Climate change feedbacks: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 500 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

3 June 2024

2 June 2024

30 May 2024

29 May 2024

28 May 2024

21 May 2024

  • curprev 20:4420:44, 21 May 2024Efbrazil talk contribs 73,949 bytes −46 Consolidating carbon cycle information into the negative feedbacks paragraph of the lead. This balances paragraph length and allows for more succinct wording. Also, to be more accurate, the percentage of emissions absorbed will decline, not the fixed rate of absorption. undo
  • curprev 16:4516:45, 21 May 2024Efbrazil talk contribs 73,995 bytes +63 Edit to last paragraph of lead as per talk page discussion undo

20 May 2024

16 May 2024

14 May 2024

  • curprev 18:4418:44, 14 May 2024AnomieBOT talk contribs 73,904 bytes +2,360 Rescuing orphaned refs ("Kang2023" from rev 1223793420; "IPCC AR6 WG1 CH7" from rev 1223793420; "IPCC_AR6_WG1_TS" from rev 1223793420) undo
  • curprev 18:2618:26, 14 May 2024Efbrazil talk contribs 71,544 bytes −1,582 I am reverting the lead rewrite that occured after the first paragraph. The last sentence was a clear run on sentence with bad readability. The Planck response is not a feedback and the IPCC explicitly says feedbacks will increase for the remainder of the century. Feedbacks are not "primarily estimated through models". The lead that was there was arrived at through extensive discussion- go slow on edits or open talk discussion please. undo
  • curprev 11:4811:48, 14 May 2024InformationToKnowledge talk contribs 73,126 bytes +8,950 Another section and some clarifications. undo

13 May 2024

12 May 2024

30 April 2024

29 April 2024

17 April 2024

  • curprev 21:0921:09, 17 April 2024Efbrazil talk contribs 86,089 bytes −63 I removed the sentence saying feedback amplifies climate change as I think people will assume from the context that the Planck response is a feedback component. I tweaked the sentence later in that paragraph talking about feedbacks being positive to make it clear it was separate from the Planck response being negative. An overall climate response statement could be a good thing (including Planck and feedbacks), but that's negative now and we don't know the future trend. undo
  • curprev 21:0521:05, 17 April 2024RCraig09 talk contribs 86,152 bytes +8 →‎top: There is no threat of a runaway greenhouse effect from *CURRENT* climate change. undo
  • curprev 20:0120:01, 17 April 2024Femke talk contribs 86,144 bytes +38 improve citation to TS, add that the overall effect of feedbacks is amplifying (per that source), and make tweak wording around Planck response being described as feedback undo Tag: Visual edit

16 April 2024

  • curprev 19:0919:09, 16 April 2024Efbrazil talk contribs 86,106 bytes −30 Swapping wikilink from propoertional (which I think is argubly general knowledge) to black body (which is not). undo
  • curprev 17:4117:41, 16 April 2024Efbrazil talk contribs 86,136 bytes +12 Edit pass on last 3 paragraphs of the lead. Tried to cut down on jargon in general, reducing several mentions to wikilinks. Fixed error where it said the carbon cycle removed methane, methane is now a separate sentence. Removed cloud feedbacks from lead as they are a mixed bag (not clearly positive or negative). Planck response is now specifically mentioned. Stated that runaway global warming will not happen due to climate change. undo

14 April 2024

(newest | oldest) View (newer 500 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)