Talk:Climate sensitivity

message: ECS and TCS can be confusing to general readers.  The mean temperature is useful as an index of general warming, but the ECS for land is more relevant to people's experiences. These are available Schmittner, Andreas, Nathan M. Urban, Jeremy D. Shakun, Natalie M. Mahowald, Peter U. Clark, Patrick J. Bartlein, Alan C. Mix, and Antoni Rosell-Melé. "Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum." Science 334, no. 6061 (2011): 1385-1388.
. 
It may help to include a section which addresses this, and gives some typical values. 
I have not yet examined the IPCC AR6 WG1 report to see if they say anything about these. 
EcoQuant (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this comment still relevant, User:Empirical bayesian and others? I see it hasn't been addressed in the last two years, not sure if it was overlooked or landed in the too difficult basket. (I don't understand this topic enough to respond to the comment) EMsmile (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It may be more meaningful to readers to also include ECS for land and for water as well as just the mean 

message: I feel (but am not sure) that the two concepts climate risk and climate change scenario are somewhat related to climate sensitivity. As they were not yet mentioned in the main text, I put them under "See also" for now. Or perhaps I am mistaken and they have nothing to do with this? EMsmile (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section? 

message: I am always a bit wary when I see a section in any of our climate change articles that is called "Background". I feel that a "background" section could become too big - where to start and where to stop - and overlap or be repetitive with other articles. In this case here, is "background" really the ideal title? Perhaps rather call it "Fundamentals", "Theoretical basis", "Rationale" or something like that? EMsmile (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've changed it now to "Fundamentals". EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section? 

message: I came here to make some quick improvements to the readability of the lead. However, as the article is a GA article, I hesitate to jump straight in. Is anyone who was involved in the earlier GA review still here and open to readability improvements? Currently the entire third paragraph and almost the entire first paragraph lights up in dark red with the readability tool. Also, I find the caption for the image in the lead is rather long and complicated. Pinging User:Jonesey95 and User:Femke. - I am happy to give it a go but don't want to step on anyone's toes (and might also not get it perfectly right on the first go as it's not my area of expertise). EMsmile (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not stepping on my toes. Many of the changes since my copy edits in 2020 are clear improvements; some of them make me wince a bit that I missed them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to step in here. I've rephrased the 3rd paragraph. The sentences are still long, but they should be much clearer now. If in doubt about whether your suggestions change the meaning, feel free to ping me again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you to both of you for your quick replies. I'll do some cautious editing for readability tomorrow or otherwise when I get back from holidays in a week from now. Thanks for working on the 3rd paragraph, too. The readability tool now shows a light red instead of a dark red for the first sentence of the 3rd para. So that's progress. Of course this readability tool is not the "be all and end all" but overall I find it very useful. It "punishes" multi-syllable words though, so with the 5-syllable word "sensitivity" it won't be easy to get the reading ease score up. EMsmile (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done a bit of work on the reading ease and the structure of this article (see details in my edit summaries). I hope everything is correct. I'll add some questions below in separate sections. EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, the last sentence of the lead still has a low readability score but I don't know how to improve on that:  EMsmile (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That shows that these readability tools should not be blindly believed. The sentence is easy to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly easy to understand, yes, but someone trained in science communication could probably improve it further. Anyhow, happy to live with it like this. - I find the tool a wonderful helper just to point out those sentences that are (potentially) difficult to understand. EMsmile (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability issues with the lead 

message: At the end of the section that is now called "factors that determine sensitivity" there is a hidden comment as follows:
"Do we need this section? If so, why? It seems to be out of place with the rest of the article >> Although the term "climate sensitivity" is usually used for the sensitivity to radiative forcing caused by rising atmospheric , it is a general property of the climate system. Other things can cause a radiative imbalance. Climate sensitivity is the change in surface air temperature per unit change in radiative forcing, and the climate sensitivity parameterHere, the IPCC definition is used. In some other sources, the climate sensitivity parameter is simply called the climate sensitivity. The inverse of that parameter is called the climate feedback parameter and is expressed in (W/m2)/°C. is therefore expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). The measure is approximately the same, whatever the reason for the radiative forcing (such as from greenhouse gases or solar variation). When climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature change for a level of atmospheric  double the pre-industrial level, its units are degrees Celsius (°C)."
I don't know when it was added and by whom. Is there something we ought to do to address this? EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factors that determine sensitivity: hidden comment