Talk:Tipping points in the climate system/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Historical use of the term in this context

As a reader, I would be interested to know when both the concept and the term itself entered the discussion on global warming (as it was back then). This search need not be limited to the english language either. Simply a suggestion! RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Clouds

I don't think our current section on clouds is neutral. It talks about two different things:

• Recent models having higher climate sensitivity unrelated to tipping points (and unlikely to reflect reality, see f.i. https://environment.princeton.edu/news/high-end-of-climate-sensitivity-in-new-climate-models-seen-as-less-plausible/). This is described using language that is too informal for Wikipedia ("push global heating into overdrive")
• A single modelling study of stratocumulus clouds. The IPCC was extremely cautious in its assessment, and I think that caution should lead us to not discuss the study, or describe it mainly based on the IPCC. They say this about the study (emphasis mine):

The possibility of more substantial changes in climate feedbacks, sometimes accompanied by hysteresis and/or irreversibility, has been suggested from some theoretical and modelling studies. It has been postulated that such changes could occur on a global scale and across relatively narrow temperature changes (Popp et al., 2016; von der Heydt and Ashwin, 2016; Steffen et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2019; Ashwin and von der Heydt, 2020; Bjordal et al., 2020). However, the associated mechanisms are highly uncertain, and as such there is low confidence as to whether such behaviour exists at all, and in the temperature thresholds at which it might occur.

Femke (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed brief new section on scientific community opinion, based on UNDP mass survey research and study of IPCC scientists

Hi everyone! I am working on a group project for a research class with the goal of improving the selected article to move it closer to “Featured Article” quality. For this project we are meant to make some sort of edit/add information to the current article. We have drafted a proposed new section that would add a new heading called “public opinions” This would briefly explore both leading scientists as well as global citizens' thoughts on climate change through large surveys and research. This will help improve the “Wikipedia: Featured article criteria” of Comprehension and Well Researched to add some new up to date information. ForgetMeNot2121 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)ForgetMeNot2121

We plan to add our section slowly over three days starting Tuesday (11/09), any input is welcome. ForgetMeNot2121 (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)ForgetMeNot2121

Hello! Great that you would like to improve this article. I'm not sure if adding public opinion to this article is useful. There is a lot of misunderstanding about tipping points, so polling about it may not tell us that much. We already have a lot of articles on Wikipedia about public opinion on climate change in general, such as public opinion on climate change and scientific consensus on climate change. We try to not duplicate too much information. Femke (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The study of scientists may be relevant. Can you integrate it into an existing section? Femke (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Femke That does makes sense. Our thought process is layed out with what my group partner said below, that it is lacking any input from lay people to be able to understand the research. I agree the the information could be useful to this article, I just did not identify a good spot as to where it would be relevant without creating the new section. We are going to work on this and change some wording to help it fit better with the existing article. Thanks again! ForgetMeNot2121 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you too Femke and User:Willondon for showing us how this article doesn't have a place for 'public' opinion. Our concern with the article currently is that there is no explanation for the average reader to look at all the amazing research explained within the article and understand what it all means/how people are taking said information into account. Our edit addresses this issue by explaining how the scientific communities have taken all this research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesunandsheflowers (talk • contribs)

The problem with the edit remains: the surveys are not specific to tipping points. Maybe these people classified it as an emergency because of heat waves, droughts, intense hurricanes, none of which are tipping elements. The IPCC even says explicitly that the amount of surface warming is very unlikely to be a tipping element. Is there a survey specific to the topic? Femke (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Two technical points: to correctly add a reference, please use the <ref> tag. Most courses teach this before students add to articles. Can you make sure your user page links to the course description? Also, keep in mind that section headings follow sentence case. So 'public debate' rather than 'Public Debate'. Femke (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thesunandsheflowers ForgetMeNot2121 Yes always good to see new people. Perhaps you have a course page which looks something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Bentley_University/NASE_337-1_Global_Climate_Change_(Fall_2021) ? I think tipping points is a rather difficult subject - well for a layperson like me anyway. If you are having any difficultly finding a suitable article to improve you could ask at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change by clicking "new subject". There are lots of articles which need your brains and enthusiasm. If you decide to stay with this article I would be interested to hear whether the public knows anything about tipping points and if so is it misinformation. And what about school teachers (geography?) - do they understand tipping points correctly? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think our course has a Wikipedia page unfortunately Femke Chidgk1 . Also, thank you for the tips on how to add headings and references, we will try to do this correctly in the future.

Your reasoning does make sense Femke as to why our originally proposed information does not fit with the article, we will no longer try to add it.

I believe we have found a better source that is more specific to the topic of tipping points, https://globalcommonsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Global-Commons-G20-Survey-full-report.pdf . We still stand by our thoughts that a section on the scientific community and or global opinion on tipping points would be beneficial to the reader to further understand the article and ground them in the heavy science-specific language and information throughout. This is a similar concern to what some expressed above in the talk page about this article not being very accessible to the average person. This new source is a global survey that shows what many different countries thoughts are about questions surrounding tipping points. We are eager to hear your feedback as to whether this source is a better fit, as well as, if our proposed section has a place in this article. ForgetMeNot2121 (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)ForgetMeNot2121

That works better. While I would still prefer it not to be added, that is a matter of personal opinion, and I don't WP:OWN the article. I won't revert you. Femke (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah I did not know about that source - will read it now - I can probably use it in one of the Turkey articles I am working on - thanks very much. Hope you enjoy your editing. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thesunandsheflowers ForgetMeNot2121 I had a look at the question in the survey and as far as I can tell their description of "tipping point" does not match the first sentence of this article. They say "may be more difficult to stabilize in future" but isn't the problem after something has tipped that we don't want to stabilize but we want to go back and cross the threshold in reverse if you see what I mean? For example the Amazon rainforest is a carbon source but we don't want to stabilize it as a source (presumably easy for President Bolsonaro to do) we want to push it back to being a sink. By the way maybe the high mark for Brazil is encouraging as maybe the public there think the Amazon has only just passed the tipping point and is still close so might be pushed back. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Arctic sea ice

I am confused why we list this as a tipping element when the text says the IPCC says that even if all the ice melts it is not a tipping point. How could it tip further if all the ice had already melted? Should the section be deleted or am I misunderstanding something? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Its a difficult one. It has been grouped as a tipping point in older work, so there is a reason to keep it in as well. Femke (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Cite for "Observable early warning signals"

Hello Yaklib I just looked at the cite supplemental file S2 page 10 and it does not itself mention observable early warning signals.

But I have not looked at (Hulbe 2021) and (Lenton et al. 2019) which that page cites.

If they mention observable early warning signals I think it will be best if you cite them

Chidgk1 (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a diagram?

Hey hardworking and clever students,

Do you agree?

I cannot figure out how to improve the first sentence.

Can you?

Should we have a simple diagram something like https://ensia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Explainer_TippingPoints_vectorgraphic-920x604.jpg ?

Or maybe a seesaw animation like in https://climatetippingpoints.info/2016/11/08/new-video-a-quick-animated-guide-to-climate-tipping-points/ ? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think they do match. Iirc, the newest ipcc report has a simpler definition of tipping points. We could replace the complicated def? Would be nice to have such a graph. The first one is typical of a bifurcation tipping point. The second one would be more decorative. Femke (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - amended first sentence to ipcc - so English students - is one arts student worth 1000 of you? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah page 1-195 in AR6 WG1 report https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf has "Figure 1.17: Illustration of two types of tipping points: noise-induced (panels a, b) and bifurcation (panels c, d)." So students are you still here? If so what do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Observable warning signals

@Femke and @William M. Connolley have been working together to remove any information describing early warning signals, using very dubious reasons for doing so. The thing is, removing this section in its entirety raises some problematic questions.

1) Does it mean there is no observable evidence of tipping points? Surely that would mean there is nothing we can do to prevent them occurring.

2) If there are no observable tipping points, why are so many scientists expressing concern about them. Here's a few.

• IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
• Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against:
• Earth at a Tipping Point
• Explainer: Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change
• Climate tipping points could topple like dominoes, warn scientists
• As Climate Change Worsens, A Cascade of Tipping Points Looms
• Studies add to concern about climate tipping

If there are no observable warning signs, how do the scientists even know we are approaching these tipping points?

3) There is a section in the article describing Public concern about tipping points. It describes a survey conducted in 20 countries which found 73% of those surveyed believe "Because of human activities, the Earth is close to ‘tipping points’".

How could all these people come to believe the Earth is close to tipping points if there are no observable warning signals?

It seems to me there should be a section in this article describing early warning signals. Comment from other editors welcome. Yaklib (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There are two reasons scientists suspects we're reaching a tipping point. In most of the cases, we model the temperature threshold of the tipping element and say "oh fuck, we're getting awfully close". That's why we should include an estimate of a threshold in each tipping element subsection.

The second one, more rare, is that there are EWS we observe, such as a change in autocorrelation, variance and the like. This hasn't happened yet for most tipping elements. What is explicitly not an early warning signal is the normal/linear change seen in these systems. That type of change would happen even if there is no tipping behaviour. I'm not removing any of those. I am removing extreme weather in tipping elements, as the sources you use are either low quality for scientific facts or they don't make the link you want to make. Femke (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Are there any editors out there willing to answer the questions I have asked - rather than those who just want to justify their deleterious behaviour? Preferably using simple English instead of scientific terms like autocorrelation & variance which mean nothing to the average punter who reads wikipedia. I'm sure the 20,000 people who participated in the survey described above have never heard of auto-correlation - and yet they believe the earth is close to tipping points. So they must have 'observed' something - possibly extreme weather events reported in the media ...? Yaklib (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And there you see the problem with science-by-survey: if those 20k people don't know what autocorr is, their opinion on tipping points is worthless. they must have 'observed' something - but how would they know it was anything to do with TP? FWIW my opinion is that TP are vastly oversold, even as some have parlayed them into high profile careers William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet another editor who is keen on his own opinion, but unwilling to answer the questions I have asked. Yaklib (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

1) I don't know. We need to look more closely at the AR6 report to find out I guess.

2) After looking closely at the AR6 report we should then consider any of the links you give which missed the cutoff date of 31 January 2021 for AR6 I suppose.

3) As I told the students above the definition of tipping point in the survey seems to be different from our first sentence.

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD

@Yaklib:. Overall, I think there were some good changes last night. I'm seeing the myth that 1.5C is in itself a tipping point back into the article. It failed verification, and a similar edit was previously reverted. When your edit gets reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus on the talk page to have it reinstated.

@Femke When you keep reverting information you disagree with (despite what the sources say), the onus is on you to avoid WP:OWN. Although you also make valuable contributions, your editing and comments display numerous examples of such behaviour. For instance, the statement you made in a previous discussion with me that that you only allow material to be added "once I'm happy it's scientifically accurate" highlights your sense of ownership. As an example of ownership behaviour, WP:OWN states "The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article." That's pretty much how you operate.

Your statement about the unreliability of information from news articles reflects a similar sense of ownership. WP: Reliable Sources states "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Your current concern appears to be with the reliability of the Australian Financial Review. Wikipedia notes that the AFP "has consistently been well received by the journalism sector as one of the most high-quality newsrooms across Australia." Before that you deleted information sourced from George Monbiot who in 2017, was a recipient of the SEAL Environmental Journalism Award for his work at The Guardian.

You have even deleted material cited directly (with quotation marks) from Chatham House claiming it 'failed verification'. According to wikipedia, in 2017, "Chatham House was ranked the think tank of the year, and the second-most influential in the world after the Brookings Institution, and the world's most influential non-U.S. think tank.[60] In November 2016, Chatham House was also named Prospect magazine's Think-Tank of the Year, as well as the winner in the UK categories for International Affairs and Energy and Environment." It seems your your sense of ownership of this article is so ingrained, it even extends to removing information from highly reliable academic sources that you disagree with.

The fact that you have appointed yourself as the arbiter of what is scientifically accurate in this WP article, and refuse to accept anything from mainstream media sources designated as reliable by wikipedia - and even reject material from secondary scientific sources as well - is a clear breach of WP:OWN and a major obstacle to constructive collaboration. Yaklib (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A few other tips:

• Please use secondary scientific sources. The IPCC specifically is quite easy to understand for non-scientists, and freely available. News articles are rarely appropriate for this article, as they typically don't have the expertise to write about this. (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press
• Use {{CO2}} to write CO2 with the appropriate subscript
• If you use the Visual Editor, you can have nicely formatted citations created from urls. They are put in a template like {{cite book}}, so that it's formatted the same across wikipedia. Femke (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

When I say failed verification, it means that the source does not say what you claim it to say, not that the source is unreliable. At first glance, Chatham seems reliable. Sources that are generally reliable may not be so for scientific information. This is a technical topic, and its not surprising that there are many errors in mainstream media.

I'm open to having outside input. There are many venues. If you believe my conduct is the main issue, you can file a report at WP:AE. This could lead to me being sanctioned, but also risks you being sanctioned. If you would like outside input on the reliability of sources, you can open a thread at WP:RSN. A third opinion can be asked via WP:3O. Femke (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Femke. The Chatham House information is quoted directly from Chatham House. I have not made any claims about the information in those quotes. So it is impossible for me to have misrepresented what they say. Your claim that it failed verification makes no sense at all. Yaklib (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As I told you before, I said I would conominate for GA "once I'm happy it's scientifically accurate". There are still plenty of sentences you added that I believe somewhat inaccurate, but haven't reverted. You've written over half of the article. If I portrayed inappropriate OWN behaviour, that would be quite a feat. Femke (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yaklib, you are still misrepresenting the Chatham source. They discuss extreme weather and tipping points separately and do not cite the former as evidence that tipping points are nearing. Femke (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Femke. What are you trying to say? First you claim that Chatham House discusses extreme weather and tipping points separately (even though both are discussed are in the same short chapter). Then you say they cite the former as evidence that tipping points are nearing. So they're not separate. They're interconnected. It's not me saying that. Chatham House is saying that. Yaklib (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I forgot a 'not' in that sentence. Sorry. Femke (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can solve this by ourselves. I'll seek outside help tonight. Femke (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Femke. I am not into filing reports. That's antagonistic and creates bad feelings. I know you are extremely well informed on this subject and have nothing but good intentions. Nevertheless I hope you are willing to accept what is meant to be constructive feedback. If you seek outside help I will not participate any further. Is that what you want when I have written more than half of this article - and you wanted to nominate it for some kind of Good Article. Yaklib (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Content-related outside opinions (like third opinion, or the reliable sources noticeboard) are not antagonistic at all. Your constant reverts constitute edit warring. It's difficult to work together with you when you edit like that. Outside help can diffuse the situation.

Let's focus on content. The failed verification for the Chatham source is because " The authors cite these developments as mounting evidence that" is not reflected in the source. Chatham talks about models explicitly, and cites Ripple, who also does not make the connection you're seeking between extreme weather and tipping. In their supplementary file S2, they mostly cite models or papers with models as evidence that we're nearing tipping. Not extreme weather. Femke (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war. I can't do it by myself. Yaklib (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sticking to BRD. About my latest deletion: again you take the fact that two effects of climate change are mentioned alongside each other as evidence they are related. The paper does not imply this. They are mentioned together as two separate but severe impacts. This is not the article about the effects of climate change. Femke (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is. Extreme weather events and tipping points are specific consequences of climate change. Yaklib (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

They are both consequences of climate change, yes. But we're not debating general effects of climate change, we're talking about a very specific impact here (tipping points). Trying to tie this in with extreme weather, is like talking about heat wave mortality in an article on sea level rise. Separate effects of climate change. Femke (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

IPCC

William M. Connolley IPCC AR6 Ch. 4 is cite 13 here

4.7.2 Potential for Abrupt and Irreversible Climate Change

Ch. 5

5.4.9 Abrupt Changes and Tipping Points

Ch. 12 page 118 has a table

So from those did I understand right they think the most likely is permafrost?

Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, they give permafrost "high" and nothing else gets that, so yes permafrost thaw is most likely of the things they consider. But that doesn't, of itself, make it a tipping point. Its just a thing that might happen. Which they pretty well admit: Irrespective of its origin, additional methane accumulation of such a magnitude is not expected to modify the temperature response to anthropogenic emissions by more than a few tens of °C [1]. So, I'd say this is a typical "tipping point": easy to oversell William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Temperature and tipping points.

Prior to 13 November, The lede contained the following sentence: "The term 'tipping point' is used by climate scientists to identify vulnerable features of the climate system (such as those listed under Tipping elements below), but is also used in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C limit to global warming goal established at the Paris Agreement in 2015.

On 14 November, @Femke deleted the second half of the sentence - "(such as those listed under Tipping elements below), but is also used in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C limit to global warming goal established at the Paris Agreement in 2015." In the edit summary she claimed "Failed verification and untrue". She later wrote on the Talk page: "When I say 'failed verification', it means that the source does not say what you claim it to say, not that the source is unreliable."

Two sources were cited to justify the link between tipping points and temperature. One is IPCC steps up warning on climate tipping points in leaked draft report in the Guardian. It says: "Tipping points are triggered when temperatures reach a certain level, whereby one impact rapidly leads to a series of cascading events with vast repercussions... Earlier models predicted that Earth-altering climate change was not likely before 2100. But the UN draft report says prolonged warming even beyond 1.5C could produce “progressively serious, centuries-long and, in some cases, irreversible consequences.” Tipping points are described as irreversible.

The other is: Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against published in Nature. It says: "Information summarized in the two most recent IPCC Special Reports (published in 2018 and in September this year) suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming."

In other words, both sources describe the possibility of tipping points being triggered if the world exceeds 1.5 °C. Femke's claim that the content she deleted 'failed verification' is simply not true. Yaklib (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Remember that in a BRD cycle, discussing comes before a rerevert.

your sentence still does not correspond to the cited sources. You're implying that because there may be tipping points, all "potential impact" would be called tipping above 1.5C. That's not what these sources say. Femke (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not what my sentence said either. Your indignation at being challenged is so out of control, it seems you think the words mean something they don't. Yaklib (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:focus on content. What does your sentence mean? Which impact are you referring to? Femke (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It means what it says, referred to in the sources - the potential impact in general - progressively serious, centuries-long, potentially irreversible consequences. Yaklib (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian source does not give this as an alternative definition. It says the threshold of large-scale tipping may be lower than scientists believed before. Femke (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an alternative definition. I said the term is being used (by the IPCC and other climate scientists) in a more general way to describe the potential impact if the world exceeds the 1.5 °C. In other words, the threshold of large-scale tipping (which includes potential impact) may be lower than scientists believed before. Your perspective only makes sense if you believe that passing tipping points has no impact. Yaklib (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You wrote "but is also used in a more general way ", which indicated you're giving a more broad, and therefore alternative definition. Any potential impacts (which I believe may be severe), should not be given as part of a definition. It should be given in a sentence like "Tipping points may have severe impacts on human society". Femke (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

This section is a bit rubbish at the moment. SR is a nice guy but there's far too much of him. And there's a see-main, so the section should resemble a summary of that, but it doesn't - I presume people have been naughty and stuffed things in here without reference to there. Also, I think the "better models tend not to show tipping" has been lost William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've rewritten the background paragraph(s) in WP:wikivoice. Could you give a link to "better models tend not to show tipping"? Is that still true? Iirc, the certainty of the IPCC that we would not have tipping has slightly decreased over the last 2 years. Femke (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I was relying on Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation#IPCC_models (which I may have written, I can't remember...). There appears to be very little tipping in the WG1 TS [2] which I argue is contrary to the over-enthusiasm of this wiki page. Various times they repeat the mantra The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) will very likely decline over the 21st century for all SSP scenarios. There is medium confidence that the decline will not involve an abrupt collapse before 2100 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm.. Chapter 9 indicates that compensating for salinity biases makes it more likely that there will be tipping, so I don't think that point that "better models tend not to show tipping" is true anymore. Not disagreeing about everenthusiasm. Currently most worried about ENSO, which is not descsribed as a tipping element in the IPCC report. Unfortunately, can't find a negative statement (like for global temperatures and Arctic sea ice). Femke (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sea ice

The IPCC doesn't think sea ice is a tipping element, point, or whatever they're being called this week. And the IPCC is our primary reference. This [3] restores stuff which is over emotional in tone, and is clearly undue: giving *more* textual room to a fringe viewpoint is unreasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The IPCC is not the only source of scientific knowledge. And its dangerous to rely on one source.

There is no emotion expressed n the material you deleted - that's all in your mind.

Professor Markus Rex of the Alfred Wegener Institute is hardly a fringe conspiracy theorist. He led the largest-ever research expedition to the Arctic and his findings involved 442 experts from 20 countries. Yaklib (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should include the view that sea is can be regarded as a tipping element, with a different definition (as I added to the definition section, but was reverted even though its important and matched the source well). Agree with WMC that quote has an inappropriate tone for Wikipedia. No need for a quote there. Femke (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Editorial disagreement

For those who haven't noticed, one particular editor, @William M. Connolley, has been deleting massive quantities of material from this article. He adds very little new material. The 'reasons' he gives for these deletions in his edit summaries tend to be childish - such as "can't say I like it"; "you're still confused"; "you need to read what I write"; "rm Yaklib's errors"; "rm over-emotional stuff".

He has now removed content describing two separate tipping points Indian Monsoon shift and Boreal forest shift. He claims they have nothing to do with tipping points, even though climate scientists around the world consider them to be such. This is a breach of WP:Vandalism which states: "On wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."

This is also a breach of WP:Tendentious editing which says: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."

I note that on his own wikipedia page William Connolley it says "In 2007, The Sunday Times of London ran an interview of author Andrew Keen that discussed Connolley and his Wikipedia editing. It identified Connolley as "an expert on global warming", stating: "After trying to correct inaccuracies Connolley was accused of trying to remove 'any point of view which does not match his own'.

I hope other editors will encourage WMC to pull his head in. Yaklib (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Even though I have quite different views on tipping as WMC, I agree with his edits. A lot of the material removed was overly detailed background informations and quotes. We want to describe why these elements could tip, what the expected threshold is, how certain we are they can be tipping elements. And we need to describe this in WP:WIKIVOICE. Femke (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I added three quarters of the material to this page. Before WMC got involved, Femke wanted to nominate the page as a good article. Now you're happy for him to make bulk deletions of the material I added, and to use arrogant, childish comments to justify his deletions. Do you agree with his use of demeaning language as well? Yaklib (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are different kinds of editors. Constructive ones explain why they disagree with something and add new material to an article to make their point. Tendentious editors fail to explain their concern - other than by making puerile comments such as "can't say I like it" - and then delete wholesale material. WMC is clearly the latter. Unfortunately, Femke says she endorses this kind of editing. It is going to be hard to get agreement on this page, let alone turn it into a 'good article' if that's the way you choose to operate. Yaklib (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Y: if you want to make accusations of vandalism, then do then at the proper noticeboard. But you won't, because you're fully aware that they are baseless. So, don't put up non-neutral section headers. As to the content of this page: it is sadly over-enthusiastic William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your response above highlights one of the main difficulties of working with you. You have removed swathes of material because it is "sadly over-enthusiastic". No one reading this will have any idea what you mean by that - as neither enthusiasm, nor over-enthusiasm, are mentioned anywhere in wiki policies or guidelines. Since you are unwilling to edit based on wiki policies, your editing is either tendentious or vandalism or both.

Changing the heading of this section from Vandalism to Editorial disagreement is also a breach of wiki guidelines. Yaklib (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Err, no it isn't. Please see the policy ref I've already provided for you, below. And also WP:OWN: you don't own this talk page, or any of its headers. As to the substance - your apparent inability to judge the quality and relevance of material - I think that's where the problem lies. "overenthusiasm" seems a fair description. See-also F's comments William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Err yes it is: On the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines it says [[4]] "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaklib (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Y: please refer to policy, viz Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PhatWabbit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2020 and 24 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbrown2098.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trebilibert, K20shores, Abuley34 (article contribs).

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentions of IPCC

There are several mentions of the IPCC in the articles. In the introduction, the acronym is listed in its entirety but not followed by (IPCC). Instead, the next sentence uses IPCC directly and must be inferred from context. Later on in the article, such as in Coral reef die-off section, IPCC is again defined, but this time is followed by (IPCC). I see no reason for a redefinition and I would like to standardize the use of the acronym. Is there any reason that I should not do this? K20shores (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be some good copyediting. There are guides that I can't be bothered to look up right now, but: where an acronym appears first in an article, it should be alongside the spelled-out version, either "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" or "IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)". Wikilinks are helpful, as in "[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]]" or "[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|IPCC]]", if you just want "IPCC" to be rendered in the text that a reader sees. The guidelines say to only link things once in an article. Personally, I follow once in every section, especially as this is a large article and IPCC is invoked many times. Thanks for the help you can bring to the article here. _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC)

I just removed the following from the article:

The North Atlantic Deep Water Formation is an oceanic vertical mixing process of sinking water to about 1500-35000 meter deep, due to its high density, and salinity, and temperature differences. The overturning water has very rich oxygen content , and low in nutrients. Although North Atlantic circulation has been relatively stable, scientist warns that North Atlantic deep water formation could abruptly change and cause catastrophic impacts. These changes are due to increase in freshwater input from melting ice as global warming continues to rise.

The ScienceDirect topics search result page does not support this paragraph, and as a search result page is an unsuitable source (just like a Google search result would be unsuitable, as it changes regularly). The THC is mostly the same as the AMOC, for which we already have a subsection. @Trebilibert:, see Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. Femke (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Speed of tipping in Greenland

@Pinkygonzales: you've changed the lede a couple of times, saying that the speed of a tipping point in Greenland may take centuries rather than millennia. The source says A complete disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a period of several millennia due to increased melting of the ice sheet. You may be confused with tipping points in Antarctica, where worst-case scenarios indicate that tipping under medium global warming levels may take place faster than that. Femke (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That Nature paper also indicates that the Greenland ice sheet is set to melt on a timescale of millennia, see figure 2b. Misrepresenting sources is a form of WP:disruptive editing, which may get you blocked from editing. Femke (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Femke:The wikipedia entry states: "Tipping points are not *necessarily* abrupt. For example, with a temperature rise between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, large parts of the Greenland ice sheet are *likely* to melt, yet the melting process *may* take centuries." This is a qualitative statement. It is not a statement of fact.

From the cited reference at Journal Nature: "*Even if* anthropogenic warming were constrained to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will continue to lose mass this century, with rates similar to those observed over the past decade. However, *nonlinear responses cannot be excluded*, which *may* lead to larger rates of mass loss."

In other words, assumptions are being made that Earth's climate will stay below 2C in the first place, which it may not, and that the rate of melt will be linear, which it may not be. If the temperature rises above 2C and/or melt rate occurs in non-linear fashion, estimates that melting could take "thousands of years" are simply not accurate.

Please cite a reliable source that states that ice melt in Greenland will take millennia based on current environmental factors and/or scientific consensus. The initial reference article was published in 2018 and was an editorial take on the actual research paper I posted. This article is about tipping points, not complete ice loss. Tipping points are predicted to lead to complete ice loss, not the other way around. Complete ice loss is not a prerequisite for tipping points to occur. Pinkygonzales (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

placed back after being deleted by Pinkygonzales, response to earlier version of comment The 2018 nature paper does assume nonlinearities in its estimate of timescales in figure 2b, which is a figure actually about tipping. This is evidenced by the paragraph starting with On longer timescales, which talks about various nonlinearities they have included in their model. The sentence about mass loss this century does not refer to the tipping characteristics of the Greenland ice sheet, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

The IPCC confirms this, indicating that even with sustained warming of between 3 and 5 °C, a near-complete melt of Greenland will take millennia: At sustained warming levels between 3°C and 5°C, near-complete loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet and complete loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is projected to occur irreversibly over multiple millennia (medium confidence) (page 71) Femke (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion was due to a formatting mistake in my original comment, my apologies. Your original point was that I had "changed the lede a couple of times," which I have not done. The lede was qualitative. It is no less accurate to say that a tipping point "could" occur within centuries as it is to say that it "could" take millennia. Both statements are true, yet they are not equally likely to occur based on current climate trends. The original reference was to a 2018 publication. The reference I have cited in this reply was published on April 5, 2022. My edit does not violate Wikipedia policy. Pinkygonzales (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it seems like you made the same mistake in the article too, removing multiple improvements in this edit: [5].

The Greenland tipping point is a change in state from having ice to being almost ice-free, so the statement about complete iceloss is a statement about the timescale of this tipping point (see f.i. definition in this carbon brief article. The IPCC explicitly gives this as an example of non-abrupt tipping, with high confidence. The NSIDC reference you cited does not mention the Greenland ice sheet tipping point, so is again irrelevant. Femke (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

How about we agree to split the difference with the statement, "could take centuries to millennia"?

Your newly cited reference is from February 2020. Meanwhile in this reference from PNSAS in May 2021, they state:: "We reveal early-warning signals for a forthcoming critical transition from ice-core-derived height reconstructions and infer that the western Greenland Ice Sheet has been losing stability in response to rising temperatures. We show that the melt-elevation feedback is likely to be responsible for the observed destabilization. Our results suggest substantially enhanced melting in the near future." The title is, "Critical slowing down suggests that the western Greenland Ice Sheet is close to a tipping point."

"Near future" does not imply "millennia" before a tipping point is reached. Many experts are currently debating whether it has actually already happened. At very least, it is reasonable to agree that there are scientific opinions that differ on the matter, and range from "already happened" to "thousands of years from now."

On a personal note, you have questioned my motivations, accused me of having committed a potentially ban-able offense, and called my sources irrelevant. I would appreciate it if we could keep the conversation to the facts at hand. Pinkygonzales (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Your sources and logic are fine. Everyone is very passioate abiut this, and there are a lot of badd actors/editors/plain crazies in this area. I think the coflict may be due to eht article's current def. Will create a serparate topic Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a tipping point having passed (the moment tipping becomes inevitable) and a system having tipped into a new state. For Greenland, the tipping point may have passed, but it'll still take thousands of years to tip to its new state. My edit to clarify this difference was reverted. Femke (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I've been too harsh here. I recently had a bad experience with an editor who misused multiple accounts to disrupt this article, and I wasn't quite sure if that scenario was repeating itself. (I now know you're not the same person.) From here onwards, I'll make sure to be more mindful, as new editors should make mistakes to learn :). Femke (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you for dealing with the awfuls.And I am impressed by your ability to take a step back and reengageWakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Thwaites

I propose deleting the last sentence of the lede (However, a 2021 study by the American Geophysical Union states that the Thwaites ice shelf in Antarctica had the potential to shatter by 2025. because

• It's based on a pre-print and a conference abstract, not on a peer-reviewed paper. It's primary, whereas we should be the lede primarily on secondary sourcing / review papers.
• Neither source describes the ice shelf disappearing as a tipping point, and the body of our article does neither. As I understand it, the Thwaites glacier is a tipping element, not the ice shelf.
• I can't find anything about the year 2025 in either source. Five years from December 15 2021 is December 15 2026.. Femke (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The actual statement made by AGU was "two to five years" from the time of the report, meaning collapse could realistically occur by late 2023. The report is published for review, and unless you can provide a recent study that conflicts with their findings, there is no reason the citation should be considered insufficient.

Official Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBbgWsR4-aw&t=2255s (Bookmarked at 37:35 for specificity)

Associated Research: https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-288/

As for the comment about the Thwaites Ice Shelf being a tipping element and not a tipping point, it is the only thing keeping the Thwaites Glacier from imminent collapse into the sea, and potentially the Pine Island glacier with it. Your opinion of its severity vs. other tipping points is not relevant. The collapse of a tipping element is by definition the indication that a tipping point has been crossed. They are not separate and unrelated. Pinkygonzales (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The use of WP:PREPRINTs is generally discouraged on Wikipedia. The same goes for panel discussions. So we need a better source, which should be doable, even if its a bit older.

What I meant to say is that the Twaites glacier has a tipping point and is a tipping element. The Thwaites ice shelf itself I've never seen described as a tipping element / having a tipping point. The Thwaites glacier is one the riskiest tipping points on the short term, but we need better sourcing to state this. I'm not sure if tipping of this glacier is guaranteed if the ice shelf is melted: the sources don't seem to make this claim. Femke (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine to remove the citation of the panel discussion as long as the study itself remains. Unless there is different/better/more recent research on the topic, the validity of the source should be recognized. It's not a media article or editorial, and their announcement itself was covered by the media as well. See also:

NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarctic-ice-shelf-crack-raise-seas-feet-decade-scientists-warn-rcna8918

BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59644494

Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03758-y

USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/12/16/antarctica-glacier-collapse-raise-sea-levels/8924940002/

(etc)

The report makes clear that based on recent verified measurements, Thwaites ice shelf will likely melt and/or shatter within the decade, and specifically as soon as late 2023. It is also a fact that the Thwaites shelf is what holds the Thwaites Glacier back, and Pine Island vicariously through Thwaites. No shelf, no breaks. No breaks, a tipping point has been achieved. It was stated in the video presentation listed above that they don't know if complete collapse will take "decades or up to a century," but that collapse is unstoppable once the shelf goes.

I'm not interested in an extended debate based on technicalities and personal opinions. Thwaites ice shelf is structurally critical to Thwaites Glacier. Without it, Thwaites Glacier will 100% collapse into the sea, and likely draw Pine Island Glacier with it. There is no transition point between the loss of the ice shelf and the collapse of the Glacier that would be considered "the real tipping point." Again, this entire article is about tipping points, not complete ice loss, so how long it takes for Thwaites and Pine Island to recede is secondary from the fact that they will, and therefore tipping points will have been reached. Pinkygonzales (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that "I'm not interested in an extended debate based on technicalities and personal opinions" is not-that constructive. But it does brings up transitios point, as being different from a tipping point Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

From Rosier 2021, it seems like the disintegration would take centuries for Thwaites, which I believe is considered abrupt in this context. Femke (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Tipping elements are not a tipping point and collapse is the incorrect term. There must be a better example of a climate tipping point that is shorter term. I suggest we also avoid very short term forecasts, and find something that is of a small scale. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly why i went to talk. If the article states 2 to 5 years from x, then that is what we should say Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree we switch out this example for something else. The current example is based on a single study / primary source, which doesn't really belong in the lede of the article.

Why do you think collapse is the incorrect term? It's the term used in the AGU presentation (which is again not a great source, especially for information in the lede). Femke (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"Policy" section

The following was inserted during the GAN process. As both reviewer and editors find it not necessary and not yet stable, moving it here for further work until it's ready to join the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

See also: Climate policy

Some researchers say the field has less funding than other global risks such as asteroids or supervolcanoes: they say more research would reduce uncertainty and so help policymakers. Because some tipping points are fast, some say that for those solar geoengineering would be the only type of climate engineering which would have a chance of avoiding tipping."

References

Social tipping point

Moving this the social tipping points here. I'm not quite convinced guest contributions at CleanTechnica are sufficiently reliable, nor how ruralleaders is reliable. Nudge theory is from quite a different academic tradition, and typically disbelieved by system scientists as far as I'm aware. Not mentioned in the source given. More concerns with text-source integrity. Needs some more work. Femke (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Social tipping points

Interactions of climate tipping points (bottom) with associated tipping points in the socioeconomic system (top) on different time scales

See also: Politics of climate change

Tipping points in human behaviour can have both positive and negative effects, contrasting with the normally negative connotation associated with climate tipping points.

Some tipping points in societal behaviour, such as adding rooftop solar, can drive positive climate action. Once an initial nudge, such as subsidies, persuaded a few people to install rooftop solar, social contagion meant that people copied their friends or neighbours, economies of scale and the learning curve reduced the price and rooftop solar became widespread in many countries. A similar process is happening with electric vehicles. Once the tipping point has passed the initial nudge (also called "perturbation") can be reduced and eventually removed - for example electric cars are now common in Norway and incentives are being removed. Some say there will be a tipping point in plant milk and other foods which are now mainly dairy products.

There is a link between human behaviour and environmental stability, not easily accounted for in climate models, such as the ongoing Lake Chad crisis. The interaction of the socio-economic and regional changes induced by the climate in the Lake Chad region produces behaviours in society that change the environment of the region. For example, a lack of sustainable resource usage creates societal instabilities which prevent positive climate action. These responses can be included in climate models to improve the accuracy of climate predictions.

Local environmental issues have the potential to affect regions across the globe. This effect is called telecoupling, and can happen when crop-producing regions experience a drought that causes a food shortage elsewhere.

Climate models that can take account of human behaviour are called Integrated Assessment Models. As of 2021, some models do not account for the societal changes that could be caused by social tipping points which would drastically change the results. Because of the intertwined relationship between the environment and humanity, accurately modelling social tipping points is necessary to predict the future of Earth’s climate, and is an active area of research. Femke (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

References

DYK brainstorming

... that if the Greenland ice sheet passes a tipping point, this raises the risk of the West Antarctic ice sheet passing a tipping point
... that the Amazon rainforest may be approaching a tipping point which will see it transform into a savanna landscape Femke (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

... that Arctic Sea Ice is not a tipping point in the climate system Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

... that noise can tip the climate Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

... that warming microbes could tip the climate Chidgk1 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

... that permafrost isn't Chidgk1 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

need to include the article's title... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"isn't" would link to it Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I was initially panicked I hadn't explained that permafrost is indeed a tipping element. I think the joke is a bit too difficult, but it definitely made me smile. I've gone for the compost bomb as ALT2. I believe the noise one is too cryptic, don't know if that's allowed? Femke (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

... that a compost bomb could tip the climate Chidgk1 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Greenland Ice Sheet tipped or not?

@Dtetta Thanks for offering to help me understand. So if the research reported at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-sea-level-rise-caused-by-melting-of-greenland-ice-cap-is-now-inevitable-27cm-climate is correct does that mean the Greenland Ice Sheet has tipped? Or does 27 cm not count as a "large change" as described in the first sentence of this article?

I realise it could be wrong as it is just one study - but even so should it not be added to this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The NCC paper does not mention tipping, and the Guardian article talks only about tipping in the context of a different paper, so this paper doesn't answer the question, and is unlikely to be relevant here. You can have committed climate change without tipping. Femke (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Tipping point definition

We need to clarify, as the current definitions of tipping element and tipping points overlap

• "A tipping point in the climate system is a critical threshold that, when exceeded, leads to large and often irreversible changes in the state of the system.
• "The term 'tipping point' is used by climate scientists to identify vulnerable features of the climate system. If they 'tip', they are likely to have severe impacts on human society."
• "Large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point are called tipping elements

So, The article seems to imply that

• climate scientists are more in line with Tipping_point_(physics), while people working on climate change issues seem to have a have looser definition.
• Also in climate is a critial threshold a singular value, or a scenario, that causes hystersis? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Some references

• "Tipping point, in catastrophe theory, the value of the parameter in which the set of equilibria abruptly changes" (from disambig)
• The popular press seem to use it as "if this happens then we are doomed", when it doesn't necessrily mean that.(personally and not proved, I am a bit worried if the decrease in global insect biomass if foun to be global)
• there is political one one. The Racist Origins of 'Tipping Point' | Merriam-Webster
• All confused by Malcom Gladwell's novel The Tipping Point "a critical juncture at which unstoppable change takes place."
• Original (??)_tipping element and tipping point definition Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion :). The first sentence is correct. The second sentence isn't supported by the sources given, and a bit handwavy, so I've removed it.

You're right that climate scientists use definitions that are roughly in line with what physicists do. In simplified models, tipping points are a singular value. In more complex climate models, you are likely to see multiple tipping points in one tipping element, and substantial uncertainty to where the tipping point lies.

The popular press does seem to use it like "we're doomed", at least some journalists do. It would be nice to get a scientific source talking about how the popular press talks about it which I can understand (I struggle with social science papers).

The 2008 Lenton paper introduces the term tipping element, but the term tipping points was introduced before. I believe the 2001 IPCC report already describes it. Femke (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I found these two references which I quite liked, but they are 5 + years old.

• Reaching a tipping point | Nature|. it has a very discussion about the risks of framing climate chnages in terms of tipping point

"The first is the uncertainty of the science; the second is the tendency of such an emphasis to distort our responses; the third is the danger of fatalism. Anyone claiming to know for sure when a ~-12529 Worrying about global tipping points distracts from real planetary threats (theconversation.com)] Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And then there is Abrupt climate change ? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The survey asking whether people think we are close to tipping points defined them (top page 11) as "climate or nature may change suddenly, or may be more difficult to stabilize in future" which is maybe wrong in the second clause? Because from the IPCC definitions if I understand them right the problem is not the difficulty of stabilization, but that the system will stabilize in the wrong place. So the results of the question may not be valid if the definition is wrong - do you think we should remove it or did I misunderstand? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's roughly the same... The tipping elements do destabilise, and it can take quite a long while before they are reach the new equilibrium.. I think the IPCC definition would be misunderstood by lay people, so this is probably a good way of dumbing it down? Femke (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Here in Turkey we are a long way from any tipping elements mentioned in this article, so I would put money on fewer than 1% of people being able to give an example of a tipping point from either definition. I suspect the people who answered were thinking of wildfires, heatwaves or drought - on the other hand maybe they were right and wildfires will become a tipping element. Now that the section title has been mentioned in the GAN maybe easiest to remove. By the way when I looked and saw there is no Turkish article I noticed Norwegian is featured. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 I agree with what you have written. It's the local versus global issue ....Do you think an animation might explain it better.

Here is one Found (I don't really like it :-)) and I think people are expecting this. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tipping points in the climate system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I'll have a go at this one. It's really a timely subject, and it's evident that the article has been carefully and intelligently rewritten. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• The MoS suggests not citing the lead, unless there's dire need like repeated trouble up there, which I guess there might be on this topic? I do wonder whether we'd not be better always citing the lead, actually, as the absence of little blue numbers does get some IPs started...

  The article has seen some trouble yes, mostly from people wanting to add the latest preprint / conference presentation. Prefer to keep citations, so I can check periodically that it's still based on secondary sourcing. There was some major trouble with a sock a year ago with copyvio and misrepresentation of sources, who gained 40% of authorship. Decided that rewriting for GA was the only way to get the article clean. Femke (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are citations of news media up here in the lead not given again in body, implying either "new" material in lead not summarizing the body (contrary to MoS), or redundant citations. And see "References" comments below for use of news sources.

  Have binned two of the Guardian articles. I do like giving some more specialist lay sources like National Geographic. I've double checked that the material is not new in the lede. Femke (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. There's still one Guardian ref in the lead, and it's found nowhere else. It's also beside a technical paper...

  Removed Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• A minor detail, "some tipping points ... like the "West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets" (etc): the linked objects are physical things, not thresholds. I wonder if we could find some short rewording that would be more accurate? Perhaps add the word "thresholds"?

  Done. Femke (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• "irreversible": this is a matter of timescale, isn't it. "irreversible within a human lifetime" would catch the intended meaning, I suspect, but it's a bit long and clunky. The climate can evidently be cooled, eventually: but the hysteresis involved is extremely damaging. Maybe we can find a way of indicating this, suitably briefly?

  Irreversible in this context means that the tipping goes much faster than the reversal. So if something tips within a year, and reversal takes 50 (still within a human lifetime), it's called irreversible in the context of climate tipping. Only a subset of tipping points are truly irreversible (extinctions related to coral die-off for instance). Will think about wording. Femke (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually "within a human timescale" is mentioned in the body, so it's a matter of taste whether it also goes in the lead.

• Finally, once the other items are done, we need to check that the lead summarizes each of (all 7 of) the article's chapters ('Tipping elements', 'Mathematical theory', 'Cascading tipping points', ... 'Social tipping points) briefly.

Definition

• It can be brought about by a small disturbance causing a disproportionately large change in the system." Perhaps this could be worded better; it's not obvious that it adds anything to the IPCC definition.

  It's a different way of saying something similar, yes. I would like to keep it in there, to introduce the word 'disturbance' and 'disproportionately'. Femke (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've no idea what an "impact tipping point" is, but since the article is about the "climate system", perhaps the last sentence is simply off-topic?

  Done. Femke (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Geological record

• First sentence could be reworded more directly: "The geological record indicates ancient tipping points..."

  I changed the sentence in the lead somewhat but am not sure how certain the scientists are that there were ancient tipping points - perhaps Femke knows Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Femke ? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  rewrote as The geological record shows that there have been abrupt changes the climate system that indicate ancient tipping points. Femke (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Tipping elements

• First sentence singular/plural "a large set of elements" ... "a tipping point". Perhaps "many elements ... tipping points"?

  Done Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• "20 years ago" is a hostage to Old Father Time. Date please.

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• "like the ice sheets": same issue as in Lead section.

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Shutdown of the AMOC

• By the way, how does the melting of continental ice warm up surface sea water? Readers might not find this intuitively obvious.

  Readers would be right if they find this unintuitive, as it was wrong. Global warming heat the surface water, not the melting of ice. Corrected that and another minor point. Femke (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WAIS disintegration

• Paleo record redlink is surprising. Is this not Paleoclimatology?

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Guess we'd better link Carbon dioxide here.

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Greenland ice sheet disintegration

• "Surface melting reduced" -> "is reducing" or "reduces"?

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Amazon rainforest dieback

• "two times" -> "twice"

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• "may die" -> "will die"

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• We don't really need define the acronym CSD for use just once in the next sentence. Please reword.

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Permafrost

• "at least two years": well, that might be a valid definition, but it's wildly misleading for the circumpolar permafrost, which has been around for thousands of years. Suggest we describe the situation rather than giving a dictionary definition.

  Done. I couldn't put my finger on why this sounded weird. Femke (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• "than is present Earth's atmosphere": add "in".

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Link methane.

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Coral reef die-off

• Link coral reef and perhaps coral.
• Done. Femke (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Mathematical theory

• "bifurcation with hysteresis, which is": is actually ambiguous, the def. could apply to hysteresis as intended, or to bifurcation-with-hysteresis. I think we're missing a brief def. of bifurcation here. Indeed a diagram might be useful as these are key concepts for the article.

  Rewritten. Have moved hysteresis down to bifurcation-induced tipping, even if I suspect it's part of rate-induced tipping too (will move it back up if I can find a source that says this). Femke (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• "a dangerous bifurcation, or fork" – this is a late definition; if we need to say "or fork" then please move it to the initial paragraph, which is indeed missing a definition as above – but I think the definition needs to be somewhat more detailed than "fork".

  I've tweaked the definition. Let me know if that works. Femke (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• "skewness and tailedness (kurtosis) of time series of relevant variables, with asymmetries in the distributions of anomalies" – well, we're certainly deep into Vulcan-speak here. What variables? What anomalies? There are unknowns piled on unknowns here for the average reader. Could we have a diagram showing skewed and unskewed curves for the general reader? It'd make things much simpler.

  I'm not sure if a diagram of a skewed distribution is DUE. Have asked colleagues working on tipping points to supply more general figures about the three types of tipping points, which is the main thing I want readers to get away from this. Femke (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Femke, are we still awaiting one figure then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  My colleague said they'd have a look tomorrow. Femke (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• "This refers to transitions from one state to another" – please don't begin a section by alluding to the title, and please don't use "refers to" in a definition, either.

  Done. Femke (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• "This aspect of tipping assumes" – again, please don't begin by alluding to the section title; and "assumes" should be attributed to a human, not to an inanimate concept. Please begin with a simple definition.

  Done. Should be simpler now + added an example. Femke (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hope the section is easier to understand now. Found a good source that explains this is simpler terms. I do think it's inevitable that this section is more difficult than the rest of the article, and that people with less affinity for maths would skip over it. But let me know if I missed more opportunities to make it simpler. Femke (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Nearly there ...

Cascading tipping points

• "Crossing a threshold in one part of the climate system may trigger another tipping element to tip into a new state. These are called cascading tipping points." What does "These" denote? Perhaps "Such sequences of thresholds are called..."?

  Done Chidgk1 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Domino effects: is this not just another name for cascading? Maybe begin by defining both terms in paragraph 1; then use them if needed. Perhaps "also called domino effects" is what is required.

  Done Chidgk1 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Last sentence "The authors point out ... pressures." doesn't actually mention cascading at all: it seems to be a more general conclusion, repeating what has already been said in other sections.

  Well spotted. The paper was not about cascading tipping poitns, but cascading impacts. Moved to impacts section + rewritten. Femke (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Impacts and concern

• Rather a weak title: it's undesirable to have "and" in a heading, as it indicates the random yoking of disparate subjects. We could ask why "concern" is here at all in an article about physical effects and mathematical models; if social awareness (paragraph 3) of tipping points is considered important, then it should have a section to itself, and it should be broadened to cover more than just an Ipsos Mori survey.

  I've removed the concern paragraph. Was weakly against adding it in the first place. Femke (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Runaway greenhouse effect

• "The runaway greenhouse effect is a greenhouse effect": maybe reword?

  Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Social tipping points and climate models

• Well this isn't a great section heading either. Perhaps the "concern" paragraph in "Impacts and concern" belongs down here, too. I think the drift of the section, and the title that it should have, on the model of "Coral reef die-off [as a factor influencing tipping points in the climate system]" etc, is simply "Human behaviour" [as a factor influencing tipping points in the climate system]. In which case, we could wonder whether "Human behaviour" should not simply be one of the "Tipping elements" of chapter 3? I guess the argument for having a separate chapter is that "Tipping points in human behaviour can have both positive and negative effects, contrasting with the normally negative connotation associated with climate tipping points." ... so we would logically have a separate chapter; that in turn raises the question, how many "Human behaviour" tipping points are there, surely more than one? Perhaps we're missing a list of subsections here?

  Trying to think of an example of a positive tipping point - would increasing rooftop solar (in Australia?) count? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Clearly the example should be reliably stated to be a positive tipping point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think having this as a separate section is best because of the positive as you say, but not sure social tipping point theory is mature enough for subsections - again Femke probably knows better than me - perhaps she did not cite the Lenton et al paper I just added because of being at same uni Chidgk1 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  The examples I've heard most of regarding positive (social) tipping points are more on the innovation-deployment side indeed, so uptake of solar panels and electric vehicles, both of which have become cheaper by learning-by-doing. (see this 2022 paper).

  I'm not quite sure what to do with this section to be honest. There are different definitions of climate system, most excluding humans, but a significant minority including it. If we say section 3 is about the physical climate system, tipping points in a different domain impacting the physical tipping points should be separate? Femke (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be inclined to make it the last subsection of section 3, perhaps leading into it with a sentence saying this is a weirdo case (choose encyclopedic language) because a, b, and c.

  I have wikilinked Tipping point (sociology) - so perhaps this article has enough social stuff now that people who want more can click through? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Femke ? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm reading through the cited sources to see what terminology they use. The main citation in that section is Franzke et al, which seems to use the words tipping elements as a shorthand for Earth system tipping elements or physical typical elements. I do not know to what extent that is done on purpose, but I don't feel comfortable adding this. In general, I would rather consense this section further instead of expanding it with subsections.. Femke (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, no subsections, so choice is, I think, a bit more detail or move to main list of tipping points. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Have expanded slightly. Not an expert but I agree with Femke that the section should not be expanded further. I don't think we know enough to add more. I speculate that politics have changed so much since oil and natural gas prices shot up earlier this year that academics have not had enough time to integrate stuff like the politics of fuel prices into our subject here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

General issues

• Infographic image labels are too small to read, suggest scaling all four infographic/map images up a bit. This is an issue where intelligibility relies on reading text within an image.

  Done. The last one is still not really readable, even at upright=1.7. It's already quite obtrusive at that size, so I'm hesitant to make it bigger. Femke (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. It's also a JPG, so expanding it actually doesn't improve the text beyond a certain point, and the world map (an infographic within an infographic...hmm) is downright fuzzy. It would be much nicer to convert the whole thing to an SVG (scalable vector graphics), or perhaps to a table with an image for the merged central cells... but this is beyond the GA criteria. The best that can be done with the current JPG would be |center|upright=3 and at least readers would be able to make out most of it. If anyone complains you can a) blame me, and b) point out that it represents an entire table with 2 diagrams...

  Increased to 2.5. With upright=3 the image starts interfering with the layout of the references. Femke (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just about bearable. with |center|... the image doesn't run down at all, it's fixed in the text. Try it sometime!

• Lead image readability is further impeded by the dark background of some of the image labels, eg "Melt of Greenland Ice-Sheet" is black on dark blue; and the text is very small compared to the size of the image. If you like I can tweak the SVG.

  I asked the original uploader a few days back, and he's started playing around with this. Femke (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've tweaked it in a way that seems to help; feel free to try something else if you prefer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Fahrenheit is given as well as Celsius in one place. I guess we'd better do that everywhere (using the Convert template) or nowhere. If you're headed for FAC, everywhere had better be your choice.

  Not planning to go for FAC, so I've omitted the unit that, in my humble opinion, should be deprecated. In term of policy compliance, I could argue that this is a scientific article, so I have the choice of omitting US units. Femke (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Most of the article seems to be in British English. However American "meters" occurs. Suggest we tag "Use British English" and spell "metres".

  Done. Femke (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, one more: several acronyms are introduced but never used again. SCC is used only in the sentence where it's introduced. G20 is used once but not linked. GCA and IAM are defined but never used. DICE, FUND, and REMIND are mentioned but neither linked nor spelt out.

  Done - but not sure if I have gone too far by deleting the example models Chidgk1 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it's a possible solution but rather drastic; glossing them would certainly be better.

  Femke will know better than me whether these models are important enough be named or not Chidgk1 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with deleting the examples, to reduce the weight on that study. Femke (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

References

• There are several uses of "cite web" for news sources - the article cites The Guardian which is a newspaper ("cite news" would be right), several times, and National Geographic, which is a magazine as well as a website. All three sources are a bit iffy for a science (and maths) article. I'd remove all of them; if the material needs support, we should repeat the IPCC or other major sources.

  Changed Guardian to "cite news" in case you guys decide to keep it Chidgk1 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've done another pass over the article to remove, replace or supplement lay sources. The remaining are either supplementing scientific sources (which is fine), cited for basics, or giving a quote that I don't want to put in wikivoice (existential threat to civilisation). It's mentioned in the Nature comment by Lenton too. Femke (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Why is Carbon Brief a reliable source?

  Website seems to indicate it has editorial oversigh, they have a habit of issuing corrections when needed and they've won journalistic awards for their reporting. It's one of the best journalistic sources on climate I'm aware of; one of their articles was even rewritten as a highly cited paper. I've mostly used it in combination with a scientific source, or for really basic science. I'm going to add a peer-reviewed source to the West-Antarctic Ice Sheet one, as I believe this is slightly less forward basic science. Femke (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• BBC Sky at Night Magazine is a very light source here. It'll be reasonably reliable for simple statements but it's hard to think it adds anything to the scientific sources.

  I didn't see where in the NASA cite it says what the runaway greenhouse effect is, so I think this should remain. Have not watched program for decades but it was pretty well respected - still has 2 academics I see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/1fJ6CZpc1ySM0ZPytwWlW3x/meet-the-team. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are empty parameters for first=, last= in Shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

  Citation formatting is not my favourite thing, and not part of the GA criteria. Okay if I don't do these? Femke (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I must try that on my reviewers! They always argue that the whole MoS and all of its relations are indirectly included (hmm). I'll do a bit of "minor" tidying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think a lot of experienced reviewers are a bit too strict in their GA reviews about MOS compliance and citation formatting. The criteria are really lax on citation formatting: Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source..

  The criteria are also lax on inline citations, which needs to change, as I don't know any reviewer that reviews according to those low standards. Femke (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes.

• I don't see why we need "language=en" or "language=EN-US" or "language=English" for British or American sources.

  I regularly remove these, but this comments has made me think about why these are included as default in automatic citations. I think it's for translations; reviewers have asked me to include this during a "FAC" on nlwiki if I recall correctly. Not sure why engvar is relevant, but it's invisible anyway. Femke (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again, I may do a bit of minor surgery. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Since this seems to be British English, could we standardise on "date=1 January 2001" format, there are dates in several different formats right now.

  The magic template on the top of the article takes care of this. Femke (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Summary

This is a well-written and informative article, intelligently organised and providing generally good coverage. Once the issues are addressed it will make a worthy Good Article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review and your kinds words :). Hope to answer everything in the next couple of days, but health is fluctuating, so may take up to two weeks. Femke (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, let me know if you need more time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two items remaining, both partially-addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know enough to deal with the "irreversibility" item. Probably better for Femke to do "lead" as well as she would better know the relative importance of the body sections. However if she is not available within a week or 2 ping me and I will have a go. Meanwhile I will do a few small copyedits Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Femke? Really the main thing left is to adjust the lead to summarize the article decently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the new text quite meets the GA criteria. Having minor concerns with accuracy, weasel words, source quality and possibly neutrality. Happy to bring the last two sections to the talk page and work on it outside of the GAN. Don't think it's needed for broadness as it's mainly there to provide a broader context. Femke (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Apart from anything else, the reviewer is not expected to chase a moving target, and indeed instability is a valid reason to fail a GAN, which would be a pity at this stage. Moved 'Policy' to talk page, if you want to move the previous section too (?) then feel free; I've de-weaseled it a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Femke: can you expand the lead? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead. I've done so based on length of section (so giving multiple sentences for large section and leaving out one tiny section). I've moved the section on social tipping points to talk and explained my concerns with the text. It was likely the weakest section in the article to start with, and while the new edits resolved some of its defects, it introduced new ones. Femke (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Super, it's a GA. Thanks everybody! I hope you're pleased with the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Lovely working with you :). Article has improved a lot. Femke (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• HKH-Glacier-Mass-Change.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"One set of definitions of "tipping points" also requires self-reinforcing feedbacks"

Hi, I think this part of the Definition section could be reworded to make it easier to understand. I really struggled to figure it out at first and had to read the reference to understand what it meant. A "set of definitions" requiring something does not seem right. Maybe "requires to take into account..." or "implies" instead of "requires"? Thanks, Espandero (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Espandero, I agree with you, this is difficult to understand. Please go ahead and simplify it. EMsmile (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)