Talk:2021 in climate change

Proposed guidelines

This section is an excerpt from Talk:2020 in climate change § Proposed guidelines.[edit]

Proposed guidelines

This article is envisioned as one of a series documenting year-by-year occurrences pertaining to climate change. The series of articles will provide annual "snapshots" and "status updates" for future historians to determine "what was known, when" and "what happened, when".

1. Post content that is specific to a particular year. The yearly status of ongoing phenomena or actions is acceptable, but general scientific principles and expansive historical reviews are inappropriate here.
2. Make the text concise. (Background information, general principles, technical definitions, etc., should be put within citation footnotes, in the "Notes" section, or in other Wikipedia articles.)
3. Though Wikipedia is not a newspaper, individual events that were important in the then-current year may be appropriate.
4. Keep each entry brief, ideally a sentence or two.
5. Keep content organized in meaningfully titled sections (listed below)—not one long list.
6. Within each section, strive to arrange entries chronologically.
7. Strive to maintain section titles consistent in articles from year to year.

Initial section structure:

• Summaries — (prominent-source surveys putting the year in perspective)
• Measurements and statistics — (raw numerical values)
• Natural events and phenomena — (natural occurrences contributing to or resulting from climate change)
• Actions and goal statements (actions by humans; subsections:)

• Science and technology (e.g., measurement techniques, renewable energy technical advances, expeditions, etc.)
• Political, economic, legal, and cultural actions (causing or resulting from climate change)
• Mitigation goal statements — (e.g., climate emergency declarations, NDCs, net zero pledges, ...)
• Adaptation goal statements — (statements re coping with expected effects of climate change)

• Public opinion and scientific consensus — (scientific consensus studies, studies of public perceptions, etc.)
• Projections — (predictive estimates of future causes, effects, etc.)
• Significant publications — (major publications by prominent sources)
• See also — (links to other Wikipedia articles)
• Notes — (e.g., technical explanations not suitable for body text)
• References — (place full citations in bottom section, to keep narrative wikitext more compact)
• External links

—RCraig09 (talk), begun 06:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

“Fingerprint of climate change” sources?

@RCraig09:, what is your source(s) with regards to Typhoon Surigae & climate change? I am presuming your reference is this article from The Washington Post, as your reasoning for removing the “relevance” tag on the cyclone mention quoted the title of the article.

That reference falls under the category of WP:RSBREAKING, as it is a secondary reliable source, however, it was published during the typhoon. I still believe the relevance tag is necessary unless you can provide post-typhoon analysis articles (i.e. after May 2, 2021 dates), since a single breaking-news article making a statement about climate change does not mean there is scientific analysis and research saying climate change caused it. So, can you please provide other sources besides that breaking-news article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Also to note, the entire Typhoon Surigae article does not mention the term “climate change” at all. In fact, the only control + f hit for “climate change” in the article happens to be that exact news title. I.e. no actual non-breaking news sources for a claim of a link to climate change. Therefore, if a source isn’t provided, the relevant tag should be re-added and if no source can be found within a reasonable timeframe (roughly a week), the entire mention should be removed until a non-breaking reliable source makes the link. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Each source does not have to specifically recite its relevance to climate change to justify contenet in 20xx in Climate Change articles; that storm intensification is the fingerprint of climate change is basic climate science at this point. The content here does not claim "climate change caused it"; that is a common misunderstanding that does not have to be refuted at every turn. The Washington Post article says it's already the strongest storm in four months' record keeping; that fact won't change by waiting until the storm is over. Note that the Washington Post article links to [Yale Climate Connections] publication, which in turn cites the Japan Meteorological Agency; if you want to add that sourcing, of course I have no objection though it's not necessary. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Still all breaking-news articles published amid the typhoon. Addition of that note strictly based on the criteria of any RS news article (even during a storm) that mentioned “climate change” is poor encyclopedic standards. I will leave the BSN tag on as RSBREAKING is not the best source for information regarding climate change and that some analysis post-typhoon should be used instead. Also to note, that Yale Climate Connections article was published even earlier (legit 5 days after typhoon formation and over 2 weeks before typhoon end), so it is very much RSBREAKING as half the typhoon’s livespan had not even happened at the time of the “Climate Change” declaration. It can stay on the article, but hopefully you can see why the better source needed template should also be there.

Right now, that source/inclusion alone would raise questions at any future GANs, hence why that template is needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed some content, and added content sourced to a 2022 NASA publication. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)