This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Geology Mid‑importance Talk:Climate change feedbacks is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Arctic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: Climate Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes Section size for Climate change feedbacks (30 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 8,028 8,028 Definition and terminology 2,494 2,494 Positive feedbacks through the carbon cycle 10,926 38,696 Arctic methane release 4,512 10,231 Thawing permafrost 5,719 5,719 Hydrates 3,596 3,596 Abrupt increases in atmospheric methane 5,595 5,595 Decomposition 1,686 1,686 Peat decomposition 1,494 1,494 Rainforest drying 2,161 2,161 Forest fires 2,206 2,206 Desertification 801 801 Positive feedbacks through other mechanisms 85 14,686 Water vapor feedback 2,255 2,255 Cloud feedback 3,521 3,521 Ice–albedo feedback 6,243 6,243 Gas release by various sources 2,582 2,582 Negative feedbacks 25 8,736 Planck feedback 2,638 2,638 Carbon cycle negative feedbacks 1,908 6,073 Role of oceans 1,224 1,224 Chemical weathering 1,643 1,643 Primary production through photosynthesis 1,298 1,298 Mechanisms with positive or negative feedback 53 4,394 Lapse rate 4,341 4,341 Mathematical formulation of global energy imbalance 4,304 4,304 Implications for climate policy 1,766 1,766 See also 201 201 References 1,780 1,780 External links 424 424 Total 85,509 85,509

Archives

Archive 1

Cleaned up some refs and code, switched some to LDR, others to ((Cite doi)). We're using the latest AFAIK. Some references I think could be improved. For example, #2 from the University of Texas are lecture notes, and #4 is about planetary science in general—not really focused on climate change feedback.[1] ChyranandChloe (talk)

The "Negative feedbacks" section of the graphic has been re-worked in new Version 5 (05:54, 20 July 2023). —RCraig09 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjsmith757, InformationToKnowledge, Dtetta, and Femke: Requesting concise input on what wording to include in this diagram. There may be some subtleties on what different sources define as a climate feedback per se (versus a parallel process), but let's define concisely what to include in the diagram with minimal theoretical digressions if possible. Specific wording is key at this point, keeping in mind space limitations in the graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• · The key here for me is making sure the image is accessible. I have difficulty reading the small font, especially in blue. The title can become "climate change feedbacks". CO₂ can be used rather than the full carbon diodide. I think we can omit soils for brevity. I would omit the words "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" as jargon (and in the article use the more lay-friendly "self-reinforcing and balancing" feedbacks). I would omit water vapor under Greenhouse gases (and just state CO₂, methane and NO₂), as it's not a forcing but only a feedback.

· The image gives the impression that removal of CO2 by ocean and plants is a "global warming" feedback, rather than a GHG emission feedback. Will require a bit of reshuffling to put this above global warming. Image gives the impression there are as many positive as negative feedbacks, which is not quite correct according to the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for excellent conciseness. Will deeply consider and implement many, to the extent practical. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• · Thanks for your continued efforts to improve this graphic RCraig09. I generally concur with with what Femke has said, although IMO your approach of positive/negative with those terms explained in the caption seems pretty clear -don’t have a strong opinion on this. Agree with Femke it would be better to try and introduce more lay friendly feedback terms into the body of the article. A few additional thoughts:

· On the left column you use “the” a couple of times, but not on the right. Suggest on the right side you describe plants and oceans as removing CO2 from “the” air.

· When you delete water vapor from the greenhouse section, as Femke has suggested, I’m assuming you will redirect the arrow from that text box directly to global warming, correct?

· Although it’s somewhat clear, for the text box on water vapor I might say something like ”increased water vapor in the atmosphere from warming” Dtetta (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks^∞ — I'll try to assimilate everyone's thoughts. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made by Femke. I will elaborate a little bit more in the section "sub-issues" below.EMsmile (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-issues

Please answer inline within each topic, so we can keep discussions separate. I've implemented (late 22 July) many of the above suggestions (exceptions discussed as follows). I'll post a new version if more time passes without further comment below.

• Friendly names for positive/negative feedback. It seems consensus is to mention friendly names for positive/negative feedbacks in narrative text. I was going to supplement (not replace) the narrative text and image caption with friendly names, but I could not find a pair of friendly terms that are agreed on. Proposals so far are:

— reinforcing/balancing (EMsmile, source not specified)

— enhancing/weakening (IPCC)

— amplify/diminish (AR6 WGI TechSummary Fig TS.17)

— stabilizing/destabilizing (Sjsmith)

— amplifying/reducing (NASA)

— self-reinforcing/balancing (Femke, source not specified).

Does anyone know of an authoritative source for friendly names? —RCraig09 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Both IPCC and NASA seem authoritative to me. Of the two, I think NASA doesn’t a much better job of explaining Climate Change concepts. Dtetta (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean "NASA does a much better job...". —RCraig09 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I've encountered is that sources use verbs to describe the feedbacks, but don't actually say the pos & neg feedbacks are "also called xxx and yyy feedbacks". It's possibly interpretive editorial overreach to say pos & neg feedbacks, esp. climate feedbacks, are also called anything. Our image caption and first paragraph of lead currently make the definitions clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that Femke had the same comment that I had had, namely that "would omit the words "positive feedback" and "negative feedback" as jargon". In general, we can gently teach people about those terms by using the plainer wordings in different locations of the article. In particular, I don't like that we have a section heading called "Positive feedbacks", as I've said before. I don't mind if we use "self-reinforcing vs. balancing" or any of the other variations that you've listed. We could probably explain that there are different words used in the literature to describe these effects and that the "scientific terms" are positive/negative. EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I intend to introduce brief sentences immediately below the /* Positive feedbacks */ and /* Negative feedbacks */ sections summarizing how the respective feedbacks are defined, without changing the section names themselves. Since there are so many descriptive variations (list above), none are authoritative, and it's a distraction to list them all since "Positive" and "Negative" are the only terms that are ~universal. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just uploaded Version 10, with descriptive terms (amplify warming) and (reduce warming) at the bottom, based on NASA terminology. The original authoritative terms, Positive feedbacks and Negative feedbacks, are retained. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Water vapor: Forcings vs Greenhouse gases. Initially I'm leaning toward retaining "water vapor" within the "Greenhouse gases" block because, well, it's a potent greenhouse gas (per NASA). The graphic's box merely says "Greenhouse gases", which makes me wonder why the "forcings" issue is determinative or even relevant. Concise explanation or graphical suggestions requested. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about the water vapor issue so can't comment. But perhaps it comes down to the "impossible task" of having a concise/easy schematic for this. I still have my doubts that it's even worth trying to have such a schematic (see alos below).

The graphic presents a good sampling of feedbacks in relatively simple flowchart form. It's not "impossible". More below, in the "Gives the impression..." section. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "CO₂" vs "Carbon dioxide". I'm continuing to avoid use of subscripts because they require use of an SVG <tspan> element, which is suspected of involvement in ongoing SVG font rendering problems (software bug in Wikimedia projects). "Carbon dioxide" is also less jargony. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of subscript then you could just make it CO2 without a subscript. In spoken language, "CO2 emissions" has become much more common than "carbon dioxide emissions" (for example). CO2 is in effect a 3-syllable word whereas "carbon dioxide" is a 5-syllable word. So I think CO2 would indeed be better here than carbon dioxide.

Counting syllables (!) is a formality, especially in a written diagram that isn't even being pronounced. Choosing to avoid a chemical formula in a layman's encyclopedia relates to accessability and is thus more substantive, especially when the chemical formula can't be a properly rendered chemical formula. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Removal of CO2 by ocean and plants. Dotted lines do lead to the "Greenhouse gases" block—as they should. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the graph or caption can I find an explanation what the dotted lines versus the solid lines mean? Please put that in the the image caption. Also, I don't think those vertical and horizontal arrows in the middle of the schematic work well. It looks like there is a direct connection (double ended arrow) for the boxes, e.g. there is a double arrow from the box "snow cover loss" to the box "warmed Earth emits". EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dashed lines merely meant feedback paths, but issue is avoided in Version 9, uploaded 25 July. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Give the impression...". (... about + and - feedbacks being in balance, etc.). These "impression" comments are subjective, and at least for the time being I plan to leave the blocks as they are, since they show the science of CC feedbacks beyond the current era. Also, the blocks are visually/graphically balanced. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a major problem with this as well and agree with Femke who said "Image gives the impression there are as many positive as negative feedbacks, which is not quite correct according to the article". I don't think the "visually/graphically balanced" explanation helps either. The schematic currently looks very balanced which is misleading/confusing and comes from the graphical setup with those boxes (one individual box for each mechanism). It might help to use only one single box on each side (so one on the positive side and one on the negative side) which each contains a bullet point list of mechanisms). This way it might become clearer (visually) that this is just a shortened list and that there is no "balance" whatsoever. It would also make the schematic simpler.

Overall, I value your attempts/determination to have such a schematic but I have lingering doubts that it could really be made to "work". Either it would have to be more detailed (e.g. the thickness of arrows indicating the magnitude of the effects) or it should be much simpler (just a box with a bullet point list on each side). EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It "works", right now. First, the article and its lead image should not be only about Earth and only about the present time period, even if that's what we might be inclined to think about; there will be different (im)balances at different places and different times. Three boxes on each side simply don't imply feedbacks are balanced; that is a subjective projection. Combining into boxed lists destroys the purpose of a graphic, especially one that distinguish feedbacks from each other. Many of your concerns can be addressed, if necessary, in captions and narrative text. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that a feedback analysis of the links in Al Gore (2006). An inconvenient truth: the planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it. would be a useful contribution and i guess i agree that File:Gore inconvenient truth loops.png isn't high quality, so i've put it in the article about the book itself. i'd hoped that somebody might improve the image as it's a useful contribution to understanding the ultimately negative consequences of human population growth and technological development. if you know of anyone who'd like to pursue this, please let me know. Lee De Cola (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing, User:Ldecola. Al Gore's diagram may be less-than-professional in its graphical presentation, but it does begin to show the complexity of feedbacks in the climate system. I see its main value is to demonstrate "Climate feedbacks are complicated!"—a proposition that can be stated in text backed up by reliable sources. Other than improving the graphical representation a bit, I can't conceive of a way to improve the graphic in a way that would crystallize readers' understanding of feedbacks. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I regard the graphic's main point as that most of the important feedbacks to humans are negative and will reduce their numbers during this century, and we are seeing this playing out now. I think I'll post a similar graphic with page numbers on the AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH page, and see who reacts.Lee De Cola (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ldecola, that "Al Gore" graphic looks to me like a layperson or teacher has drawn it up - it just doesn't look very professional (unless its main point is to say "it's complicated!"...) I think there are better ones out there already, like this one on the right:

Also we have better articles for this topic, like effects of climate change and effects of climate change on human health. This article here is meant to be very much focused on only those very specific feedback effects, and will remain rather techy and sciency. The easier-to-understand information is more likely available to people at the range of articles that we already, which are called "effects of climate change on...". EMsmile (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we can drop the discussion of the graphic(s); but tho i'm an expert on global change, i AM anxious that Wikipedia may not be doing a good job of laying out the basics - but i expect that better heads than i are also aware of this. Lee De Cola (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You Lee De Cola may find it easiest to go to the Talk Pages of particular articles, and make suggestions or "Edit requests" that you think might remedy your concerns. It's critical to be very specific in any suggestions you make. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done some work on the lead:

• I used the table of content to come up with a summarised list of positive and negative feedbacks but it made me realised how poor some of the section headings, ordering and structure were. I've tried to make some quick changes (knowing that people already look at this article now for information) but I know this will require further work.
• I also tried to put them a bit more in order of "most important" to "least important". Please help if I got this wrong.
• Also, the information about the blackbody radiation is confusing. Femke had added: "it is typically not considered a feedback" whereas later in the main text we do list it under negative feedback and it says there: "It is called the Planck response, and sometimes considered a negative feedback". Here on the talk page, user InformationToKnowledge had quoted "Outgoing longwave radiation acts as the main major negative feedback, as hot things radiate more heat away". So I am confused now.
• Question: should we mention something about the lapse rate in the lead? Note: I have now moved that into a new section for things that can be either positive or negative. User:Sjsmith757 can you help further with the info on the lapse rate? EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bikesrcool or anyone else: could you help with cleaning up the content about blackbody radiation? Or has this already been sorted out? I see in the lead This blackbody radiation or Planck response has been identified as "the most fundamental feedback in the climate system" - do we need to provide both those terms or would one be sufficient? Are they the same thing? EMsmile (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bikesrcool: WP:ONEDOWN is a general principle that I think editors in the climate change area intuitively follow, as we know we are communicating with the general public. Separately, I think the formulation itself is so similar to the early textual description, that a formulation doesn't really add anything more to the reader's knowledge. For these reasons, a "Mathematical formulation" section is not appropriate so early--and prominently--in the article. If it's retained in the article, I definitely think it should be moved down, before "See also" because all previous sections are meant for a lay audience and their likely concerns. I hope you'll consider these constructive remarks. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive comment. The section has been moved to later for now. I feel the math is stripped down to a bare minimum while still succinctly linking the connected concepts of energy imbalance, forcings, and feedbacks. If placed earlier, the math complements the other introductory info in that sense, and would - in my opinion - be more logically situated before diving into the more gritty details of each individual component. Please also consider that highlighting a bit of low-level math can serve as a way of communicating the rigorous foundations of the science with the general public. Bikesrcool (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bikesrcool: Thank you for being open minded. Discussions like recent ones at Talk:Greenhouse effect are in line with a community approach that the techy stuff should be placed lower in articles or in separate subsidiary articles. Generally, the presence of mathematical discussion might suggest credibility of the subject to the lay reader; however, a stripped-down version of the math that is just an alternative expression of the already-existing textual description, tends to suggest we are straining to "sell" a subject's credibility. (Conversely, going beyond the stripped-down version would be too techy for 99% of readers here.) In the present case, I think we've arrived at a good solution. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also have my doubts about this section. The formulae initially seem offputting but when reading through the section, I can see that they are very simple. Just putting the words into an equation. And then I wonder what's the point in even having them. I guess it's OK that they're so far down the article now but I would even be inclined to take the equations out and just leave the words (and in this case moving the section back towards the beginning again). I came to this article again because Bikesrcool was pondering over putting the same equations also at radiative forcing, see talk page there. EMsmile (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about a singular feedback. Even in our definitional sentence we begin by saying "Climate change feedbacks...". Sorry if this has been covered before, but it reads weird in the general climate change article as well, where climate forces are all plural except feedbacks. We have "aerosols", "clouds", "greenhouse gases", and then "climate change feedback". Any objection to doing a simple rename to this article? Efbrazil (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. I'm OK either way, but the plural does inherently convey more information, instantly. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. I agree with you. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to improve the reading ease of the lead but this sentence really baffles me, it seems messed up: These are arctic methane release from thawing permafrost, peat bogs and hydrates, abrupt increases in atmospheric methane, decomposition, peat decomposition, rainforest drying, forest fires, desertification. Seems like a messy list. Also, the paragraph in the lead about positive feedbacks (currently the second one) should line up better with the graphic on the right. I suggest to use the same ordering, and ensure the most important one is first (?). EMsmile (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]