Tipping points in the climate system has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 26, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tipping points in the climate system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Tipping points in the climate system appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of African humid period was copied or moved into Tipping points in the climate system with this edit on 18:21, 2 October 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The result was: promoted by
Evrik (
talk) 18:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Femke ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC).
Given the severe criticism of the study on SCC, I think we should omit the table, and shorten the description of the study. At the moment we decidate much more space to the economists, and only dedicate two line to the response from climate scientists. As such, we give WP:UNDUE attention to one side of the story.
I'm not sure yet how we can further improve the section. Are there secondary sources about this disagreement already? At the moment it's written like "he said, she said", whether ideally we take a more distant view, so that we can write in WP:Wikivoice. Femke ( talk) 07:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Dietz uncritically reproduced Manne’s assumptions: “The catastrophic warming temperature [of 17.68 ∘C] is derived from the assumption that economic losses rise quadratically, and are calibrated to a loss of 2% at 2.5 ∘C warmingor
Dietz et al. is also based on papers which are themselves highly questionable. For example, Anthoff et al. (10) concludes that losing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) would actually increase global GDP. This defies good sense and scientific research predicting a “catastrophic” (6) decline in food production.
it's a misleading approach to evaluate "Impacts" anyway"in my removal-rationale that isn't even mentioned in that linked critical review is that it quantifies the impacts by inappropriate numbers: it does not evaluate risks for (causally contributing to) societal collapse or excess deaths, for number of deaths, for numbers of years of potential life lost ( YPLL) and similar, for well-being, for health, and so on. These things should and could be quantified. Various numbers are more appropriate economic measures than GDP or contemporary financial numbers too. There are many flaws with GDP (in relation to reality) and that (these) metric is used in that study without reflection and as if it's some sort of necessity for economics or as if these were natural laws/values that a "science" of economics investigates (this is a common fallacy in economics in general). The issue with that study isn't even
Future loss calculations by economists must be developed, not in isolation from climate scientists, but in close collaboration with them.but that economists are unscientifically calculating loss based on historically emerged but highly undue limited constructed measures, the concept of "social cost of carbon" itself is to some degree, at least in its application here, substantially misleading. tl;dr: evaluate the impacts based on things like years of potential life lost (and/or risks thereof), risks and (other) economic costs (monetarily: higher adaptation costs, productivity losses, etc). Not only does the study do a bad job of providing a lower bound of GDP/financial impacts, the metrics/quantifiers used are inappropriate and very narrow anyway. This may also apply to other places in WP where people thought it would be a good idea to put arbitrary " financial price-tags" on things.
This content below was cut out from climate apocalypse, perhaps it could be used here (the paper is already mentioned once):
+++++++++++
A paper published in the journal PNAS in August 2018 entitled "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene" described a threshold which, if crossed, could trigger multiple tipping points and self-reinforcing feedback loops that would prevent stabilization of the climate, causing much greater warming and sea-level rises and leading to severe disruption to ecosystems, society, and economies. It described this as the " Hothouse Earth" scenario and proposed a threshold of around 2°C above pre-industrial levels, arguing that decisions taken over the next decade could influence the climate of the planet for tens to hundreds of thousands of years and potentially even lead to conditions which are inhospitable to current human societies. The report also states that there is a possibility of a cascade of tipping points being triggered even if the goal outlined in the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5-2.0°C (2.7-3.6°F) is achieved. [1] EMsmile ( talk) 08:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 08:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The excerpt from African humid period has introduced a bunch of ref errors as that article uses the short ref style. Either the sources from that article need to be copied across, or the ref style in the African humid period article needs to be converted to long ref style (at least for that section that is being transcribed. I don't have time at the moment to fix it myself, sorry. EMsmile ( talk) 08:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I've just changed the structure a bit to make things easier to find. I felt that the section on tipping points was far too long (containing about 70% of the article's content) and the logical sub-structure was missing. The new sub-structure is like this (is that alright?; I've marked in bold my proposed groupings:
Definition Geological timescales Comparison of tipping points Tipping points in the cryosphere Tipping points in ocean currents Tipping points in terrestrial systems Other tipping points Formerly considered tipping elements Mathematical theory Potential impacts