Talk:2020s in climate history

Scope and Name

Covering all of the 21st century in one article seems a little ambitious. Wouldn't this topic be better-served with article scoped decades? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Short form references

This article is missing all the cites to complete the short forms references. For instance IPCC AR6 WG1 2021 is just a link, without the full cite it links to it's worthless. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! Looks like the text here is just made up of transclusions from other articles. Since the transclusions were carelessly done, and remedying them is tedious and very fragile even when working, should the content just be deleted? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion by yes. Starting the article by doing no more than using {{excerpt}} is the route cause. Realistically if the article is going to be kept, the AfD just closed as "no consensus", then it needs to be completely rewritten. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the broken {{excerpt}} sections. I'm not too sure what the goal of this article is; maybe it's worth fixing the exerpts to be usable, but transclusion is quite fragile and it's not clear to me what the intent of this article really is. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Referencing and transclusion of any kind rarely work well together. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Intended scope?

At the AfD for this article ,a question was raised about the intended scope. What is "climate history"? Seems like there's climate science, climate events, climate politics ... are those all parts of climate history? How do we know if some topic or subject should be included in this article or not? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The lede for this article says it's meant to catalog "major events". How does the scope of this article relate to other articles that catalog climate events, lke 2021 Pacific typhoon season, 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, 2022 Montana floods, or 2021 Kansas wildfire outbreak? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought I would look at other similar articles to see how it's handled elsewhere. What I came across was 2020 in climate change, 2021 in climate change, and 2022 in climate change. They're a series of articles with proper scope and structure that appear to make this article redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah--I don't understand how "climate history" is different than those articles. @Sm8900: @Moondragon21: @Glades12: @Bilorv: you were all "strong keep" or "keep" at the AfD, but we haven't heard from you here. How do you see this article being different than the existing articles? Maybe it's a decade-level summary of the yearly articles? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

my own appraoch is that climate change is having multiple impacts in terms of weather events, as well as other related phenomena; eg, some say that a decrease in pressure on tectonic plates might actually cause more seismisc events/. based on that, we can include a variety of events here as climate impacts and events, of course only if reliable sources portray them that way. i appreciate your note. Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose a decade-level summary of the yearly articles is what to aim for at present. Throughout the decade and after it, though, the proportion of sources that describe general trends in the 2020s rather than individual events at one point in time may increase. For instance, it might be "Green parties across Europe saw substantially increased vote shares", where no individual election result is due weight at any year article, or "Extreme weather events became more common in this region of the globe", where most individual weather events are not in isolation provably different due to climate change.

I don't see a difference between "X in climate change" and "X in climate history", but the latter sounds more right to me. I can't imagine "2019 in celestial bodies" rather than "2019 in astronomy": you should name the human field of study rather than the object of study. — Bilorv (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"History" isn't used in other similar contexts in Wikipedia, I don't think. OTOH, there's already 2020s in environmental history, so how is this article meant to be different? I suppose a summary, too. But isn't that really broad? Earthquakes, wind storms (tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes), and temperature records (both high and low), food shortage, ... plus direct human reaction to those things (new laws and legislation, economic changes like taxes or synthetic trading, ...) all seem like they'd all need to be cataloged here. That's very broad, and a lot more like a category than a summary article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand; however, environmental history can include anything pertaining to the environment, such as oil spills, nuclear problems, regulatory changes, mercury dumped into rivers, smog, issues regarding 5G cell towers, famine due to depletion of soil, smog, deforestation by indistrial activity, oil drilling, annihilation of endangered species due to specific human activity suich as hunting etc.

this article is to document the many long-range significant impacts related to climate; this specifically means widespread trends and patterns in key areas such as extreme weather, forest fires, droughts, storms, increases in key data such as global average temrprature, patterns of fossil-fuel emissions,, methane feedbacks, record low levels of rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water. in short all the myriad ways that climate change is already causing doom and destruction across wide regions of human habitation. Sm8900 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That seems too broad to be practical. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)