Talk:US National Climate Assessment warns of climate-related damages to economy, ecosystems, human health

WN:Lede

@Oceanflynn: The first sentence says "sounds the alarm", but that's subjective/emotive phrasing. Report facts. The final prepositional phrase in the sentence, "as the increase in emissions continues to rise at historic rates", I'm not sure what to make of; perhaps it's intended to be an indication that the report says that, but it seems to be coming across as an assertion of fact that should be attributed. Usually the lede specifies the day on which the focal event occurred in the first sentence, whereas here it's not till way at the end of the paragraph; btw, for recent dates like that we use day of the week rather than month-day, and even for days earlier this year we would not specify the year. Keep in mind, the lede should (as WN:PILLARS#style notes) succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H, and show that the focus is newsworthy — specific, relevant, and fresh. Note also that the headline and lede should be in agreement about the focus. (I might wonder —but can't be sure, until seeing what it looks like once these other things have been cleared up— whether the lede was longer than it ought to be, and whether it went into more detail than it ought to.)

(Btw, your last source is missing a url.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Pi Zero. I will work on these helpful suggestions. For now, Washington Post won't let me see its urls. I've used up my free articles.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: The Sources section is meant to record what sources were actually used for the article. If you can't access WP, does that mean you didn't use their article as a source? If so, it shouldn't be listed in the Sources section. --Pi zero (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh. Oh; I see you did remove it. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What does 'major' stand for in the first sentence Oceanflynn? Does it mean a fact or not? What fact is that? --Gryllida (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida. Both the Washington Post and Vox news called it "major". It took two years to complete with 13 federal agencies involved: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of the Interior, United States Department of State, United States Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, {{W|Smithsonian Institution]], and the Agency for International Development. I am working on finding the most concise way of describing its findings.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: As it now occurs in the lede, "major" comes across as an assessment, which isn't allowed under our neutrality policy. It's too ambiguous a term to be a fact in itself, and the facts that back it up (of which there are some later in the sentence) should stand on their own; if they don't stand without it, they won't do any better with it. So the word "major" ought to be dropped from that sentence. --Pi zero (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Bias in headline? and relevance in lede

Hello,

"U.S. National Climate Assessment by 13 federal agencies warn of 100s of billions in annual losses"

I don't like the phrase "100s of billions", it does not say how many exactly and makes it look big.

--Gryllida (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

One also ought to clarify, hundreds of billions of what? --Pi zero (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this.

The NCA4 Volume II says, "With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states." The "hundreds of billions of dollars" phrase has been repeated by a number of media outlets. I realize now that it may be in reference to Trump's tweet "Bringing hundreds of billions of dollars back to the U.S.A. from the Middle East - which will mean JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!"? I will look for other ways of describing this.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the section Economy and Infrastructure: "Without more significant global greenhouse gas mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause substantial losses to infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century (Ch. 4: Energy, KM 1; Ch. 8: Coastal, KM 1; Ch. 11: Urban, KM 2; Ch. 12: Transportation, KM 1; Regional Chapters 18–27). Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are increasingly vulnerable to impacts driven by climate change (Ch. 7: Ecosystems, KM 3; Ch. 10: Agriculture, KM 1). Reliable and affordable energy supplies, which underpin virtually every sector of the economy, are increasingly at risk from climate change and weather extremes (Ch. 4: Energy, KM 1). The impacts of climate change beyond our borders are expected to increasingly affect our trade and economy, including import and export prices and U.S. businesses with overseas operation and supply chains (Box 1.4) (Ch. 16: International, KM 1; Ch. 17: Complex Systems, KM 1). Some aspects of our economy may see slight improvements in a modestly warmer world. However, the continued warming that is projected to occur without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century (Ch. 29: Mitigation, KM 2)."

Review of revision 4447680 [Not ready]

Revision 4447680 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede in its current state is too long and detailed. A lead half as long would be lengthy for a lede. Aim to spend just a few words on each of the five Ws and H. Shift details down, perhaps to a new second paragraph. For example, listing some of the agencies in a much-too-long lede seems excess. The bit about the previous report (last sentence of the lede) also seems too detailed for an over-length lede. (Wasn't there an intermediate draft with a much shorter lede? I thought I saw one.) The first-listed source, btw, is missing a title. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4447680 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede in its current state is too long and detailed. A lead half as long would be lengthy for a lede. Aim to spend just a few words on each of the five Ws and H. Shift details down, perhaps to a new second paragraph. For example, listing some of the agencies in a much-too-long lede seems excess. The bit about the previous report (last sentence of the lede) also seems too detailed for an over-length lede. (Wasn't there an intermediate draft with a much shorter lede? I thought I saw one.) The first-listed source, btw, is missing a title. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

"at historic rates" what does this mean?

(First paragraph) --Gryllida (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A long sentence

"The report, which is issued by thirteen federal agencies, including EPA, DOD, DOE, NASA, with NOAA as administrative lead, was the result of two years work. " this sentence contains two thoughts and can be split in two. --Gryllida (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

President Trump described the report as "inaccurate." -- where, when, how

--Gryllida (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

" The Trump administration's promotion of fossil fuels runs counter to warnings issued in the report. " - opinion?

1) Long sentence, can be split in two.

2) I have difficulty with the phrase "promotion of fossil fuels " it sounds like an ad. Also it is not stated which warnings. This makes the whole sentence vague. This could be remedied either by making it more specific, compare with this for example "Trump administration has doubled the number of coal mines in the US in 2017-2018. This was counter to warnings issued in the report, which said to stop using coal as an energy source."

3) Even then I would think that the conclusion about contradiction/countering can be left to the reader, just say it in the article in one place that the report said against fossil fuels, and at the end for background include what did the Trump administration do with fossil fuels while it was active as the running government.

4) Alternatively the claim can be attributed by specifying who said this, so that it does not come in Wikinew's own voice. --Gryllida (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This sentence is enormous

"Observed changes in the United States highlighted in the report include increasing severity and frequency of landfalling atmospheric rivers — rivers of rain in the sky — about 300 mi (c. 483 km) wide of water vapor representing 25 times the water volume of the Mississippi Rivers, connecting Asia to North America, that cause increasingly extreme precipitation events and flooding."

Perhaps split like this:

"Observed changes in the United States highlighted in the report include increasing severity and frequency of landfalling atmospheric rivers — rivers of rain in the sky. They were rivers about 300 mi (c. 483 km) wide of water vapor representing 25 times the water volume of the Mississippi Rivers. They connected Asia to North America, causing increasingly extreme precipitation events and flooding."

(Needs fact-check, meaning may have changed in several places.)

--Gryllida (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Atmospheric river

NASA: "Atmospheric rivers are long, narrow jets of air that carry huge amounts of water vapor from the tropics to Earth’s continents and polar regions. These “rivers in the sky” typically range from 250 to 375 miles (400 to 600 kilometers) wide and carry as much water -- in the form of water vapor -- as about 25 Mississippi Rivers. When an atmospheric river makes landfall, particularly against mountainous terrain (such as the Sierra Nevada and the Andes), it releases much of that water vapor in the form of rain or snow."

Enormous sentence #2

1) "The report describes the devastating effects of a changing climate including increasing wildfires, such as the record California wildfires, high temperature extremes, retreating glaciers, and melting snow cover, the decline of sea ice, warming, rising and increasing ocean acidification, more frequent coastal flood, and lengthening growing seasons. "

Maybe make it a bit easier:

"The report included reportedly increasing wildfires, such as the record California wildfires of 20XX. It also mentioned high temperature extremes, retreating glaciers, melting snow cover, the decline of sea ice, warming, rising and increasing ocean acidification, more frequent coastal flood, and lengthening growing seasons. "

2) Which of these things are quotes and which aren't?

Gryllida (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion thing

"The report included regional and sectoral impacts of climate change, detailing the vulnerabilities of every region in the U.S. and describes how climate change will impact the American economy and quality of life if drastic action is not taken to address climate change."

1) What does 'sectoral' mean here?

2) "detailing the vulnerabilities of every region in the U.S." sounds to me (not sure why) as if Wikinews calls these things vulnerabilities. Like if you write "The report spoke of the green sky" it would kind of mean that you (the reporter) are reporting that green sky exists. I'd write "detailing the suggested vulnerabilities of every region in the U.S.".

3) This sounds like a quote, here is a modified version: "describes how climate change willwould reportedly impact the American economy and quality of life if "drastic" action is not taken to address climate change"

--Gryllida (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Inverted pyramid

1) Not background, should be moved to the top (first-second-third para):

NCA4 Volume 1, entitled "Climate Science Special Report" (CSSR) was released in October 2017, and Volume 2, entitled "Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States", on November 23, 2018.

2) Background, should be moved to the bottom:

The report, which is issued by thirteen federal agencies, including EPA, DOD, DOE, NASA, with NOAA as administrative lead, was the result of two years work. It echoes the call of the UN IPCC's 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C for much greater climate change mitigation.

3) Not background, should be moved to the top (first-second-third para) and clarified (as suggested above):

President Trump described the report as "inaccurate."

--Gryllida (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes made

Thank you again Gryllida (t · c · b) (talk) and Pi zero (t · c · b) (talk) for your helpful collaboration. I am quite sure we are working in different time zones. I hope these changes reach you in time for the deadline. It has been a privilege to work with you again.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: I'm UTC-5, and I think Gryllida is UTC+11. --Pi zero (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

New article from The Guardian

With the time constraints, I doubt that you would be able to replace the sentence re: the White House spokeswoman with this one from an article published an hour ago?Oceanflynn (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC) On November 26, President Trump told reporters he had seen and read some of the report but he doesn't believe it. Thanks (talk).

• Emily Holden. "Trump on own administration's climate report: 'I don't believe it'" — The Guardian, November 26, 2018

Review of revision 4448247 [Passed]

Revision 4448247 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4448247 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Oceanflynn: I had serious troubles in verification, which very nearly sank the article; I had to just plain chop the last sentence for pure lack of a couple of minutes to check it. My impression was that a bunch of things here were simply not in the cited sources. The cited sources should be the only sources of information... not sure what happened here. --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Huge thanks to @Pi zero: and @Gryllida: for getting this ready for publication. It is always a pleasure to work with you both. The challenge with verification with Wikinews is that there is no inline citation. One sentence can have combine 3 or 4 sources. Thanks for the extra effort in doing this. I wondered if the article's talk/collaboration page could be used as a place to use inline citations to make the reviewer's work easier?

Sources for the last sentence include CNN's Christensen and Nedelman's "Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: A couple of techniques are commonly used for notes on which fact comes from where. One might leave notes on the talk page; or sometimes one embeds an html comment in the article markup (but if you're going to do that, leave a note on the talk page saying you're doing so). --Pi zero (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both and all from me. I am sooooooo glad someone wrote an article about this. It got released to the mainstream news when most of the U.S. was still sleeping off Thanksgiving or having knife fights in shopping center parking lots. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As for inline citations to make reviewing easier, just use this in the article draft: <!--Type which source you got it from here-->. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: Inline citation would be a horrible idea, as it involves confirmation bias. It may seem unlikely, but the more you write and learn, and on more challenging stories, you would realise there is a good chance confirmation bias creeps in. Reviewers have dealt with that so many times that even though separate listing seems time-consuming, it still improves correctness.
•–• 07:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)