. But that doesn’t mean it needs to be in a paragraph that’s designed to provide an introduction to the major features of mitigation, and not specifically to evaluate their strengths/weaknesses. In addition, we have lots of core concepts scattered throughout this article; not all of them are in the intro sections. We talk about the risks associated with land based CDR in the following sequestration paragraph, but that edit did not lead to including that idea in the intro as well. And you still haven’t addressed my concerns that the two sentences at issue, as they exist in the intro paragraph, are disjointed and interrupt the main flow of ideas; they work better as part of the sequestration subsection. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

:::::Another problem with having the IPCC based sentence in that intro paragraph is that it makes me, as a reader, question whether or not the earlier sentence in the paragraph, starting with: “Scenarios that limit..” is in fact correct, or at least whether the scenarios are. Another reason why I think a simpler, paraphrased version, like the compromise sentence I suggested in my 4 March post for the sequestration subsection (which was an effort to develop consensus), would be more appropriate. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 02:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::Re: "disjointed and interrupt the main flow of ideas". That's why I had tried to reorganize several months ago, when you reverted it and gave a strongly-worded response: [[Talk:Climate_change/Archive_85#Need_to_reevaluate_recent_edits_to_first_two_mitigation_paragraphs]]. The concept of carbon budget is sorely missing in mitigation section. Going to net zero by 2050 is not enough; emission declines should start now for 1.5 mitigation. We should not be giving incorrect or massively incomplete information just to try to maintain the existing organization of those two paragraphs. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

::::::: {{u|Bogazicili}} I think your point about strengthening the discussion of carbon budgets is definitely worth thinking about. And that can be done independent of this proposed edit. When it comes to carbon budget related ideas, I do think there are issues around level of detail, and what’s appropriate for this article vs. what is better suited for in the climate change mitigation article. But again, you’re not addressing my main reasons for proposing to move those two sentence. As I have tried to explain in a variety of ways, they are simply not well suited, as they are written, to the paragraph they are placed in. I’ve tried to explain why they’re not, but your responses consistently don’t seem to be addressing the concerns I’m raising, and I’m led to think that it’s not productive, nor a good use of our collective time, to have additional exchanges with you on this particular proposal. {{u|Efbrazil}} and {{u|Femkemilene|Femke}} are ok with this proposed edit. So at this point I’m going to go ahead with the edit, and include the additional text I proposed in my 4 March post, which was my attempt to reach a compromise with you. I’m sorry to be using critical wording to describe your earlier edit, but my efforts to describe things in more neutral terms don’t seem to go anywhere. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 16:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

== Major decline in our page views? ==

I’m not sure how much it has to do with changing the title of the article last year from “Global warming” to “Climate change”, but it looks to me like there has been a major drop in the number of page views we were getting at the end of last year compared to 2019. When I use the pageviews.toolforge.org site that WP recommends, and use the term [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-01&end=2019-12&pages=Global_warming global warming] I get about 4.5+ million views in 2019, or about 380k views a month, although this started dropping in early 2020. Using the term [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-01&end=2020-12&pages=Climate_change climate change] for 2020 looks like it shows around 140k views per month for Sep-Dec. Could someone please double check my math on this?

At one point I had suggested that we look at adjusting the title tag in the source code of the page so that both “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are included in it. This is what NASA does, and their site regularly rank above ours in the recent searches that I’ve done for those two terms. Is there anyone who would want to try to figure out a way of doing this for this article? I believe {{u|Efbrazil}} had stated that there were problems with doing this, but given what appears to be a significant drop in page views, I think it’s worth looking at again. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 04:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

: From [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-365&pages=Climate_change|Global_warming this view], I don't see a big problem, at least as far as the move/rename is concerned. When GW was discontinued, it looks like CC picked up the slack. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks {{u|RCraig09}}, that’s a better way of seeing the 2020 numbers. But when I look at that same view [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-01-01&end=2019-12-31&pages=Climate_change|Global_warming for 2019], it still shows a significant y/y drop when you compare the two. My sense from the media coverage is that this issue is only getting more media attention, not less, although I don’t have any hard statistics to back this up. Either way, it’s a significant y/y decrease for an article that we all spend a lot of time on, so it seems like it’s worth trying to understand why. But I agree it’s probably not the name change. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 17:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
::: True—the move/rename was made on [[Talk:Climate_change/Archive_83#Requested_move_3_August_2020|24 August 2020]]. The ''spike'' in interest in late 2019 roughly corresponds to increases in Google searches for "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" (see [[:File:20200112 "Climate crisis" vs "Climate emergency" - Google search term usage.png|'''this graph''']]), which may have coincided with media coverage of Greta Thunberg's September 2019 speech at the U.N. The [[Talk:Climate_variability_and_change/Archive_8#Tracking_table|effort to correct re-directs]] occurred in December 2019, and only resulted in about 10% of the internal links go to the then-new {{blue|Climate change (general concept)}} --> [[Climate_variability_and_change]]. So I'm still not sure why there was a drop-off in November 2019. —[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]]) 17:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There is less attention to climate change in general, so I'm not sure how this drop (which RCraig09 pointed out is less when you add the redirect views), compares to an overall decline. Anyway, the naming criteria don't give page views maximalisation as a criteria, whereas brevity is. I see very little reason to add redundancy to the title. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

: The drop seems less pronounced in [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=climate%20change,global%20warming Google searches]. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

::Not sure how relevant the Google search data is for this particular issue, but I don’t have a sense at all that there is less attention to climate change in general now than in 2019. Recent [https://news.gallup.com/poll/308876/environmental-ratings-global-warming-concern-flat-2020.aspx Gallup polls] seem to indicate that concern about Climate change continues to rise in the US.
::What I am suggesting '''is not''' a change to the article title itself, but to work with WP technical staff to develop a change to the way WP generates the page’s source code based on the article title (at least for certain articles that have this kind of dual naming issue, such as Climate change/Global warming).

::For example, NASA’s site uses both terms in their source code title tag, and they are currently getting about 467 thousand visitors a day, according to [https://hypestat.com/info/climate.nasa.gov hypestat], or about 100 times the number of views we get. It makes me questions hypestat’s numbers, but it’s hard to imagine they are off by anywhere near that 100 fold difference. NASA’s title tag in their page source code is “NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming”, while Wikipedia’s is “Climate change - Wikipedia”. I do believe that having both terms in our html title tag would both raise our relative position in common web searches, and raise our number of page views per day. I think it’s worth trying to pursue with the tech folks at WP, but the details of how WP generates it’s page source are beyond my skill set. So if someone with more web programming savvy than me would be willing to raise this issue with WP technical staff, I would really appreciate it. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 19:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
:::What if [[Atlantic meridional overturning circulation]] (AMOC) were to be listed here? AMOC is not mentioned on this page yet. Might this increase the page views? The prediction of [[Shutdown of thermohaline circulation|abrupt change in Europe's weather]], as well as other surprises might get more attention. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] [[User talk:Ancheta Wis|   (talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Ancheta Wis| | contribs)]] 02:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I don't think Google works like that; if people search the AMOC they will arrive there instead of here. (Both AMOC and Gulf stream are mentioned on the page btw). [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 13:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::There's some recent news that can be added [https://www.ft.com/content/589d034a-ee9d-4c74-b20b-4b750c2d904d] [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::I think these ideas for additional topics are useful in terms of the overall quality the article, but I have a hard time imagining they will significantly increase the average number of page views. I am going to try and take this up with the WP help desk, and then branch out from there. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 02:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

== Human cause of climate change undisputed? ==
{{hat}}
It is disingenuous to suggest that human caused climate change is an undisputed scientific fact. For example, we all agree that there was an actual ice age. We all agree that the ice age came to an end with a corresponding rise in temperature. I think that we would all also agree that such a rise in temperature at that time was NOT caused by human industrialization.

Not to mention the fact that an ice age itself can only occur in an environment of warmer oceans and cooler continents.....both conditions also caused in the past by non human influence.
As a scientist, one would have to acknowledge that we cannot attribute past climate change to natural processes and then completely ignore the impact of those same continuing natural processes at work today.

As a result, the statement
"The human cause of climate change is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[5"

is statement that should actually be read as
"the human cause of climate change is not disputed by those scientific bodies which only acknowledge data suggesting the support of human caused climate change" [[User:Donavan Reef|Donavan Reef]] ([[User talk:Donavan Reef|talk]]) 08:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

:Did you read the article? Or the FAQ at the top of the talk page? Scientists definitely do take natural causes into consideration, and they still overwhelmingly agree that humans are the main cause of climate change. [[User:Saucy|Saucy]][''[[User talk:Saucy|talk]] – [[Special:Contributions/Saucy|contribs]]''] 09:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful to acknowledge that we are talking here about recent climate change, not climate change in general. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke|talk]]) 09:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
: We do so in the hat note and the first paragraphs, pointing towards the general article. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 12:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Intro cleanup for readability ==

I would like to reorganize the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede so they have "flow" again. If you look at the current version, it is just a set of disconnected sentences that is very hard to digest as a whole. Note I am not proposing adding or removing content, just cleaning it up for readability.

Here is the proposed rewrite, with moved and reorganized sentences {{highlight | highlighted}}:

: Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion and more common [[heat wave]]s and [[wildfire]]s.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SRCCL|2019|p=7|ps=: Since the pre-industrial period, the land surface air temperature has risen nearly twice as much as the global average temperature (high confidence). Climate change... contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions (high confidence).}}; {{harvnb|IPCC SRCCL|2019|p=45|ps=: Climate change is playing an increasing role in determining wildfire regimes alongside human activity (medium confidence), with future climate variability expected to enhance the risk and severity of wildfires in many biomes such as tropical rainforests (high confidence).}}</ref> Temperature rise is {{highlight | also}} [[polar amplification|amplified in the Arctic]], where it has contributed to melting [[permafrost]], [[retreat of glaciers since 1850|glacial retreat]] and sea ice loss.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SROCC|2019|p=16|ps=: Over the last decades, global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere, with mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers (very high confidence), reductions in snow cover (high confidence) and Arctic sea ice extent and thickness (very high confidence), and increased permafrost temperature (very high confidence).}}</ref> {{highlight | Warmer temperatures are also increasing rates of evaporation, causing [[Tropical cyclones and climate change|more intense storms]] and [[Extreme weather|weather extremes]].}}<ref name=":0" /> [[Climate change and ecosystems|Impacts on ecosystems]] include the relocation or [[Extinction risk from global warming|extinction]] of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in [[Environmental issues with coral reefs|coral reefs]], mountains, and [[Climate change in the Arctic|the Arctic]].<ref>{{cite web|author=EPA|date=19 January 2017|title=Climate Impacts on Ecosystems|url=https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-ecosystems_.html#Extinction|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127185656/https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-ecosystems_.html#Extinction|archive-date=27 January 2018|access-date=5 February 2019|quote=Mountain and arctic ecosystems and species are particularly sensitive to climate change... As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent.}}</ref> {{highlight | Climate change [[Effects of climate change on humans|threatens people]] with [[Food security and climate change|food insecurity]], lost fresh water access, flooding, infectious diseases, extreme heat, [[Economic impacts of climate change|economic losses]], and displacement. The [[World Health Organization]] calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.}}<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR5 SYR|2014|pp=13-16}}; {{harvnb|WHO, Nov|2015}}: "Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Health professionals have a duty of care to current and future generations. You are on the front line in protecting people from climate impacts - from more heat-waves and other extreme weather events; from outbreaks of infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue and cholera; from the effects of malnutrition; as well as treating people that are affected by cancer, respiratory, cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases caused by environmental pollution."</ref> Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including [[rising sea levels]], rising ocean temperatures, and [[ocean acidification]].<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SR15 Ch1|2018|p=64|ps=: Sustained net zero anthropogenic emissions of {{CO2}} and declining net anthropogenic non-{{CO2}} radiative forcing over a multi-decade period would halt anthropogenic global warming over that period, although it would not halt sea level rise or many other aspects of climate system adjustment.}}</ref>

: Many of these impacts are already felt at the current level of warming, which is about 1.1 °C (2.0 °F).<ref>{{harvnb|Lindsey|Dahlman|2020}}</ref> The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) has issued a series of reports that project significant increases in these impacts as warming continues to {{Convert|1.5|C-change}} and beyond.<ref name="SR15" /> {{highlight | Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called [[Tipping points in the climate system|tipping points]]}}.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR5 SYR|2014|loc=3.2|p=77}}</ref> Responding to climate change involves [[Climate change mitigation|mitigation]] and [[Climate change adaptation|adaptation]].<ref name="auto">{{harvnb|NASA, Mitigation and Adaptation|2020}}</ref> Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere;<ref name="auto"/> methods include the development and deployment of [[Sustainable energy|low-carbon energy sources]] such as wind and solar, a [[Fossil fuel phase-out#Coal|phase-out of coal]], enhanced energy efficiency, [[reforestation]], and [[Forest protection|forest preservation]]. Adaptation consists of adjusting to actual or expected climate,<ref name="auto"/> such as through improved [[Coastal protection|coastline protection]], better [[Emergency management|disaster management]], [[assisted colonization]] and the development of more resistant crops. Adaptation alone cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and irreversible" impacts.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR5 SYR|2014|loc=SPM 3.2|p=17}}</ref>

Bogazicili complained about moving the tipping points into the second paragraph as they are an effect, but I believe the move is an improvement, so would like feedback from others. Tipping points are risk factors that increase as temperatures rise above 2 degrees, so they naturally fit in with concerns about uncontained warming. Additionally, some tipping points are not about effects on ecosystems and people, but are about feedbacks impacting warming itself. I think it is better to present them in the second paragraph, where they can be used to emphasize the risks of exceeding 2 degrees celcius. Lastly, the effects paragraph is already overstuffed, and shoving in tipping points in there as well pushed the whole paragraph into the category of unreadable I think. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

:I think these are well done edits and improve the readability of those two paragraphs. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:I'd say I have a weak preference for the current version
:* I think moving the temperature sentences together is an improvement
:* The third sentence now has a useless 'also'
:* The new sentences in impacts is more awkward than before (biased, I wrote it) with phrases like ''lost fresh water access''
:* The WHO statement should be linked to its corresponding ideas, not be a stand-alone sentence
:* I'm neutral on the idea with tipping points. My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with Bogazicili, but upon second though I think both options are possible. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}
Thanks Dtetta!

Femke- Thanks for the careful review.

Striking the also from the third paragraph makes good sense.

I also agree about the awkwardness of ''lost fresh water access'', I was trying to preserve the old wording, but ''water scarcity'' is better, and wikipedia even has a nice article on the topic that includes a section talking about climate change that we can link to. Does that work for you?

Regarding impacts, the old wording awkwardly splits human health effects into 2 sentences, semi-attaching the WHO statement to just the effects of the second sentence without being explicit, and then cutting off the impacts in the second sentence from the first. I mean, doesn't the WHO care about food insecurity and water scarcity? Won't flooding and extreme heat lead to displacement and economic losses? The whole thing is just confusing to read because it is unclear why it is split into 2 sentences, other than to avoid a run on sentence. The second sentence in particular is weirdly constructed and hard to digest. Here is the old (current) wording:

: Climate change threatens food security and access to water, leads to economic losses, and is projected to increase displacement of people. It further magnifies risks of flooding, infectious diseases and extreme heat, with the World Health Organization calling climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.[11]

Regarding connecting the WHO statement to human impacts, I'm OK adding a bridge into the WHO statement, beginning it with "These impacts have led the [[World Health Organization]] to call...". It draws things out and is maybe too restrictive, but arguably improves the flow.

Regarding tipping points, I'm glad you're OK with the new location. I tried keeping it in the current paragraph, but to have it make sense really requires adding a lot of words, and the paragraph is already overstuffed. It works better in its new placement.

So that leaves us with this. Anyone have specific concerns with this change?

: Temperature rise on land is about twice the global average increase, leading to desert expansion and more common [[heat wave]]s and [[wildfire]]s.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SRCCL|2019|p=7|ps=: Since the pre-industrial period, the land surface air temperature has risen nearly twice as much as the global average temperature (high confidence). Climate change... contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions (high confidence).}}; {{harvnb|IPCC SRCCL|2019|p=45|ps=: Climate change is playing an increasing role in determining wildfire regimes alongside human activity (medium confidence), with future climate variability expected to enhance the risk and severity of wildfires in many biomes such as tropical rainforests (high confidence).}}</ref> Temperature rise is also [[polar amplification|amplified in the Arctic]], where it has contributed to melting [[permafrost]], [[retreat of glaciers since 1850|glacial retreat]] and sea ice loss.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SROCC|2019|p=16|ps=: Over the last decades, global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere, with mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers (very high confidence), reductions in snow cover (high confidence) and Arctic sea ice extent and thickness (very high confidence), and increased permafrost temperature (very high confidence).}}</ref> Warmer temperatures are increasing rates of evaporation, causing [[Tropical cyclones and climate change|more intense storms]] and [[Extreme weather|weather extremes]].<ref name=":0" /> [[Climate change and ecosystems|Impacts on ecosystems]] include the relocation or [[Extinction risk from global warming|extinction]] of many species as their environment changes, most immediately in [[Environmental issues with coral reefs|coral reefs]], mountains, and [[Climate change in the Arctic|the Arctic]].<ref>{{cite web|author=EPA|date=19 January 2017|title=Climate Impacts on Ecosystems|url=https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-ecosystems_.html#Extinction|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127185656/https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-ecosystems_.html#Extinction|archive-date=27 January 2018|access-date=5 February 2019|quote=Mountain and arctic ecosystems and species are particularly sensitive to climate change... As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent.}}</ref> Climate change [[Effects of climate change on humans|threatens people]] with [[Food security and climate change|food insecurity]], [[Water scarcity#Climate change|water scarcity]], flooding, infectious diseases, extreme heat, [[Economic impacts of climate change|economic losses]], and displacement. These impacts have led the [[World Health Organization]] to call climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR5 SYR|2014|pp=13-16}}; {{harvnb|WHO, Nov|2015}}: "Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Health professionals have a duty of care to current and future generations. You are on the front line in protecting people from climate impacts - from more heat-waves and other extreme weather events; from outbreaks of infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue and cholera; from the effects of malnutrition; as well as treating people that are affected by cancer, respiratory, cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases caused by environmental pollution."</ref> Even if efforts to minimize future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries, including [[rising sea levels]], rising ocean temperatures, and [[ocean acidification]].<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SR15 Ch1|2018|p=64|ps=: Sustained net zero anthropogenic emissions of {{CO2}} and declining net anthropogenic non-{{CO2}} radiative forcing over a multi-decade period would halt anthropogenic global warming over that period, although it would not halt sea level rise or many other aspects of climate system adjustment.}}</ref>

: Many of these impacts are already felt at the current level of warming, which is about 1.1 °C (2.0 °F).<ref>{{harvnb|Lindsey|Dahlman|2020}}</ref> The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) has issued a series of reports that project significant increases in these impacts as warming continues to {{Convert|1.5|C-change}} and beyond.<ref name="SR15" /> Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called [[Tipping points in the climate system|tipping points]].<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR5 SYR|2014|loc=3.2|p=77}}</ref> Responding to climate change involves [[Climate change mitigation|mitigation]] and [[Climate change adaptation|adaptation]].<ref name="auto">{{harvnb|NASA, Mitigation and Adaptation|2020}}</ref> Mitigation – limiting climate change – consists of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and removing them from the atmosphere;<ref name="auto"/> methods include the development and deployment of [[Sustainable energy|low-carbon energy sources]] such as wind and solar, a [[Fossil fuel phase-out#Coal|phase-out of coal]], enhanced energy efficiency, [[reforestation]], and [[Forest protection|forest preservation]]. Adaptation consists of adjusting to actual or expected climate,<ref name="auto"/> such as through improved [[Coastal protection|coastline protection]], better [[Emergency management|disaster management]], [[assisted colonization]] and the development of more resistant crops. Adaptation alone cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and irreversible" impacts.<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR5 SYR|2014|loc=SPM 3.2|p=17}}</ref>

[[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

:::My main complaint was the part about tipping points. The way you positioned it in 4th paragraph implies it's only an issue beyond 1.5 warming, '''but it's an issue now''':

:::"Information summarized in the two most recent IPCC Special Reports (published in 2018 and in September this year)2,3 suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming (see ‘Too close for comfort’)." [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0]

:::It's better positioned in third paragraph, where effects and impacts are discussed, rather than responses, which 4th paragraph talks about. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 19:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: Various tipping points are passed all the time, but the concept of tipping points is typically raised as an issue in terms of setting limits on temperature change and risks associated with higher temperatures, which is why putting them in the 4th paragraph works better I believe. Additionally, the third paragraph is already overstuffed with specific impacts, and layering on a conceptual risk model confuses things. dtetta and I liked the change, you are opposed, femke is on the fence. Femke or anyone else want to declare a position on the move? [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 19:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::"Various tipping points are passed all the time"? Are we talking about same tipping points? The tipping points in terms of climate change discussion? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::Small regional tipping points are indeed crossed regularly, forest-> savannah, mountian glacier -> no glacier; In terms of global tippings points, we may have already passed the Greenland ice sheet tipping point. I'll answer your questions later Efbrazil, about the new proposal. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 17:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::: In looking at this again, I’m noticing that the second, third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph involves somewhat distinct ideas. One way of helping establish a stronger connection between them might be to replace “Additional warming also increases the risk of triggering critical thresholds called tipping points. Responding to climate change...” with “The risk of triggering additional climate thresholds, or tipping points, is also greater as global temperatures increase. Responding to these anticipated changes...”. I also think Bogazicili and Femke do have a point that we may be crossing some of these thresholds now, so the wording I am proposing is an attempt to implicitly recognize that point, by using the word “additional”. Just a suggestion. [[User:Dtetta|Dtetta]] ([[User talk:Dtetta|talk]]) 19:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::These regional changes are not always recognized as <nowiki>''</nowiki>''climate''<nowiki>'' tipping points, so I'm not confident about that wording (on top, we can't say anything in the lead that we don'</nowiki>t say in the article). [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 19:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: {{u|Femkemilene}} Are you good with the above text then? I'd like to get this change rolled out as it fixes a number of problems. [[User:Efbrazil|Efbrazil]] ([[User talk:Efbrazil|talk]]) 18:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Please do go ahead. [[User:Femkemilene|FemkeMilene]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 19:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

== Recommended browsing - open source model of the electricity grid (US Case Study) ==

Hi everyone. I highly recommend this website for some very interesting (but a bit technical) browsing. https://science.breakthroughenergy.org/. They have some really incredible publications and reports that are long overdue, considering that electricity grid models are so heterogeneous, propriety, low-quality, etc. [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 13:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
For those programming-people interested in getting really into the weeds with their open source model, check out their GitHub: https://github.com/Breakthrough-Energy. Or if you want to read their report, you can see it here: https://bescienceswebsite.blob.core.windows.net/publications/MacroGridReport.pdf. :) [[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk:MurrayScience|talk]]) 13:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

== Slideshow not working ==

It say in the first section that the images are in a slideshow, however every image is displaying at one time.