Talk:Climate change

Second discussion on titles for potential move request

I've requested for this discussion to be formally closed at the appropriate noticeboard. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Indicate your preference for the suggested titles below and explain your reasoning. Please create a subsection titled with your user name as a header for your rationale, not to exceed 400 words. Statements may contain links to other discussions or longer statements on another page. Comments on statements by others and/or threaded discussion should be made in the General discussion sections. --mikeu ^talk 19:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Links to summary information, above:

• Consensus-gauging table
• Reasoning table

Climate change

Should we propose moving Global warming to Climate change?

User:Mu301

• Strong support: this is the term used in statements adopted by numerous scientific societies.[4] This shift in usage from GW to CC by the scientific community is recognized by public opinion pollsters.[5] The phrase is used by education professionals to communicate the subject.[6] News organization have adopted it.[7] It is the most common current usage by public officials.[8] The phrase "climate change" has overtaken "global warming" as the de facto[9][10][11] catch all term for the subject of this article. This is the current and common usage per dictionary definitions.[12][13] which is reflected in the reliable sources that we rely on.[14]

After analyzing the numerous references that I've compiled at User:Mu301/Climate change and User:Mu301/Climate2 (and others cited above) I am now more convinced of the opinion that I expressed earlier: all of those references use the standalone phrase "climate change" in the title or header as the subject of the page. Additional terms like anthropogenic or mention of global warming are relagated to mentions or clarifications lower down after declaring the title of the topic at top. My opinion is that we should follow this practice.

--mikeu ^talk 16:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

RCraig09

"GW" fraction of "CC" usage in Google searches since 2004 (worldwide).

• Mild Support: "CC" is wp:concise and where scientific and popular sources are trending vis-a-vis "GW": it's a good wp:commonname destination for Google and WP searches). My support for "CC" is had been "mild" because "CC" is not wp:precise under its broadest and most literal definition of "CC" (= Climate change (general concept)). Also, "GW" is still in use to some extent, apparently mainly in U.S. which still is by far the most populous English-language country, so I favor "GW & CC" so readers immediately confront the two terms. 21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC) However, because "CC" will probably continue to eclipse "GW", this article will probably be "CC" in ten years anyway, so rename now to avoid future renaming battle (support is no longer "mild"). —RCraig09 (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene

• Strong support. It's difficult to add to mikeu's concise yet complete argumentation. Global warming is a pars pro toto, an aspect of the issue that is used as a word for the entire issue. Climate change is a totum pro parte, a term that is almost solily used to describe THIS climate change, but technically also incorporate(s/d) climatic change in general. Let me add one more example to this. The book series Very Short Introductions is written based on the latests science for a broad public, and is therefore quite comparable to what we do. Their latest edition (3rd, 2014) is named: Climate change: a very short introduction, whereas previous versions still used the term global warming. They too argue that this is because terminology has changed over time.

Within scientific circles, using global warming as a pars pro toto has not been popular for ages. For Google Trends, we see that the general public is now also following, which means this is now not only the most accurate, but also the most commonly used term to describe the issue of human-induced climate change. In the US, which only covers roughly 20% of English speakers worldwide, this trend is now also apparent, even as 10/15 years ago their use of global warming was relatively high. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

efbrazil

• Support: I think there could be 2 articles, but if there is to be only 1 article, it should use the term that is predominantly used for the phenomena.--Efbrazil (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson

• Very strong oppose. In the first place, all this argumentation that "climate change" is more popular than "global warming" is based on a false presumption that these are alternative terms for a single topic (or phenomenon). While media (and therefore popular) usage often treats these synonymously, usage by climate experts generally distinguishes them. The difference in usage likely reflects not a preference in terminology, but the progress of scientific study from causation (now well established) to the effects, the latter being an immensely broader topic that is still largely unknown.

This proposal smacks of bad faith. We had an article named "Climate change", but there was a concerted campaign to rename that article after moving much of trimming its content to and augmenting^* this article, with anticipation of renaming this article to "Climate change". Once that is done the apparent intent is to excise content related to global warming on the grounds of bloat. The end result is deletion of Global warming without an Afd notice and discussion, and the diminution of a very notable topic. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

^* Belated correction: I have been advised that there was not direct transfer of content. My point is that both articles were modified in anticipation of a change, prior to discussion of and consensus for the change. While this could be attributed to mere over-eagerness, persistence in such short-cutting of process is questionable. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dtetta

• Oppose. Apologies for the late contribution to this discussion...

I am opposed to changing the name to just Climate Change, though I would support a change that accommodated both terms in the title. The reasons are:

1-This change has a bad history associated with it. I was at EPA from 1979 to 2015, and remember the days in the early 2000‘s when the Bush II administration was muzzling agency employees on global warming, including replacing the term GW with CC. I was in meetings at the EPA’s Seattle office where this was discussed (I’m guessing similar conversations were held at NASA and NOAA). This was not just the plan of some second rate adviser to Bush (Frank Luntz), but was a major disinformation program masterminded by Dick Cheney & Co. with the support of the Koch/Competitive Enterprise Institute gang. See https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/six-years-of-deceit-192430/, and http://www.fusee.org/documents/Bush_Admin_vs_climate_science.pdf. The purpose was to alleviate pressure on EPA to act on GW/CC, and EPA successfully held this position until the Supreme Court forced it to address the problem in 2007.

This change from GW to CC as the official EPA designation for the topic was formally done in October 2006. If you go to the Wayback Machine, you will see that sometime between October 19 and October 24, 2006 the EPA Global Warming site (originally just http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/) at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html was taken down, and a redirect to: http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html was made. For some, maybe most, this history might not matter much at this point. But I think we should be cognizant of the effect of demoting the GW term to the extent that it is providing aid and comfort, however inadvertent or small, to the ongoing backers of climate change denial/inaction.

2-While there have been a number of excellent posts in this discussion showing CC as the preferred term in the scientific community and in many science oriented public organizations, as well as some of the media, I believe GW is still the term that resonates more strongly with the public. I found this study https://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication-OFF/files/Global_Warming_vs_Climate_Change_Report.pdf to be a little more definitive than the other studies referenced on this discussion. When Gallop polls Americans https://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx, it still uses the GW term, even though many of its web pages talk about the issue in terms of CC. I think WP is a reference for the general public more so than the scientific community, and although neutrality is important, I favor a term that is more likely to get the public to see the gravity of the situation, or at least I am opposed to seeing that term relegated to second status.

Not to belabor Point 1, but before those in charge make a change to the title, I would ask that you take a look at the Frontline video “Climate of Doubt” at: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/climate-of-doubt/ or just the first part, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3T1KZXGO7Q you’ll see that back in 2012 the PBS interviewer was still using the term “global warming”, while Fred Singer, Myron Ebell, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute people portrayed in the program were sticking to the “Climate Change” term as they downplayed the importance of the crisis, skillfully blending the use of that term with the concept that the climate is changing all the time, so there is nothing to really worry about, and prefacing any GW reference with the pejorative introduction “so called”. Words matter, and the effectiveness these people had in turning public opinion on this issue between 2007 and 2010, leading to the defeat of several pro-climate Republicans in 2010, was just incredible.Dtetta (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Global_Warming_vs _Climate_Change_Report" is from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, written by Leiserowitz et al. 2014.

Alan Hecht and Dennis Tirpak, also formerly at the EPA, provide more details on all this in their 1995 article in Climate Change (doi:10.1007/BF01092424).

The particular way words matter is in how the arguments are framed. See George Lakoff's excellent "Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment" (doi:10.1080/17524030903529749). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"CC" General discussion

Not to worry about the this joint-concept article being a "diminution of a notable topic" (GW). The Instrumental temperature record article already details GW per se since ~the mid-1800s. Demonstration of the GW-->CC causal relationship, and GW's many effects in CC, are the substantive subject matter readers are searching for, and it's already in one place: right here. And in hundreds of hours of reading, I've encountered zero references, and zero research (in RSs or on these Talk Pages), that suggest "GW" still predominates over "CC". —RCraig09 (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Instrumental temperature record is only one small part of GW, and it is as upside-down to make that article cover all of GW as to make GW cover all of "climate change". To limit GW to just one small part, or to dilute it inside a much broader subject, is diminution of GW.

You haven't seen anything suggesting that "GW still predominates" because no one is claiming that; that is a strawman argument. My argument is that these terms apply to different topics, and the suitability of each term to its specific topic is independent of relative usage. You might as well argue that all related topics that get fewer Google hits than CC should be incorporated into "climate change". Which is clearly (no?) ridiculous. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The question is: which aspect(s) of GW would be outside the scope of both Instrumental temperature record and Climate change, that would warrant a separate "GW" article, defending its perceived sovereignty? (not asking for a long explanation). . . . Related issue: the popular press and the public, including lay WP readers, seldom distinguish between GW and CC, would seldom seek separate articles, and wouldn't mind a GW-->CC redirect since it would lead them to the widely-perceived-to-be-interchangeable concepts that they are seeking. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If the scope of "climate change" is defined broadly enough it would include everything, but no top-level article can cover everything. That is why we have WP:SUMMARY style, as NAEG and dave sousa proposed in the previous CC move discussion (at 11:19, 11 Oct and 11:27, 22 Oct). I will list below (as it is somewhat longish) prospective GW content going beyond what can be summarized in a top-level article (and please note that Femke has already removed what she deemed "Excessive information about global warming" from this article, which is currently titled "Global warming") and sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article.

Re the "widely-perceived-to-be-interchangeable" usage: we should inform our readers, not slavishly follow their confusion or carelessness. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply included in this diff. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

In the other place (under "Fork the current article ...") I list some subtopics that could warrant "Global warming" being a distinct and substantial article in its own right. Your response there is that those subtopics (at least half of?) could be included "Within the scope of a comprehensive Climate change article". While that could be debated, the point I am trying establish here is that if "climate change" is defined broadly it can include not only all those items, but also every article in the Global warming, Climate change, Effects of global warming, and Future problems Categories. Which would be an absurdly gigantic article (do you disagree with that?), and subject to WP:Article size. The practical reality is that we have an effective (albeit approximate) size limit, and increasing the breadth of scope results in less depth of detail. Yes, the scope of CC can be extended to include all of GW, but that would be pointless, as the coverage would be so thin as to be meaningless. That is the point of WP:SUMMARY style. And subtopic that is summarized is potentially an article in its own right.

I point out that if GW-CC indifferent readers "wouldn't mind a GW-->CC redirect" it is likely they don't mind a CC-->GW redirect (as we have now) either, and this is not a point for changing the current arrangement. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, as I described in the bottom part of this diff: GW is the cause and/or a Yuge part of CC, which cannot be said of "every article in categories Category:Global warming... ". GW is Yuger than all of 'em. Further, "GW" is often used ~interchangeably with "CC", which also cannot be said of articles in those categories.

Again, the "point for changing the current arrangement" is that "CC" is clearly predominating over "GW" in RS and lay usage, and also that CC—focusing more on the effects that readers are interested in— is the broader and more inclusive description. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Yuge", indeed, even Yumongous, which is precisely one of my points: GW is too big to be fully covered in any other article. Where CC needs to refer to GW that should be summarized, per WP:Summary style, and linked to the detailed article. And there's nothing wrong with that, we do it all the time.

I grant that GW and CC are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are also used not interchangeably. And such usage – especially by non-experts – does not establish equivalency. This insistence GW can't be an article separate from CC is the only reason we have an issue regarding "predominance". Yet this "dominance" is not as "hard" as has been claimed. E.g., see the following chart, created from Google Trends data comparing the use of CC and GW as search topics. By this data use of CC exceeded GW only in the last half of this year. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

[Anchor: Gtrends chart 01]

So... without exception, the trend (either solid search terms, or the nebulously determined "topic" terms) is that "CC" is Yuger than "GW"—in accord with 100.00% of the RSs I encountered^{researching Climate crisis} that commented on the evolving usage of the two terms. And objectively, "CC" is broader and more inclusive, and probably the subject matter that almost all lay readers are seeking. Any part of the anthropogenic GW topic that you would think is not properly includable in a CC article, can be included in Instrumental temperature record since it neatly corresponds to the time period of AGW. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Supplemental: though GW is a Yuge part of CC, I don't see any other part of GW that's theoretically outside Instrumental temperature record that would warrant a separate "GW" article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that we can use the topics search of Google trends. Most importantly, there is overlap between the topics ("global warming" will sometimes count towards the topic climate change and visa versa.). The fact that the topics are closer to each other than the individual search terms supports the argument that they are often used interchangeably. Secondly, other languages are included in topics, which makes this even less interpretable. Some languages have a mixture term such as "climate warming" (Réchauffement climatique, french), while other languages don't have a term for global warming (Dutch has to use the descriptive "warming of the Earth" (Opwarming van de Aarde).' Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur completely with Femke's analysis re topic trends, and I add that the search term trend unquestionably favors "CC" (as noted by 100.00% of RSs I've encountered that have discussed the two terms). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I will try to respond to each of these points, though I think it would be better to consider them individually, lest we keep going around and around on the same points.

A. RC: You will have to define "Yuger", as I see no relationship in the GW-CC trend data presented here that is "without exception". Perhaps you could clarify that? Also, if you are going to claim the support of reliable sources perhaps you would specify those sources, and the particular passages.

B. You argue that GW should be included in CC because CC "is broader and more inclusive". By that argument ALL of this subject matter, and ALL of the related articles, should be included under Climate, which (as I said on the 19th) is ridiculous. As far as that goes, CC should also include Climate crisis, no?

C. As to probably what "almost all lay readers are seeking": a bare majority – such as 52%, the best CC has "dominated" GW in any year since 2004 – is in no way "almost all". Even if you go with the best showing to made for CC hit counts ("search terms for 2019") the impressive 65% is still not "almost all". But such wrangling misses the point: it's not a horse race. There is yet no demonstration that we cannot have a separate GW article.

D. The argument that any part of GW "not properly includable in a CC article, can be included in Instrumental temperature record" would lead to a grotesque result. That article is so narrowly (and properly!) focused that it does not even describe the instruments referred to in its title. To force feed it the political aspects of how GW is used, the physics of the carbon dioxide theory, computer modeling, and the economic and political drivers of denial (all topics I have suggested as appropriate for a GW article) would greatly distort it, overloading the readers with content that, at best, is ancillary to that topic.

E. I disagree with the argument that ITR and GW should be merged because they "neatly correspond" in time (they don't), but it is interesting. By that criterion it could be argued that GW and CC should be separate because they do not "neatly correspond" in time. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sigh.

A: By "without exception" I meant that none of: (1) search-term trends, (2) topic trends, or (3) reliable sources, provided any evidence that "GW" predominates over "CC". In 2019 it's common knowledge that "CC" has mainly replaced "GW", since even the Stable Genius boasts awareness of the "change" from "GW" to "CC". One reference: Washington Post: "... the terminology for the planet’s rising temperatures pivoted some years ago, ... ". Also: Skeptical Science says "Responsible sections of the media may use ‘climate change’ more often these days because it is more accurate and more apt. ". Since you're about the only one in the "Strong Support" column for "GW", it is you who should be seeking a reference—even one recent reference—that says "GW" predominates over or is more accurate than "CC".

B: Yours is a strawman argument. Wikipedia has many "main" articles with multiple corresponding subsidiary "See also" articles.

C. I meant that "almost all" laymen will search for the subject matter that is now in the present article.

D. Overlooks that most GW content will remain in the present article (as hopefully renamed). Plus, much of today's Itr article already reads like a GW primer!

E. GW, CC (caused by the industrial revolution) and Itr (based on scientific advancements) in fact correspond to the same time period, about two centuries (industrial revolution and scientific advancements not being mere coincidence).

If your goal is to have a separate "GW" article for some convincing reason, you can give it a try—after this one is moved/renamed. You seem to be arguing in good faith, but I'd rather not spend any more time explaining things that even the Stable Genius can see. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you reduced to insults because you don't have a better argument? Perhaps you are peevish because you're going around and around on arguments that are not convincing? If you want to understand why they are not convincing you might try paying attention to the following.

A.1. So by "Yuger" you mean predominant. Okay. My dictionary (YDMV) defines that as "having ascendancy, influence, or authority over others", distinguishing it from "dominant" as "that which is at the moment uppermost in importance or authority". Your implicit argument is that ascendancy in Google hit counts should determine which term is authoritative. There are several problems with that.

First, in the chart I presented it is global warming that "predominates" climate change: for the entire period, and for every year (and even every month) through 2018. Do you prefer search terms? Pretty much the same story. QED: Your statement that "CC" is Yuger than "GW" without exception is entirely bass-ackwards and blatantly false, as there is more exception here than otherwise.

Second, this issue of "predominance" arises solely from the presumption that GW and CC are synonymous terms that refer to the same thing, and therefore the issue is only which of these terms is preferred. (With an additional presumption that the "losing" term is not allowed a separate article.) But that is false: they are not synonymous. (I am sure I have stated that before; did you not WP:HEAR that?) Allow that these are separate (albeit closely connected) topics, that can be properly covered in seperate articles – AS EXISTED FOR OVER A DECADE – and predominance is inmaterial, the issue goes away.

Which leads into the linked issue that GW must be included in the CC article, no stand-alone GW article is allowed. Which is just a backdoor way of insisting they should be treated as a single topic, even if they are not. This where questions of intent arise, but we should argue that separately.

A.2. Now let's clarify something: where you make a claim from authority (e.g.: "in accord with 100.00% of the RSs I encountered") it is incumbent on YOU to support that claim by identifying those sources. So you have now provided two sources. Now it is not clear whether you claim that 100.00% of your sources – i.e., both of them – support your position, or that each of them is 100.00% "in accord" with your position. Be that as it may, let's look at your sources. You quoted Jason Samenow's piece in the Washington Post that the terminology "pivoted some years ago, ...". What you left off (the "...") is: "it had nothing to do with thermometers." (I.e., temperatures.) In the next paragraph the 2005 Joint science academies' statement is quoted that CC "helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures" (emphasis added). I could go on, but that suffices to show that this source is not "100.00%" in accord with your statement that "CC" is "Yuger".

Let us not overlook your quote from your other RS, gpwayne's post at Skeptical Science, that "climate change" "is more accurate and more apt." What you left off there is the preceding sentence: "'Climate change' is the best term to use when talking about the effects of global warming." Note: the effect's of GW; not a synonym. I also point out the different definitions given there for GW and CC.

B. My argument is a strawman argument? Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read. I was quoting your words, from 19:25, 26 Dec: ""CC" is broader and more inclusive", echoing a previous statement from 05:53, 23 Dec: "CC [...] is the broader and more inclusive description". My argument is that this rationale of "broader and more inclusive" is ridiculous because it equally justifies the inclusion of all of CC within "Climate". As to many "main" and "See also" articles: indeed, which is my point elsewhere.

C. Again it appears you didn't understand my comment. I was questioning your quantification that almost all lay readers are seeking CC content, when you have provided no basis for knowing what they are seeking other than the usage of the search terms, and "almost all" would, for much of the actual data, be a gross mischaracterization.

D. And again you miss the point. I was responding to your argument that any part of GW ""not properly includable in a CC article, can be included in Instrumental temperature record". Shifting GW content from this article (so it is more CC) to ITR would stretch that article beyond its current focus. I think your statement that "much of today's Itr article already reads like a GW primer!" shows that ITR is already getting pushed off topic.

E. If "neatly corresponds to the time period of AGW" was a valid rationale then we should also include baseball. As it is, the destabilization of climatic patterns – that is, climate change – that is a consquence of GW doesn't really show up until the 1970s and later. Therefore CC does not "neatly correspond" with GW.

Please note that I am not opposed to a "climate change" article. I am opposed to hijacking this article. It seems to me the core problem here is that you are opposed to a "global warming" article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't spend more time explaining what you've misconstrued or misunderstood. I'll again overlook your enduring incivility and simply summarize the points that (1) this article already describes the subject matter of both GW and CC as our readers and popular press commonly (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURALNESS) use the terms, (2) "CC"^{or "GW&CC"} has for some time clearly been the more appropriate title for that subject matter, (3) you've produced no convincing argument of which subject matter would be in a sovereign "GW" article that would not properly be included in either Instrumental temperature record or the current article, and (4) bifurcating the present article would force readers to read two articles to understand closely intertwined content. I intend no further response here. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We're going round in circles now, with increasing incivility. I feel all arguments have been made a while ago. Shall we put this to a (non)Vote? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

True, true, and yes. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree & agree, it is time to move to the next step. --mikeu ^talk 14:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Making arguments is one thing, resolving them is something else. The essence of WP:Consensus is addressing legitimate concerns, which isn't getting done. So sorry, no, I think we are not ready to move on. Do note that I have proposed a compromise that would largely settle my concerns. Would that compromise be acceptable to you? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

While I have criticized both of you for careless or weak argumentation, I have not engaged in ad hominem comparisons with "Stable Genius", so you might just back away from "enduring incivility". I doubt if I have misconstrued anything, but if you have any complaints in that regard please state them so we can address that. I have tried to be clear enough and precise enough in my arguments, and in my objections to other arguments, so any differences of understanding will be exposed (and hopefully resolved). If I have misunderstood anything please explain that.

I did provide a list of topics (in this edit, under the "Fork" heading at 01:49, 20 Dec.) to show there is likely scope for a global warming article. I have not responded to your demurral on several of those because we have been busy on other points (no?). I could supply argument on those points if needed, though that would be moot if you are unwilling to spend any time on it. And likely futile if you simply refuse to be convinced. But do ask if you want to do an item-by-item review.

Your "bifurcation" argument is unconvincing, and your formulation of it incorrect and slanted. While GW and CC are closely connected (one directly or indirectly drives the other), they are not so "intertwined" that (for instance) it is necessary to explain how warming comes about every time a consequence of that warming is described. Conversely, merging all of the GW and CC content into a single article dilutes both, "forcing" the readers to wade through more material than is of direct interest. The whole point of organizing content in distinctly focused units is so readers can efficiently navigate to what they want.

For sure we can have a vote on any or all of this, but it won't constitute consensus for what to do. The essence of WP:Consensus is to address all editors legitmate concerns, to take into account all of the proper concerns raised. In that regard we have an impasse here.

As a possible compromise I propose this article be forked, replicating the current content of this article under "climate change". I would undertake to trim "global warming" to remove all of CC content it has accrued over the years, and you all could edit "climate change" however you wish, including retention of as much GW content as you think is necessary. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There is one point I agree with JJ that we haven't addressed at all. JJ states that the destabilisation of climate patterns isn't evident until 1970 and later, whereas temperature rise would be visible before. To translate this into sciency terms: you could possibly say that the time of emergence[15] for changes in variables like precipitation (whether it's stabilizing change or not) that are not surface temperature. While I haven't found a study investigating this, it is a very questionable hypothesis with respect to the water cycle. Water vapour responds to temperature within a time-scale of about three days, and it responds strongly as well. Therefore, it's difficult to defend the hypothesis that these two changes would start in different decades. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I find it an intriguing argument, but ultimately not useful. I think we also would agree that it is a quite complex question, and perhaps just as well that we don't dive into it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to Dtetta. Thanks for your insightful contribution. I have put a proposal forward to reevaluate at a later point in time as a response below. Allow to me reply to your two points in more detail below.

1. For me, that history indeed feels like long ago in a land far far away. I recognize I'm young and heard about the Bush administration only via the 'youth news' TV. After your post, I looked up the numbers, and almost 40% of the readers of the English Wikipedia are from this land far far away, which is more than I expected considering the percentage the US makes up of English speakers worldwide (~15-25%). I also recognize that with the Trump regime, these concerns about denial are echoing through again. I came across a study or analysis (can't find it back again) that showed that ironically the current use of GW was more prominent in the denier blogosphere than CC.
2. I like the study you linked a lot. One of my reasons to request a postponement is that I would like to see a similar study, hopefully with a focus on more than one country, six years on from that study. The Google Trend data is highly suggestive of a change within the general public. To me, it's sufficiently convincing, but if we have a study such as this one to further support it, more people might back a change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The greater use of "global warming" by conservative think-tanks (CTT) was mentioned by Leiserowitz et al. 2014 (the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication report Dtetta linked to), citing a study by Schuldt et al. in Public Opinion Quarterly. However, there is no irony involved. Luntz was advising the Bush administration on how to frame official government statements in order to diffuse any political reaction from the public. The greater use of GW by CTTs does not reflect any preference for that term over CC; it follows from the greater verbiage expended in denying GW, a topic distinguished from CC. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I had an email exchange with Tony Leiserowitz, the person at Yale who directed the 2014 study, asking about whether he is planning additional studies in the future, and whether he might include populations outside the US. He said they are planning additional study this year, and liked the idea of doing it more broadly. As part of his response, he also said he thinks we should keep the global warming name for now (probably no surprise given his research), and really likes the way the page introduces the two terms and makes distinctions amongst them. So kudos to whoever has provided the general structure for the article and written the introductory part!Dtetta (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Dtetta, I read your impressively well-written essay (03:55 2 Jan 2020) with great interest and empathy. I can appreciate an individual desire to evoke a certain response in readers, but under WP:NEUTRAL—one of WP's WP:Five pillars—we as encyclopedists can't use this platform as a tool for that purpose. See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and how various editors have applied WP policies and guidelines at our recent #reasoning table. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This entire debate on name and naming criteria is based on the predicate that because sometimes some people use GW and CC as synonyms there is only one topic, should be only one article, and therefore can be only one title, which should be determined on the basis of questionable Google Trends.

That an editor favors certain content doesn't amount to advocacy (certainly no more than disfavoring such content), nor does that show that the content is non-neutral. The essence of WP:NPOV is to not take sides, and I find it odd that having a standalone "Global warming" article is considered taking a side, but suppressing such an article is not considered taking a side. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

¶1: That the "entire debate" is based on (x...) "which should be determined on the basis of questionable Google Trends" is another strawman argument, which I will not spend more hours contradicting.

¶2: I neither stated nor implied that a "GW" article is/isn't "considered taking a side" (another implied strawman). The explicit advocacy is reflected in Dtetta's statement, "I favor a term that is more likely to get the public to see the gravity of the situation"; hence my pillar/policy/guideline note to Dtetta. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're calling all this argumentation about Google Trends a "strawman argument"? That's your argument, that Google Trends data should be the basis for determining the title here. It is the basis of your initial statement (above) for switching to CC, and also of the chart you just added. What exactly do think is the straw man argument here?

Dtetta's comment that he favors a term is hardly advocacy for the term. By such a standard your previous statements "I favor "GW & CC"" (23:38, 4 Nov, [16]) and "I favor "GW & CC" so readers immediately confront the two terms" (21:36, 3 Dec, [17]) are equally advocacy, so you are being hypocritical in accusing him of doing the very thing you have done.

Your criticism (of D's favoring retention of a GW article), with your explicit reference to WP:NEUTRAL (a.k.a. WP:NPOV), certainly implies you think that a standalone GW article is taking a side. On that basis it is quite reasonable to wonder why your expressed opposition to having a standalone GW article is not also taking a side. If that is not the case, then by all means please clarify. That is what discussion is for.

It seems to me that less focus on trying to contradict me would be good. More thoughtful discussion would also be good. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

First, I was saying that your words of 00:29, 7 Jan—the entire debate...should be determined on the basis of questionable Google Trends "—was the strawman argument. I did not state or imply that "all this argumentation about Google Trends" is a strawman argument as you now claim at 22:34, 9 Jan; you're now piling a strawman argument atop a strawman argument.

Second, that Dtetta uses the word "favors" (your focus) is 100% irrelevant, and not my focus; what counts here is underlying reasoning, which in Dtetta's case is explicit wp:neutrality-violating advocacy ("get the public to see the gravity of the situation") rather than referencing, for example, WP:CRITERIA. Again, you wrongly infer that what I said "certainly implies" I think that "a standalone GW article" is "taking a side"; in fact I was opposing use of a WP article as a tool to "take a side" on an issue outside outside WP (convincing readers "to see the gravity of the situation"). Your incorrect 22:34, 9 Jan inference that "my criticism ... certainly implies..." constitutes yet another strawman argument.

Third, your quotes of what I "favor" aim to objectively and neutrally clarify definitions ("GW" vs "CC")—not on make readers "see the gravity" of them outside WP. The "hypocrisy" you lecture about, like the insinuation that my discussion should be "more thoughtful", is neither civil nor factually supported.

I'm not "trying" to contradict you; I dearly wish I could spend less time contradicting your misrepresentations of what I write, but that's in your hands. —07:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Come to think: my 3-line long note to a new WP editor of 01:37, 6 Jan—which concisely differentiated wp:neutrality-violating advocacy of a cause outside WP from WP:NAMINGCRITERIA inside WP—inspired you to cause a full desktop-screenful of words and seems to make you the one who is "trying to contradict me". —RCraig09 (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your quotation misconstrues what I said. I did NOT say that this debate should be determined on any particular basis, nor have I said that you have argued that. What I have said is that this debate is based ("predicated") on an implied but unstated premise there is, in fact, and should be, only one topic, and by inference, only one article. That is not a refutation of anything, it is identification of an unstated premise. If that is not your premise, then by all means say so.

By "underlying reasoning" it appears you really mean motive, which is a state of mind. I am not aware we have policies or guidelines about motives, but please enlighten me if we do.

Your opposition to "use of a WP article as a tool to "take a side" does not explain how that would be done, nor which side it is taking (that GW is happening?), nor have you shown that your opposition is anything short of the mere existence of such an article. Which all does support the implication that you oppose the existence of such an article. And gets right back to the question I raise of why suppressing such an article is not also taking a side. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The "unstated premise" on which you said^{(00:29, 7 Jan)} "this entire debate on name and naming criteria is based", is a grossly simplistic mischaracterization of an opposing argument—in other words, your mischaracterization is a quintessential strawman argument. The "unstated premise" is definitely not my premise, nor (as far as I remember) the actual premise of anyone else here. . . . By "reasoning" I meant "reasoning", your presumptive changing to mere "state of mind" is a mischaracterization that's the seed of another strawman argument. . . . . Again, the "side" I said should not be taken, relates to advocating that WP readers should or should not "see the gravity of the situation",^{(Dtetta's words; and not permissible in an encyclopedia)} not a "side" of this WP naming discussion. At this point, we're arguing about arguments, and I see little value in continuing. — 06:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC) —RCraig09 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a more limited notion of "argument" than I, but I would say that is how we resolve differences and build consensus. And as I find much of your argumentation quite inadequate, yes, we are arguing about arguments, and (hopefully) drilling down into why they should be considered persuasive. Which is not helped by your "grossly simplistic mischaracterization of an opposing argument" language, especially as I was not characterizing an argument, I was identifying an apparent premise to your argument. Unlike your quote, where your omission of key words misrepresents what I said.

As to this apparent premise, that using GW and CC synonymously implies there is only one topic, therefore there can be only one article: if you reject that premise, fine, and thank you for the clarification. Now please explain why you are so adamant against having a standalone GW article.

Your comments on Dtetta's alleged advocacy are ridiculous. It is quite a stretch to claim that it is "not permissible" for editors to express preferences on the Talk pages on account of WP:NEUTRAL (WP:NPOV). (It is also, again, hypocritical, in that you previously stated [at 21:36, 3 Dec] a preference for "a much-needed education for deniers".) Dtetta was not advocating, nor proposing any advocacy; that is entirely in your own head.

Your accusation of mischaracterization almost rises to ludicrous. Please explain what is being mischaracterized, and how, or retract your accusation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

One more time: your characterization that "this entire debate on name and naming criteria is based" on the predicate/premise expressed in the first paragraph of your 6/7 Jan post grossly mischaracterizes opposing arguments; your simplistic characterization is the glaring strawman argument. One more time: since late October I have explained ad nauseum why I oppose a continued "GW" article and your standalone "GW-only" article; see the #reasoning table for pillar/policy/guideline based reasoning from me and others. One more time: what is "not permissible in an encyclopedia" is adopting (e.g., Dtetta's) wp:neutrality-violating approach making WP a tool to advocate readers to adopt his opinion or judgment (~"see the gravity of the situation") rather than applying WP pillars/policies/guidelines (Dtetta's essay mentions zero of them). Example: WP:CONCISE may be an acceptable argument for "GW", but "making-readers-see-the-gravity" is not based in WP:anything and actually violates the wp:neutrality pillar and WP:NPOV policy/guideline. The issue is the reasoning, not the result. (This, you call "ridiculous".) In contrast, my own preference (re "a much-needed education for deniers") relates to the established factual observation that contradicts the non-factual "they changed the name" myth.

If you didn't understand these simple things five hours ago, you probably won't now, so there's really no reason for you to add to this wall of words. 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) supplemented with "Example:..." RCraig09 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Instead of just repeating "grossly mischaracterizes" like broken record, how about explaining (as I have requested) exactly how it is you think I have mischaracterized any argument? Don't just wave your hands around and mouth off, draw me a picture of just how I have mischaracterized any argument. I ask this on the basis of WP:CIVIL.

Just two days earlier (at 15:45, 10 Jan) you stated (re Dtetta's comment) that you were "opposing use of a WP article as a tool to "take a side" on an issue outside outside WP" (italics, underlining, and duplication all yours), and also claimed to have "concisely differentiated wp:neutrality-violating advocacy of a cause outside WP from WP:NAMINGCRITERIA inside WP." By your repeated emphasis of "outside" it seems clear that was a criterion for your objection. I say that as the "they changed the name" myth is plainly "outside" of WP, your stated preference is therefore, by your own arguments, wp:neutrality-violating.

Now you have invoked "non-factual" as justifying your advocacy. I have yet to see any showing of either non-factuality or advocacy in Dtetta's comment.

In your supplemented comment you say "[t]he issue is the reasoning", but the comment you have objected to – "I favor a term ..." – does not involve any reasoning. It is a straight-forward, simple statement of fact. There is no advocacy there, no "approach making WP a tool to advocate". And for all that you keep raving on with "wp:neutrality violating", you keep missing a key point: WP:NPOV applies to encyclopedic content. It is not violated by editors stating a preference on a talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Simply: the first paragraph of your 6/7 Jan post does not accurately describe ANY argument I've seen in these >FIFTY desktop-screenfuls of words over 2.5 months, but you claimed the "ENTIRE DEBATE" is based on it! That is a strawman. If you can point out where even ONE EDITOR actually presented that simpleton's argument—ONE PLACE—just point it out, since you claimed it out of the blue! ONE. Simply: Dtetta's essay's "advocacy" is trying use a WP article title to get readers to "see the gravity"—a reader's subjective opinion/judgment—rather than WP:NEUTRALly presenting RS content so readers can judge gravity for themselves. The issue isn't to per se illegalize Dtetta's "stating his preference on a talk page" (though his essay is superflous in this renaming discussion), or to prevent him from having that preference; the issue is that any closer should not pay any attention to a "preference" that is not grounded in a WP policy/guideline consistent with the wp:neutrality pillar. The issue is the reasoning behind' the preference ("gravity!" vs policy/guidelines), not the result/preference itself (e.g., one article title vs another). —RCraig09 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A major reason this discussion has been so lengthy is that you are not attentive to what is being said. (Perhaps because you are so certain of the rightness of your position that you see no need to be attentive?) E.g., you just challenged me to "point out where even ONE EDITOR actually presented that simpleton's argument—ONE PLACE—just point it out". You have TOTALLY MISSED (see, I can shout, too) my point, which is that no one embracing this "CC dominance" argument "actually presented" this key premise. This premise (as I further explained here) is "implied but unstated". Not "actually presented" is precisely the problem I was trying to address.

You should note that I was not characterizing (mis- or otherwise) the CC dominance argument, nor was I making any argument; I was stating what appears (strongly!) to be a key premise to that argument. Whether my statement is true or not can be argued, but there is simply no basis for characterizeing that statement as a strawman argument. All of your sound and fury about this, and mischaraterization of my statement, only lengthens this discussion.

You have spent much verbiage (how many screenfuls?) insisting that – well, apparently every statement made here – should be "grounded in a WP policy/guideline consistent with the wp:neutrality pillar." Here you have mingled two policies, WP:Consensus and WP:NPOV (a.ka. WP:NEUTRAL). Your insistence on a "policy/guideline" grounding misstates WP:Consensus. It says: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines." It does not say "everything said on a talk page must be linked to a policy/guideline" (as you imply). It says, quite plainly, consider policies and guidelines when determining consensus. Please note that it also says to "consider the quality of the arguments", and also "the objections of those who disagree". You are focused on one consideration to the exclusion of others. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My intended final word re your claim of 00:29 UST, 7 Jan:
  This entire debate on name and naming criteria is based on the predicate that
      (A) because sometimes some people use GW and CC as synonyms
      (B) there is only one topic,
      (C) should be only one article,
      (D) and therefore can be only one title,
      (E) which should be determined on the basis of questionable Google Trends. (emphasis, line breaks & letters added)
Your claim is not merely false. The chain of implications A->B->C->D->E is insultingly simplistic, filled with obviously "planted" non-sequiturs that you in effect imply underlie others editors' arguments whether or not they're swift enough to know it (but you imply you know it since now it's (supposedly) "implied but unstated"). Literally, your post implies that any argument in this "entire debate" (including, obviously, what you now call the "CC dominance argument") ultimately depends on "(E) ... questionable Google Trends"! It thus ignores (a) numerous other arguments such as those developed in the #reasoning table and (b) reliable sources reporting both the common popular&press "GW"-"CC" interchangeability and the growing use of "CC" over "GW" even by the public. Meanwhile, you apparently cite zero sources refuting this interchangeability or the "GW"/"CC"-ratio decline, and rely on topic trends which are more speculative in what they mean than the search trends that you called "questionable". Clearly, your stubborn and circuitous pursuit of "GW" or "GW-only" articles—a loud minority position—is based on a false assessment of opposing arguments. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Your jumbling together of various arguments does not amount to any kind of credible assessment, and (along with your misstatements) hinders reasoned discussion.

I don't recall that you have cited any reliable sources. On the otherhand, in refutation of "interchangeability" I have previously cited (00:26, 4 Dec) Leiserowitz et al. 2014 for: "This report provides results from three studies that collectively find that global warming and climate change are often not synonymous ...". And I can cite more:

• National Academies of Science 2005: "The phrase "climate change" is growing in preferred use to "global warming" because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures."

• Hulme 2009, p. 234: "Each of these terms conveys differences in technical understanding of what is being described, but also has different impacts on lay audiences."

• Lineman et al. 2015: "While the two causally connected terms GW and CC are used interchangeably, they describe entirely different physical phenomena".

• Schuldt, Enns & Cavaliere 2017: "Global warming is related to and is often treated as a synonym for climate change in colloquial use, but in fact carries a distinct meaning." Also: "Echoing their distinct meanings, research suggests that these labels are perceived differently by the public, ...."

So where are your WP:reliable sources showing that GW and CC are interchangeable? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Hulme, Mike (2009), Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-72732-7.

• Leiserowitz, Anthony; Feinberg, Geoff; Rosenthal, Seth; Smith, Nicholas; Anderson, A.; Roser-Renouf, Connie; Maibach, Edward (2014), What's In A Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change (PDF), Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication..

• Lineman, Maurice; Do, Yuno; Kim, Ji Yoon; Joo, Gea-Jae (September 29, 2015), "Talking about Climate Change and Global Warming", PLOS ONE, 10 (9), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138996, ISSN 1932-6203, PMC 4587979, PMID 26418127{{citation}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).

• National Academies of Science (2005), Understanding and responding to Climate Change: Highlights of National Acacdemies Reports (PDF).

• Schuldt, Jonathon P.; Enns, Peter K.; Cavaliere, Victoria (30 May 2017), "Does the label really matter? Evidence that the US public continues to doubt "global warming" more than "climate change"" (PDF), Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1993-1.

I never asserted that GW and CC, rigorously defined, were interchangeable. It is well known that much of the public (that is, most WP readers) uses the two terms interchangeably, as has long been recited in the lede of this article (now with reference: Shaftel 2016). —RCraig09 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Also, another footnote (author: Colford, Paul) refers to the Associate Press Stylebook. RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

While you are not the principal proponent of "interchangeable", and while I do credit you with stating (04:07, 1 Nov) that ""GW" and "CC" are not properly interchangeable" (your emphasis) yet you have more recently stated (05:53, 23 Dec) that '"GW" is often used ~interchangeably with "CC"', and you keep invoking "interchangeble" (here, and in your prior comment). So own up: your "rigorously defined" notwithstanding, you have asserted "interchangeable".

Your sources are unpersuasive. I can only guess – lacking a proper citation – that "Shaftel" would be the NASA/JPL newsblog (right?), which is not exactly a WP:RS, and which WP:NEWSBLOG says to use with caution. Your link to AP Stylebook (also a blog, not the Stylebook itself) is about guidance to AP staff, and we are not AP staff. And it is mainly about avoiding use of "skeptics" or "deniers". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is yet another addition to your strawman collection, when you say that I "asserted interchangeable"^{(not a sentence)}... after I have specifically written, repeatedly, the terms are not the same but are often used interchangeably by much of the public and media (requoting your own quoting of me: "GW" is often used ~interchangeably with "CC"). Re your second paragraph, the (official NASA website source) is not merely a news source "blog" (nice try), and the AP source from apstylebook.com is specific and objective proof that for AP "The terms global warming and climate change can be used interchangeably." Especially since you offer no contravening rationale, much less a single contravening reference, I genuinely cannot understand why you don't admit the obvious and factor that into your reasoning. Eagerly awaiting your next strawman argument, deflection, tangential lecture, or personal insult. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you even know what a "strawman argument" is? It appears you do not understand how your own assertion "I never asserted that GW and CC, rigorously defined, were interchangeable" is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, because no one (let alone myself) has said you said that. At least not with either qualifier of "properly" or "rigorously defined". Yet you have asserted (and keep asserting) this "interchangeable" argument, and your weasely bitching that I didn't say "used interchangeably" is quite immaterial. (By the way, there is quite a difference between «asserted "interchangeable"» and «"asserted interchangeable"», and you should not characterize other people's sentences when you can't even quote them accurately.)

As I said before (did you not HEAR?) the AP Stylebook applies to AP staff, and (hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff.

"Shaftel 2016" links to an archived version of a now withdrawn climate.nasa.gov/resources/ page. That page is still a newsblog, and WP:NEWSBLOG still applies. You seem mightly impressed that it was "official", but that doesn't mean jackshit other than it was a NASA newsblog. It has no scientific authority, nor any legal ("official") sanction of the U.S. government. But never mind all that, let's look at that source. Sure, the first sentence says CC and GW "are often used interchageably....". But you seem to have missed the rest of that sentence: "but have distinct meanings." For all that you keep arguing that these terms are used interchangeably, that is another strawman argument, as I have never denied such misuse. I do assert they are actually distinct, as your own source says.

You state that I have "offer[ed] no contravening rationale" – but to exactly what? What do you think I am trying to refute? That "GW" and "CC" can be used interchangeably? Not all. I maintain that despite such usage "they describe entirely different physical phenomena" (quoting Lineman et al. 2015), and therefore are not synonymous. For this I have provided five reliable sources (a National Academies report and four peer-reviewed journal articles; in your haste to contradict me did you perhaps miss that big, grey box just above?) whilst all you can show is the AP Stylebook and an out-of-date newsblog that (for what it is worth) supports my argument.

Why I do not concede to your view is very simple: your argument ("rationale") is not credible, and your sources not authoritative. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Global warming and climate change

Should we propose moving Global warming to Global warming and climate change?

User:Mu301

• Oppose: this is a very uncommon phrase that is not used in recent sources. It inappropriately includes ideas and concepts that should be expanded in the body of the article, not in the title. --mikeu ^talk 17:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

RCraig09

• Support: "GW & CC" is a good wp:commonname destination for Google and WP searches of both "CC" and "GW" (separately), and immediately presents users with both terms so any lead section will explain the distinction—a much-needed education for deniers who claim the perceived "name change" is a scientist's deceptive switcheroo. Femke (below) correctly points out this proposal's policy/guideline compliance issues within WP, but those rules^{(I notice "conciseness" (brevity) and "don't-use-"and"-in-a-title)} are less important to me than real-world and substantive considerations of how readers experience one of WP's most important articles, after searching with either common term "GW" and "CC". Further, "GW & CC" allows us to emphasize that GW is the cause of CC.^{(or main component of CC in CC's broader definition)} Femke is largely correct that my reasoning is ad hoc, but the current situation is highly unusual, possibly unique, because of the relation of the GW and CC concepts: remember the Fifth Pillar: WP has no firm rules. —21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Revised 00:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Revised RCraig09 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hedgehoque I like your proposed addition to the lede. On the project review page I made some suggestions to improve the readability of the second paragraph. I’d be interested in your thoughts when you have a chance. Dtetta (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Femkemilene

• Oppose At the beginning of the discussion I was in favour of this title as a compromise. I noticed that I could not defend this title in good faith given the title criteria. GW is an aspect of CC, so it is a superfluous word. Furthermore, the title, which should be considered as a whole, doesn't comply with THREE of the five title criteria (naturalness, conciseness, consistency), nor with the WP:COMMONNAME criterion. The creative interpretation of these criteria (looking at the parts separately) has been made 'ad hoc' and has no bearing on actual policy. The only thing policy has to say about this, is the need to prevent the word WP:AND in the title. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

efbrazil

• Mild Support. This is better than what's there now, but not ideal as per what Femkemilene said. I'm going with mild support because it is clearly better than just saying "Global Warming" as we do now.--Efbrazil (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson

• Oppose. These are distinct topics that should be addressed in their own articles, and this proposal does not address the several issues that have been raised. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I will look into it.Dtetta (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"GW and CC" General discussion

Yes, GW and CC are admittedly distinguishable. (They are not distinct, since "distinct" can be defined as "separate" or "dissimilar"—which wrongly contradicts definitions of "CC" that imply GW is an integral part of CC). —RCraig09 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The Deforestation and climate change and Climate change and agriculture articles offer longstanding precedent for a "GW and CC" rename (and demonstrate that Wikipedia won't explode if we have a compound title including the deprecated word "and"). Advantageously, both titles suggest the causal and other relationships that exist between distinguishable concepts. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly "CC" is more WP:CONcise than "GW and CC", and "CC" appears to have more support in this "second discussion" (started 2 Dec). However "GW and CC" is more WP:PREcise in describing the broadly inclusive substantive content that constitutes this article now. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I might not fully understand (distinguish?) the difference between distinguishable and distinct, but you might consider that distinguishably separate concepts don't always have sharply distinct boundaries. E.g., the canonical concept of "clearly different" is "day and night", yet where is the point where everyone can agree "here is the boundary"?

I agree that "GW and CC" accurately describe this article's current broad content. I see that as the result of years of editorial additions that failed to distinguish these concepts. And while I also agree that WP won't explode with one more compound article, yet I think the scope of such an encompassing topic could make the article explode. Even allowing there is some overlap, these are distinguishable topics that warrant full consideration under their own titles. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Retain “Global warming” title

User:Danopticon

• Strong support - It’s pleasantly surprising to see the phenomenon indexed under its proper descriptive name rather than under any latter-day euphemism. While people may be persuaded over time to refer to it one way or another, the term global warming concisely and accurately describes the phenomenon, while climate change does not indicate which way the temperature is heading and is also the broadly-applied term for climate scientists’ examination of weather variability over eons generally. Even if people were unfortunately persuaded over time to employ “climate change” as a term for global warming, an encyclopedia would still have no choice but to redirect searchers of “climate change” to the more accurate / concise / descriptive term — global warming — with the caveat that “climate change (the general concept)” is located elsewhere… and this, in fact, is where things now stand. Besides, if the layman were looking up the overall eon-spanning phenomenon of climate variability, wouldn’t it be strange English to search for “climate change?” The layman would more likely search for “changing climate” or “climate changes” or “weather patterns,” no? Or arrive at Wikipedia through a Google search for “that climate-science-over-time thing?” So they have some more keystrokes in store for them regardless. Which leaves climate scientists: would any I know object to being redirected to “Global warming” and then nudged to “Climate change (general concept)” for their generic atmospheric science needs? I’ll canvass them — not that they’re on Wikipedia anyway — but it’s unlikely. No, this whole debate seems like an unneeded solution in search of a problem. The current setup is the least problematic. -Danopticon (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:RCraig09

"GW" fraction of "CC" usage in Google searches since 2004 (worldwide).

• Strong oppose: Popular and WP:RS usage of "GW" relative to "CC" has been waning, as demonstrated by research presented on this talk page, Google search-term trends, and numerous RS observations. "GW" is merely narrower than "CC": Depending on one's definition of CC, GW is either the cause of CC, or is CC's dominant characteristic; in either event, under WP:PRECISE the article's substantive content—containing sections about Effects; Responses; Society and culture; etc.—has long covered much more than the warming phenomenon (GW) alone. See #reasoning table and Google trends graph. 17:11, 14 Dec 2019 (UTC), updated RCraig09 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

RCraig09's revison (at 22:09) of "usage of "GW" is waning" to usage of "GW" relative to "CC" has been waning" is seen in this diff. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) RC: You should acknowledge when you alter someone else's comment. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Mu301

• Oppose: Fifteen years ago I probably would have supported this. Reviewing the recent literature I see that there has been a strong shift away from this toward climate change as the canonical term used by scientific societies and the media that report on the research. --mikeu ^talk 20:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

efbrazil

• Oppose: The key point is that the usage of that term has been superseded by "climate change" in popular culture. It's also not precise, since in academic literature it's a narrow term for average surface temperature that leaves out precipitation changes and sea level change and ocean acidification and so forth.--Efbrazil (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson

• Strong support, per Danopticon. Additionally: much of the current "substantive content" that goes beyond "warming" has been moved in the past year from the article previously titled "Climate change" by those who now want rename this article to .. "Climate change". Content that exceeded the scope of the title should not have been added in the first place, for which the proper remedy is not to change the title, but to remove the foreign content. To stuff this article with CC material, then complain that the title no longer matches the content, is not in good-faith. I also find some of this "research" underwhelming, and rather selectively interpreted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you, yeah: glancing through some Google searches is not research, other than in the broadest colloquial sense. (I wrote something of a manifesto to that effect, below under “General discussion.”) Yeah, I was thinking a good way to disambiguate would be to move info not directly pertaining to anthropogenic global warming from this article over to climate change — I didn’t realize it had been imported here from there in the first place.

Also, climatology as an article is about ten words long: wouldn’t someone searching for eon-spanning weather patterns most likely be searching for the scientific field itself as well as the epochal trends? Wouldn’t climate change general topic better exist, with general topic removed or even renamed climate patterns, as a major section of the climatology article, instead of as a stand-alone article, further avoiding confusion?

Finally: how about having both climate change and global warming redirect to anthropogenic global warming? Above someone argues that’s a mouthful, but that’s the point of redirects: someone knowing the term global warming or the euphemism climate change would learn the term of art, the same way someone searching gamekeeper’s thumb is redirected to ulnar collateral ligament injury of the thumb.

This is quite the berenjenal as one might say in Spanish — the sticky wicket — that someone’s spun up here. I’m sorry not to have been more present lately.

-Danopticon (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I am okay with "global warming" redirecting to "anthropogenic global warming", provided that is a stand-alone article. But I think "climate change" is such a huge topic area, and more about the effects and impacts than causes, that it should not be a redirect to GW/AGW. However, that is the result of the previous move. (See #Preliminary discussion concerning possible Requested Move of "Global warming" (above), and Talk:Climate change (general concept)#Requested move 18 October 2019.) I am not familiar with sticky wickets, but it seems we have gotten rather boxed in here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Retain GW title" General discussion

This statement that "Popular and WP:RS usage of "GW" is waning ...." is incorrect. By whatever trend one wishes to embrace, use of GW "waned" from a peak in early 2007 to about 2012, and since then has held in a range of approximately 15 to 20% of peak use (largely comparable with CC use) up to the present. (E.g., see #Gtrends_chart_01.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

For future readers: these diffs point out the fallacy of using Google topic trends. Instead compare: search term trends, and more broadly, see File:Timeseries use climate change versus global warming.svg. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

By whatever trend one wishes to embrace the usage of "global warming" has held steady for the last dozen years; it has not "waned". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The relevant analysis is usage of "GW" relative to usage of "CC". That is the context in which we have been speaking, which I have now made explicit in my entry above. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your original comment was is waning (present tense), without qualification (see diff). Your assertion that usage of "GW" should be relative to CC usage is not well founded, and the diffs you pointed to ("these diffs") are about using search 'terms' vs. 'topics', with nothing about which term (or topic) should be the basis for comparison. As a point of fact: in nearly all of the Google Trends we have been throwing about the numbers for CC usage (as terms and topics) are relative to peak GW use.

Bottom line: regardless of any kind of comparisons you want to make, the trend of GW usage (since 2010 2013) has not "waned". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have slightly revised the year, as a closer examination shows the waning tail of the 2007 waning extended into 2011 and 2012. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

??? OK, I've read your two paragraphs five times, literally. To be more explicit: usage of "GW" relative to usage of "CC" means the fraction "GW"/"CC" of search term usage has been waning, for example: File:Google-trend-data-global-warming-vs-climate-change.png (fraction of red graph to blue graph is growing smaller, present tense). Yes, the diffs correctly discount your reliance on Google topic trends. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read with more care, as it appears you have five times (at least) missed my by whatever trend. Which is to say: my comment is not "reliant on Google topic trends." If you will examine the following graph you might notice that, first, there is a LOT of variation but very little waning, and, second, the trend for use of GW as a search term (the red diamonds) is even tighter than for the topics trend (yellow inverted triangles).

I am not aware we have any policy or practice that the suitability of a title for a given article (the question on this thread) should be rated relative to the popularity of a different article. On such a basis I have not doubt that relative to, say, Greta Thunberg, both GW and CC – and even Greta Garbo – have recently waned. But so what? Such comparisons are entirely irrelevant. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

[Anchor: GW_variation_chart]

In this "Second discussion on titles ..." section—which was initiated on 2 Dec after a clear consensus in the "Preliminary discussion..." for either "CC" or "GW and CC" over "GW"—the pertinent usage analysis is "GW" in relation to "CC", ("GW"/"CC" fraction), not the isolated "GW" usage in your graph immediately preceding. As far as I can see from this wall of words, the only pertinent evidence of the endurance of "GW" relative to "CC" that you offer is your earlier Google topic graph (above, 24 Dec), which Femke's analysis perceptively discounts. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue in this thread has nothing to do with "popularity" of another article as you imply; it has to do with usage of search terms since search terms are the mechanism by which readers arrive at WP articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Google search data assembled in support for a title change being referred to as “research”

I’d be leery of calling glancing through Google searches “research,” other than in the colloquial sense of “I looked around” — calling anecdotal data compiled in rhetorical support of one’s position research might mislead people into thinking such casting around amounted to an actual formal study. I want to be clear I’m not disparaging the effort, and people’s curiosity is admirable. I’m sure whoever put together the argument is passionate about their goal, and passion is great. But let’s not be sloppy about distinguishing between research in the colloquial sense, “I researched prices by calling three stores,” and research in the strict sense of a methodologically sound study.

If one were conducting an actual methodological behavior study, glancing at the people searching Google amounts to glancing at a narrow self-selected demographic — people who search Google regarding global warming — without asking “What would everyone NOT searching for global warming on Google say?” (In phone polls, researchers have to account for what respondents who hung up right away might’ve said, what people without phones might’ve said, etc., in order to be complete. In fact, there’s an actual fella named Zogby behind the Zogby polling firm, who fell into disrepute among other opinion researchers for cutting exactly that corner: failing to account for what study non-respondents might say. He had quick turnarounds, though, no one denies him that!)

When conducting studies of this sort, there are ways around the shortfall of incompleteness/non-respondents: you divide your respondents into demographics, compare those to the demographics of the overall group under analysis, and give greater weight to your outlying respondents while pruning your overrepresented ones; you compare your respondent set to respondent sets of broader and dissimilar studies to find demographics missing from your study altogether and account for their behaviors; you use cluster analysis in SPSS or a similar tool to find where in similar studies your missing demographic provided data analogous to what you’re examining, and you fill in the blanks by extrapolation; if your respondent set is especially small and somehow unique, you commit to performing a longitudinal study, and you revisit your narrow respondent set over the years, sometimes decades or more, to forecast broader opinion changes from their shifting attitudes; and more, so much more. Some combination of the above just scratches the surface of the multiple methods researchers use to try and correctly gauge what people are thinking and doing, and to not fall into the various traps and echo-chambers of examining a subset of data imagining it’s the data’s sum total.

The Google search results being put forward in rhetorical support for a title change were certainly compiled with effort, and there’s admirable passion behind the effort, but that doesn’t mean it passes muster as research. Aside from being just a cursory glance at a narrow subset of searches performed by a minor subset of users in a brief slice of time, we don’t even know exactly how Google’s algorithms work or how the company reports search results. (A particularly glaring omission from the presentation is how the presenter chose to label Google a superior source to “less reliable sources,” especially if those other sources dispute the presenter’s argument.) So not only is the presentation not a glance at how people overall behave, it’s a glance at how a narrow subset of people engaging in a minor subset of actions within a brief slice of time, as Google chose to report it, behaved.

As a basis for a title change there are greater reasons to entirely disregard that presentation, but just for starters I wanted to clear up that we shouldn’t mislabel it research — other than in the broadest “I researched veterinarians, I interviewed the two in town who treat hedgehogs!” colloquial sense. It’s a passionate project for sure, but what it points to is how strongly the presenter wants a title change, and nothing more. The effort is admirable, but that doesn’t make the product sound.

-Danopticon (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The fraction of the term "climate change" versus "global warming" in different types of documents as and a search term

Hello! I won't reply to your worry about the word research, as I believe it doesn't really matter what word we use. When I made the distinction between reliable sources (scientific papers, books) and unreliable sources (general public searches), both supported my argument, so I'm sorry to have caused confusion by that...

You worry that the Search data from the search engines (A) doesn't provide enough info about time (B) that the population might be unrepresentive. The first problem is easily addressed with some extra work, put into the above graph. I've produced time series for all possible categories. I double-checked Google Scholar's result with Web of Science, which typically has more reliable numbers. Point (B) is more difficult to address. I think we want to aim towards people that actually read the article. Of that group, which I have little reason to assume deviates much from those searching Google, in what percentage uses climate change vs global warming. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Femke: You are great at digging up numbers, but I have seen very little digging into how they are used, and what they actually mean. E.g., even though you have allowed a distinction between GW and CC (though we differ on whether that is slight, or significant), you have yet to acknowledge my point that, given a difference in meaning, usage likely does not reflect a preference for the terms, but a preference for the topics which are denoted by these terms. Another confounding effect that needs to be controlled is where articles that might be solely about GW are "hits" for CC simply because they reference a report from the IPCC. I can't have confidence in these numbers without knowing that these (and other) confounding effects have been accounted for. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Bare skepticism is much less valuable than "digging up" other numbers that might support the opposite conclusion. Importantly, the conclusion isn't just based on Google Trends; numerous articles I've encountered have remarked how "CC" is progressively dominating "GW". In hundreds of hours of reading, I've yet to encounter a single reference, or research (in RSs or on these various Talk Pages), that even suggests otherwise. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately, more data can actually resolve yet another one of the worries. You worry that citations to IPCC conflate the numbers. To control for that, I've added a line in the graph that only looks at the title of the scientific articles. None of the ~50 titles I sampled had IPCC written out in full in their title. I'm still thinking about what data is best to show your other worry (shifting research focus, which if true I deem to be an argument in favour of making our top level article more well-rounded). Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The "domination" of one term over another in regard of Google hits says nothing about the suitability of either term for the distinct topics they refer to. We might as well produce Google Trend charts of "apples" over "bananas" – so what?

If every topic of research (as well as every topic of popular inquiry) related to "climate change" is incorporated into a single "top" article, that article won't be "well-rounded". It will be morbidly obese. Covering a subject of great breadth involves a trade-off with in-depth coverage, which is why subsidiary topics get their own articles. So why is there such objection to a GW article? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding whether fads in nomenclature bear on an encyclopedia’s science article titles

Is it often that science articles get renamed faddishly as particular groups (not determinably humanity’s whole, let alone humanity’s most knowledgeable) are influenced to search Google one way or another? If global warming as the shorthand term for anthropogenic global warming has been used for nearly half a century, but in the last few years some people seem to use climate change interchangeably, shouldn’t an encyclopedia stay the course? To offer some examples:

Most people in referring to Earth’s rotation talk about the Sun rising, or the Sun falling, or the Sun traveling across the sky: “We ride at sunup,” “Meet me outside the corral when the Sun hangs high,” “The sheriff dies at sundown!” yet the article on Earth’s rotation retains its title unchanged, not replaced with Sun’s sky path or some other euphemism.

People volunteering their sexual identity almost always use straight or gay or more recently queer as self-descriptive terms. People referring to others’ stated identity likewise will say “My ex-wife’s fit poolboy Raulito turns out to be bi, isn’t that a hoot?” While separate articles exist for some slang terms, the heterosexuality and homosexuality and bisexuality articles are not renamed gayness or straightness or bi-ness. Someone could create a chart for how many Google searches “Is [celebrity x] gay/straight?” generated vs. “Is [celebrity x] homosexual/heterosexual?” but we wouldn’t then rename any articles.

The article titled Caucasian race in an early paragraph acknowledges that “In the United States, the root term Caucasian is often used, both colloquially and by the US Census Bureau, as a synonym for white.” It then notes experts consider this usage incorrect; it does not instead adopt said usage for its title. (I rather dread even looking at that article’s talk section.)

Lockjaw, by far the most popular term for the condition known as TMJ, directs to a disambiguation page pointing to another page titled trismus, the other pathological condition popularly known as lockjaw. Typing in TMJ disorder results in a redirect to temporomandibular joint dysfunction, TMJ’s correct name, but not its most popular. Tongue-tied, a condition affecting many and known by that name, redirects to ankyloglossia. Gamekeeper’s thumb redirects to ulnar collateral ligament injury of the thumb. No one has walked around wearing a cast telling everyone “Yeah, I’ve got ulnar collateral ligament injury of the thumb!”

Arguing a reference source should enact a wholesale drastic title change to a top-importance FA-class science article based on unproven perceptions of recent changes in naming fads seems contrary to an encyclopedia’s historic scope and mission.

-Danopticon (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You make a good point that we shouldn't run behind any fads. I would argue what we're seeing here is the general public catching up with the scientific usage though. There is an argument to be made that we should wait another year, or two years, before we decide on the title change, to see a bit more if the general public continues to move towards scientists' usage of the words. It is however not correct to say that global warming has been the most-used term over the last 50 years. In books, global warming overtook greenhouse effect as the umbrella term only in 1988, after Hansen's testimony. I definitely learned it by that term at school. Just like global warming, the greenhouse effect was used as a pars pro toto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs)

Again, usage (scientific and general) likely reflects changing interest rather than changing terminology, and I question whether climate scientists have actually changed in what they mean by "global warming". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fork the current article into 2 articles: "Global Warming" and "Climate Change"

efbrazil

• Support: The terms have both been used in the scientific community for a long time and have distinct definitions, so it could make sense to have 2 articles that honor those separate definitions. The "Global Warming" article would focus on global surface temperature and refer to "Climate Change" to discuss larger impacts. The "Climate Change" article would focus on the full range of phenomena related to GHG emissions as per the IPCC, such as sea level rise, precipitation changes, ocean acidification, and so forth. As an added bonus, links from Wikipedia and Google would actually link to the term people wanted to learn more about, not to a redirect. --Efbrazil (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RCraig09

• Oppose: The public and the popular press use the terms almost interchangeably. Some formal definitions of CC imply that GW is the major subset of CC, while other CC definitions imply that GW is a cause of CC. In either event, to bifurcate the content of this article would be a colossal editing effort that would actually make reading more difficult for lay readers by forcing them to read two hair-splitting articles rather than a single article that has the content they seek. 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Recognizing the distinction between the concepts of mean global temperature rise versus its many effects, may seem simple, but resecting an >8,000-word article, and harmonizing with a year-old version of Climate change (general concept),^{(as suggested by J. Johnson below)} is not. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mu301

• Oppose: Well stated by RCraig09. I completely agree. Trying to split a single FA into two good articles would require major editing followed by a reassesment of both. In the end it is unlikely that this would produce articles that convey the topic well to readers. --mikeu ^talk 00:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson

• Support. RCraig09 has previously argued that the current substantive content "covers much more than the warming phenomenon alone". That condition is due in part because of the colossal editing effort done this year to move CC content out of the former "Climate change" article and into this one. And easily reversed: just roll the current "Climate change (general)" article back a year, and then revert the name change.

As to forcing readers to read "two hair-splitting articles": that's bullshit. Distinguishing, on one hand, how CO2 causes warming (as evidenced by mean global temperature), and, on the other hand, the sea level rise, intensification of weather, environmental stresses and shifts, socioeconomic impacts, measures of mitigation, political inaction, popular reaction, etc., etc., that result from warming is not at all "hair-splitting". Such a claim is most charitably characterized as a bit of rhetorical excess. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

user:Danopticon

• Support with one clarification requested, plus two observations and one remark attached - The current global warming article is larded with items more rightly belonging under the current climate change (general topic) article, as nearly everyone weighing in notes. So yes to “forking,” if what’s meant is re-sorting information between two existing articles, towards the end of 1) the global warming article focusing on the effect of anthropogenic GHG emissions, and 2) the climate change (general subject) article focusing on overall climate phenomena observed in and discovered from the paleoclimate record. My first observation would be that climate change (general topic) might better exist not as a stand-alone article but as instead a lengthy section of the very brief climatology article. My second observation is that whether as a stand-alone article or as a climatology article section, climate change (general topic) could be renamed climatic change, the better to reflect overall variability across large time-scales. This seems a better solution than appending general subject parenthetically. I’d finally remark that minutiae bog any article down… which is difficult to recognize when the topic is one's wheelhouse! Rather than add ephemera to an article and demand it be renamed, it seems better to tighten an article’s focus. Otherwise one runs the risk of endless duplicated vague unreadable articles each titled “Stuff.” -Danopticon (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene

• Oppose We have an article already about how greenhouse gases lead to warming: the greenhouse effect. I'm strongly opposed to having global warming and climate change point to different articles, as these term, by the general public, are mostly used interchangeably. I'm okay with having an article called observed surface warming since the pre-industrial era or something less awkward that would be only about the rise in global mean surface temperature. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"Fork" General discussion

@Femkemilene:@RCraig09: Is there another proposal that works for you and that honors both the scientific definition and popular usage for "Global Warming"? For instance, how about if "Global Warming" was a disambiguation page pointing to either something like "observed surface warming since the pre-industrial era" (as Femkemilene suggested) or to "Climate change" (this article mostly, for those that want to learn about the full spectrum of greenhouse gas effects)? Efbrazil (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Good question and thanks for trying to get back to the atmosphere we had before. I think that that would go against WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, as global warming is almost always discussed with its consequences, so this is the right article for it. Furthermore, it would break a lot of internal links, so I'm inclined to not go for that option. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Femke's 20:45 post. Importantly, even to the extent that lay readers know "something's going on with the climate", they generally don't conceive of GW and CC as separate issues and, with the popular press, often use the two terms interchangeably. It's clumsy to force readers to choose between two disambiguated articles, and I think it's clearer and more educational to have a single article including a short paragraph that explains the causal relationship of GW and CC, and overcomes the stubborn denier perception that "those greedy deceptive scientists" are "switching names" because "global warming wasn't working for them". —RCraig09 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"[A] short paragraph" barely suffices to summarize (let alone explain)) "the causal relationship of GW and CC", not to mention the other aspects of GW, such as who is responsible for it. The GW "hiatus" alone (which is the basis for the "wasn't working" theme) warrants several paragraphs. The "switching names" allegation is refuted only by using "global warming" in a significant and substantive manner, not reducing it to "a short paragraph". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

By "short paragraph that explains the causal relationship of GW and CC" I simply meant distinguishing the two general concepts at the broadest level, to clarify terminology and educate deniers; my phrasing did not mean every detail encountered in the history of CC. FYI: Instrumental temperature record contains many details. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I would be quite okay with a short paragraph that simply distinguished the two concepts, if that was all you meant. But in the context here I believe you mean a short paragraph in lieu of a separate article on GW. No? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons in this diff, I can't see the need for a standalone GW article. No, the "short paragraph" alone wouldn't be "in lieu of" a separate GW article; rather, important GW concepts would continue to be discussed at whatever length is appropriate, within this comprehensive article, which in 2019++ is more properly named "CC". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Huh? You're saying that there would not be a short paragraph in lieu of a separate GW article, that it would be "discussed at whatever length is appropriate, within this comprehensive article", but still in lieu of a standalone GW article, without any clue of just what increment beyond "short paragraph" would be considered "appropriate".

As an illustration of possibly "appropriate" coverage of GW, and (from your comment above) "outside the scope of both Instrumental temperature record and Climate change, that would warrant a separate "GW" article", I offer the following:

• History of the term and distinction from CC,
• scientific consensus on existence and cause,
• political aspects of usage,
• definition(s) of the concept,
• earth's energy budget,
• temperature as an indicator of warming,
• history of the concept of GW,
• the carbon dioxide theory (including physics) and why it was rejected,
• warming as human-caused,
• other drivers of warming,
• countervailing effects,
• computer modeling and predictions,
• the issue of the hiatus,
• long-term effect (persistence),
• the economic and political drivers of denial,
• attribution of responsibility for current warming.

♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

— What would be "appropriate" to add to a joint article has always been and will continue to be determined by consensus.
— Looking at your list, I think that basically all topics are not outside the scope of both Instrumental temperature record and Climate change; indeed, some are already present in the existing Itr and GW articles.
A. Within the scope of Instrumental temperature record article: History of the term; consensus on existence & cause; definition of concept; temperature as indicator of warming; history of concept of GW; CO2 theory; warming as human-caused; other drivers; countervailing effects; modeling/prediction; hiatus; attribution.
B Within the scope of a comprehensive Climate change article: Distinction of term from CC; political aspects; Earth's energy budget; countervailing effects; modeling/prediction; long-term effect (persistence); economic and political drivers of denial; attribution.

I make the observations of ¶ B with the understanding that popular press and lay readers use "GW" and "CC" ~interchangeably. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

About efforts over the last year and about dispute resolution.

I want to give a bit of a clarification of what I believe I did in terms of edits over the last year (A) First I updated this article. The article already covered content of the three IPCC reports, and I only did a slight refocus towards the latter two reports (effects & mitigation). (B) The old consensus as I understood it (after reading a gazillion older discussions), was that climate change (general concept) was about just that. Climatic change in the past, present and future. I removed five categories of things from it to make it comply with what I understood to be the old consensus. 1. Errors 2. Errors that were talking points from climate skeptics 3. Excessive information about global warming, often in the category news 4. Details about methodology of paleoclimate and 5. Outdated information about everything. I added quite a bit of newer information as well. I did most of this work after working on global warming, and I didn't move a single line from that crappy article into our featured article. I'm losing my trust in you JJ. I feel constantly accused of being sloppy, biased, 'disappointing' to you, and now I feel you're even making things up about what I've done. I see no other way forward than seeking dispute resolution. I always pride myself on being able to work well with people I disagree with, but here I am meeting my limits. Would that work for you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I detect zero deceptive motives or shoddy procedure in the massive contributions of a valuable subject matter expert, who has dealt with other editors with impressive thoroughness, remarkable patience and exemplary civility. My first impression is that dispute resolution should not be necessary as its result would be obvious. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Femke: Please understand that my "disappointment" is due partly to my high expectations of you; you shouldn't consider it disparaging. If you didn't move content from the former "Climate change" to here, fine. But you have to allow that there has been trimming of the former "Climate change" to make it less "GW". (E.g., here.)

RCraig09: I have yet to say anything about motives, but perhaps it is time to address that. E.g., you just stated: "I can't see the need for a standalone GW article", referencing your prior comment asking "which aspect(s) of GW [...] warrant a separate "GW" article". Well, I have just provided a list of 16 candidate "aspects". Is that sufficient? Based on the general tenor of your comments I predict you will not find that sufficient. Note that I do not necessarily object to renaming this article to "Climate change", provided that "Global warming" is not supplanted or suppressed. Yet that seems to be your steadfast position. Why? There are lesser topics with standalone articles (peruse Category:global warming for examples), so why not "Global warming"? For all the commentary here on which term is used more, why is this an either/or issue? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, I mentioned "motives" because of your 01:50, 17 Dec comment about "bad faith" in this "CC" naming proposal.

As detailed a few paragraphs above, I think the ~16 candidate topics fit well into either Instrumental temperature record and Climate change,^{("CC" broadly conceived per popular press & lay usage)} so the GW content would not be "suppressed". What's unique about the relationship of "GW" and "CC" (compared to other Category:global warming entries) is that GW is basically the cause of CC and CC's effects: GW is an absolutely yuge part of CC, and the two terms are closely intertwined in scientific reality and in the minds of readers. I appreciate your urge (01:43, 20 Dec) to "inform our readers, not slavishly follow their confusion or carelessness", but per WP:NATURAL/WP:COMMONNAME we should respect readers' expectations to a substantial extent, and we can actually inform them more easily in a single, comprehensive article rather than make them visit two articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Scoping chart

At the crux of this discussion is whether the overlap between a potential GW and CC article is too big, or acceptably small. If I were to do this, let me state what content from the current article I'd keep and what I would add if a fork were to be done. Notice that the overlap is still very big. I agree with RCraig09 that you cannot discuss an article about climate change without giving information about all of JJ's sixteen bullet points, that are now all in our GW/CC article if I'm not mistaken. Especially curious is the suggestion that the article about climate change wouldn't talk about temperature as indicator of warming. If that's not mentioned, what would be left?

Caption

Climate Change \n (roughly what we have now)

Global warming (more restricted)

1 Observed temperature rise 1.1 Regional trends 1.2 Short-term slowdowns and surges 2 Physical drivers of recent climate change 2.1 Greenhouse gases 2.2 Land use change 2.3 Aerosols and soot 2.4 Minor forcings: the Sun and short-lived greenhouse gases 3 Climate change feedback 4 Models and projections 5 Effects 5.1 Physical environment 5.2 Biosphere 5.3 Humans 6 Responses 6.1 Mitigation 6.2 Adaptation 6.3 Climate engineering 7 Society and culture 7.1 Political response 7.2 Scientific discussion 7.3 Public opinion and disputes 8 History of the science Template:Summarize to 2/3 size? 9 Terminology

1 Observed temperature rise 1.1 Regional trends 1.2 Short-term slowdowns and surges add info about mid-century hiatus? 1.3 ocean and soil warming 2 Physical drivers of recent climate change 2.1 Greenhouse gases 2.2 Land use change 2.3 Aerosols and soot 2.4 Minor forcings: the Sun and short-lived greenhouse gases 3 Climate change feedback 4 Models and projections 5 Effects summarize to 1/2 size? 5.1 Physical environment 5.2 Biosphere 5.3 Humans 6 Responses 6.1 Mitigation 6.2 Adaptation 6.3 Climate engineering 7 Society and culture 7.1 Political response 7.2 Scientific discussion 7.3 Public opinion and disputes 8 History of the science summarize to 2/3 size? 9 Terminology

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion of Femkemilene's analysis on this issue. Along these lines, further consider the causal loop:

LOOP:         Causes --> (GW-->CC) --> effects --> (feedback) --> Causes ...

Because GW essentially causes the CC our planet is experiencing, the causes and effects of GW are the same as the the causes and effects of CC.

I think that WP readers generally come here looking for both the causes and the effects of what's-going-on-with-the-climate—regardless of article name! We should not make readers visit two articles to make them piece together this critical perspective.

My experience in laboriously reviewing over 2,800 internal WP links to Climate change at Talk:Climate change (general concept)#Tracking table shows that about 90% of internal links referred to modern-day GW/CC rather than the more abstruse theoretical concept. This strong preponderance indicates that internal WP links reflect what lay readers consider important: what's happening in their own world, rather than abstruse science. The bifurcation proposal would force readers who search "GW" to click through an overly sciency (non-personally pertinent) "GW-only" article to comprehensively understand the climate changes that affect their lives. —17:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC) +wording update RCraig09 (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"Global warming" is intrinsically "abstruse science", in part because globally averaged (sciency!) temperatures are not always the full, accurate indicator of warming, but also because science is required in order to observe and understand the underlying phenomena. As I explain in the following, I see "climate change" being more aligned with not just "what's happening in [the reader's] own world", but what is more directly experienced (i.e., personally pertinent). ["Wording update."]

Your "forcing the readers" argument is nonsense. If the readers want "GW" they can go there. If they want "CC" they can go there. The lead of each article should clearly and precisely (!) describe its scope, and if a reader really wants the other article they can go there. What you fail to acknowledge is that merging these two distinguishable topics forces the reader to READ all the content even if he or she is interested in only one topic. If anyone wants to "comprehensively understand the climate changes that affect their lives" they can read the hundred+ articles we have. But we should not force the readers to trudge through material they are not interested in. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think reasonable editors can immediately see that it is not "nonsense" for us to consider which subject matter is sought, preferably in one place, by: (a) the many of our readers who still use "GW" and "CC" ~interchangeably, and (b) by those readers who seek what concerns them personally rather than merely intellectually (namely, human causation of GW and the effects of CC), and (c) by those who are linked to a "GW" article from other WP articles specifically looking for anthropogenic GW (about ~90% if Talk:Climate change (general concept)#Tracking table is a guide). Readers seeking only one of GW or CC in a unified article can "trudge" through... that article's Table of Contents, and are not "forced to read all the content". —RCraig09 (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

While we might reasonably consider which subject is sought, it is nonsense to think we can truly know what that is, or what would best satisfy their itch of curiosity (given that readers often don't know that themselves.) You also overlook that "GW" and "CC" (however defined) are not the only possible combination of topics readers are likely to be interested in. E.g., a principal effect of GW is sea-level rise, and I am very interested in how that will affect Florida. Is it really preferable that that – and ALL compound interests – be covered "in one place"?

But the "nonsense" I referred to is forcing ALL readers to read (or pick through) the subject material of two topics when they are likely interested in only one. Even for readers that do want to read about two related topics (like causes and effects) there is no impairment doing so in separate articles. And the articles themselves will better treat their topic if their focus is guided by an unambiguous scope statement. (WP:Precision, you know.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As I recently explained (23:20, 13 Jan), I see "global warming" as covering the phenomena (and related topics) that cause the current and unprecedentedly rapid rise of global mean surface temperature, and the MANY effects thereof covered by "climate change". Of course temperature is an indicator of warming, just as it causes manifold effects. Warming exists, and that is a sufficient basis to the discuss the effects of warming, without going into minute detail about why it exists, etc.

With the understanding that (most of) the current climate change results from increased temperatures (more accurately, from having more energy in the climate system), it is not necessary to explain the myriad details of how and why global temperatures have risen and all of the complicated interactions; it is sufficient to give a very brief summary staement (per WP:SUMMARY style), with a main link to GW. Sections 1 through 4 are therefore extraneous to "climate change", and also "8 History of the science"); these go to GW. Section 7 ("Society culture") needs a more nuanced split between GW and CC, because the response, discussion, disputes, and such are specific to each topic. (I ignore "Terminology". to the extent it is about "GW vs. CC", is best summarized in the lead of each article, and if further development of that topic is desired it should have its own article.)

Of the current global warming content that leaves two full sections ("5. Effects" and "6. Responses") and a "bifurcated" version of "7. Society and Culture" under "climate change". Only the last actually overlaps both topics. Of the rest I see the current article being 5/7ths (~70%) GW and only 2/7ths (~30%) CC. (My earlier estimate of being ~50% GW looks a bit short.)

If the CC content looks rather lean: well, yeah. This article is predominately (by 70%) GW, and therefore does not at all give CC adequate coverage. To see what a full climate change topic might (and should!) cover check the work of Working Group II. Particularly examine the table of contents for AR5 WG2 ("Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability") for sub-topics. E.g.:

• observed impacts and attribution to GW.
• extreme weather.
• ecological disruptions.
• emergent risks and key vulnerabilities.
• coastal systems and low-lying areas (such as sea-level rise).
• freshwater resources.
• food security.
• human health.
• human security.
• livlihoods and poverty.
• key economic sectors.
• adaptation needs, options, and planning.
• economics of adaptation.
• political response.
• societal response.
• regional impacts.

Most (all?) of these are necessarily summaries. E.g., "reigonal impacts" would best summarize the major impacts in each region, then link to Regional effects of global warming. Is all that not enough for a rightously proper article on the many aspects of climate change that humanity is increasingly interested in? One that is not "overly sciency" with all the details of GW, but connects to personally observed phenomena? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Question to Danopticon: which aspects of GW article rightly belong in CC (GC)?

As a late response to @Danopticon: I believe you're describing the status quo and I completely agree with you that this is the way to go: one article about human-caused GW/CC, and one article about climatic changes in general, possibly merged so that it's about changes on more timescales (off-topic: my suggestion was to merge with climate variability). I believe that J. Johnson is proposing something different here though. If I understand correctly, he/she JJ now wants one article about human-caused CC and one subarticle about the human-caused temperature rise aspect of CC. You note that there are things in the current GW article not relevant to human-caused CC, but about climatic change in general. Could you specify, as I don't remember seeing any concrete examples. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Not quite. I support having a full article on "Global warming". Not just the "temperature rise aspect", but the history of the concept, the physics, the sources, etc. That would allow for more focused, and more detailed, coverage for those readers interested in the causes, and (with GW extracted from "Climate change") less extraneous content to bog down other readers more interested in the effects (consequent changes).

It seems to me you have misunderstood something here. The forking proposed here is not the status quo, and I don't think that is what Danopticon has suggested. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So your primary concern seems that the current article about human-caused warming doesn't go into enough detail about causes? We already have an article about that, namely attribution of recent climate change. Our GW article now has a rather long discussion of the history already, which would still be in place when the article is renamed CC.

I understand your desire to fork is not the status quo (reread previous post), but to me it is abundantly clear that Danopticon (talk · contribs) has a different view. I quote from their post (emphasis mine): So yes to “forking,” IF what’s meant is re-sorting information between two existing articles, 1) the global warming article focusing on the effect of anthropogenic GHG emissions, and 2) the climate change (general subject) article focusing on overall climate phenomena observed in and discovered from the paleoclimate record.: not two articles about human-caused warming with one more focussed on the causes aspect and the other one more focussed on the effects aspect. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal stated here is to fork the current article into "Global Warming"and "Climate Change" (though more correctly this would be fork the current "Global warming" article into "Climate change"). I suspect that Danopticon's caveat about "re-sorting information between two existing articles" may be a misstatement, as neither "climate change (general subject)" nor "climate change (general topic)" are currently "existing articles". It seems likely he twice referred to "Climate change" (which currently is a redirect to this article) as being the general subject/topic. (@Danopticon:: please clarify!) His observation that "climate change" could be renamed "climatic change" I take as only an observation, not a counter-proposal.

I don't know how it could be "abundantly clear" that Danoptican and I have different views, unless you were confused by my comment about "just roll the "Climate change (general)" article back a year ...." That was in response to RC's comment, not a counter-proposal to forking.

Whether the current article goes into enough detail about causes (or not) is not the point here. The point of forking is so each article (GW and CC) can be more focused within their particular scope. And especially, that each article can shed content that is not within their scope.

Danopticon's "effect of anthropogenic GHG emissions" is ambiguous. The immediate "effect of anthropogenic GHG emissions" is, of course, more GH gases in the atmosphere. A subsequent effect is the capture (or retention) of more heat energy, which effects higher temperatures, and subsequently glacial melting, sea level rise, and the flooding of Miami. At each stage of this "effects cascade" everything antecedent is a cause, and everything subsequent is an effect. I see "global warming" as covering everything up to the rise of global mean temperature (as the direct indication of warming), and "climate change" as a summary of the MANY consequent effects of GW. In that regard, nearly yes: I see one article focused on GW and the other on CC, with increased temperature being the effect of GW and the cause of CC.

As to already having an article about causes: yes, that would (or at least used to be) "Global warming". As to attribution of recent CC: that comes from GW, which comes (mainly) from GHG emissions. It is only one part of the topic of GW, and likely not a search term used to find the broader concept. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Analogy to Natural Selection driving Evolution

Moved under forking discussion by Femkemilene

@Femkemilene: I think a very useful analogy here is how Wikipedia treats Evolution and Natural Selection. The terms are separate articles on Wikipedia even though the article coverage is very similar. "Evolution" is the more popular umbrella term and is the dominant term in the public sphere and is more inclusive. "Natural Selection" is often used interchangeably (e.g. "do you believe in evolution / natural selection"), but is technically a driver of Evolution, and does not capture all the implications. In other words, Evolution = Climate Change, Natural Selection = Global Warming. Do you accept that analogy? If so, would you support deleting the article on "Evolution" and having it redirect to "Natural Selection"? That's what we're doing now with Climate Change / Global Warming. Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A perceptive analogy re (A) "NS driving E" and (B) "GW causing CC"! However, usage of the terms in proposition "A" is presumably static while usage of the terms in proposition "B" involves a changing usage favoring "CC" over "GW" (see this graph). Also, the existence of separate NS/E articles versus a unified GW+CC article, merely raises the question of which approach (separate or unified) is better, and doesn't answer which one is better. Finally, there would be the gargantuan editing task of bifurcating this 8,000-word GW current article. (Maybe Efbrazil, this discussion should be moved elsewhere, outside this "Proposal to delay a decision" section.) —RCraig09 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This "gargantuan [...] bifurcating" argument is bogus. Your wording implies that each of those ~8,000 words requires an editorial decision as to which fork it goes into, which is not the case. To alleviate your anxiety on that I propose: let's fork the current article, and I will take care of the GW side. All you have to is remove the sections from CC you feel are not within its scope. That shouldn't be too hard, and I'm sure others would help.

Your graph is misleading. First, it has already been remarked (do you have a hearing problem?), the "waning" of GW was from 2007 to 2012, at which point the hit-counts for both terms were at approximate parity. Second, the alleged "favoring" of CC over GW depends on what data set is used, and, third, the "changing usage" likely reflects a change in the topics sought, not a change in the name of a single topic. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuous decline in "GW" relative to "CC" searches, from 2007 through the present.

The graph is crystal clear, using global data and showing a continuous decline since 2007 (not just 2007-2012). It is not misleading. Your first point refers to "GW" usage in isolation, while your second point finally acknowledges the real issue—which is "CC" relative to "GW"—but you do not even suggest a reliable (non "topic"-search) dataset that supports your defense of "GW" usage as not waning; and you claim without substantiation that you somehow know which topic millions of people are searching, over years, without your even knowing how Google "topic" trends are calculated (the unsuitable nature of "topic" trends being perceptively noted by Femke in this diff. The WP:HEARing problem you mention, is not mine.—RCraig09 (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You again (surprise!) mischaracterize my position. I have not "acknowledged" your claim of "the real issue"; I expressly dispute that claim. The "real issue" is whether your original claim – that "usage of "GW" is waning" – should be assessed on the absolute usage of "GW", or usage relative to some other usage (such as "CC"). You also falsely state (and as you assert you HEAR, which implies knowing, "lie" seems applicable here, no?) that I have not suggested a "reliable" dataset. In fact I have "suggested" (actually presented) data-based charts, here and here. (The issue there is that you do not consider topic search data "reliable", which is an arguable opinion.)

Your assertion that I "claim without substantiation" that I "somehow know which topic millions of people are searching" for is blatantly FALSE, as I have no where made such a claim. (Nor do I.) What I have claimed is that neither do you (or Femke or anyone else) know what topic people are really seeking ("search" is ambiguous here) even when they search by term.

I dispute that you have any accurate assessment of what I know, or that my knowledge of Google trends is anymore incomplete than yours, but the day isn't long enough to address all of your sloppy statements. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Purely out of respect for other editors' time, I will limit my response to emphasizing that my words expressed that *I* assert the "real issue" to be "GW"/"CC" ratio trends and not the "GW" trend in isolation; that (basically per Femkimilene), search trends are more meaningful and well-defined, than (your) topic trends; and that your affirmative assertion that the changing usage "likely" reflects a change in the topics sought^{(quotes added)} is apparently without reliable support. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

On the otherhand, neither is there any "reliable support", nor any support at all that I have seen, for the counter-thesis, that changes in GW/CC usage do NOT reflect changes in the topics sought. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Femke: I see the topics as distinct, even non-overlapping. If 80% to 90% (though I would estimate only half) of the content of the current article is already within the scope of GW (as I define it), then all the more reason to retain the current title. And all the more reason for CC to have a separate article, as (even without overlap) it has a much larger scope.

Please note that under WP:OVERLAP it also says:

Merging should be avoided if:

1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short

I maintain that GW and CC (if CC is not arbitrarily defined as inclusive) are separate topics to which all three conditions are true. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: (and not @RC or JJ@ ). I think this is a very useful analogy, but I do think a better one exists here. As natural selection is the main cause/mechanism of evolution, a more apt analogy is the greenhouse effect to global warming/climate change. Global warming is an aspect of climate change that also works as in intermediate in some of the other aspects of climate change (e.g. precipitation), but is not a mechanism. The mechanisms by which global warming occurs in the greenhouse effect. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Thanks! I can see that view. I think what I was trying to get at is that all the major terms for discussing evolution have their own articles. Another example is "darwinism", which is also a separate article, although once again it could be a redirect (and is maybe closer to "global warming" in your analogy). Can you find a counter-example where two articles for major topics are merged into one like we've done for GW / CC? Efbrazil (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I love working with analogies and I do understand your position better because of it, thanks! I unfortunately am not creative enough to think of any other topic which I believe to overlap 90% (or even 75%, which is the percentage overlap I'd definitely support having one article). It's not a perfect fit, but I feel that Darwinism is to evolution what climate crisis is climate change/global warming: it focussed on the terminology, the specific lens with which evolution is seen and on the development of that piece of the theory. If we develop these articles to your desire, what percentage overlap do you feel articles with they should have? And do you have an example of a different RSs that has two separate articles under these two names with a different topic? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I see your view too, and you've done a great job at the less-than-fun task of defending the text against the forces of entropy. Doubling that task by forking the article is a totally valid concern. It would be helpful if Wikipedia had a mechanism for sharing content between articles with similar coverage. To answer the question about how much would be shared, it would of course depend on who was editing what. In my ideal scenario I'd say the coverage would be mostly the same but emphasis would be different. Global warming would focus more on temperature increase and energy balance and feedbacks, while climate change would focus more on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The only coverage difference would be about historical use of the terms and what their precise scientific definitions are.Efbrazil (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to reevaluate in one or two years

From the discussions above I think it's safe to conclude the support for either term is now roughly the same. From the previous discussion, the support for climate change is a bit bigger. Considering this, I think we should WAIT before putting it to a !vote, and re-evaluate in at least one year for three reasons.

1. We will see more (scientific) literature on the why and how of the general public nomenclature change that has happened.
2. The Trump regime might be voted out, deligitimizing climate denial again.
3. Possibly, the change within the general public will have further consolidated.

Tagging the two most vocal supporters: @Mu301 and RCraig09 Even if we now scrape by a rough consensus, I believe doing so might scar our community and a bigger consensus I feel is a matter of time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I acquiesce with a delay, mainly because searches for both "GW" and "CC" will continue to arrive at the same article: importantly, WP:PRECISE concerns matching an article's title to its substantive content, which here includes both GW and CC content. The two-month-long (!) discussions since 30 October^{(see especially, Table to help gauge consensus, above)} show a clear consensus to move away from a "GW" title, even if one editor persists in arguing to make WP (~lay) readers go to two articles to learn about concepts that so many lay readers and news media still use interchangeably. (His proposed "compromise" constitutes a vow to achieve bifurcation... in two steps!) —RCraig09 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This "mak[ing ...] readers go to two articles" argument is bogus, as I have explained before, and will still be so however long we wait.

I actually think we should have a "Climate change" titled article. My objection is to hijacking this article for that purpose, and incidentally suppressing having any article named "Global warming". Which is why I have proposed forking (replicating) this article. Without going into a detailed analysis, I believe a fork could satisfy all positions expressed here, leaving unsatisfied only the unexpressed position that there should not be GW article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe there has been no support for this proposal so far, but I'm not sure I've added my opposition already. The content you proposed should go into GW have about a 80%-90% overlap with the current article. Per WP:OVERLAP these articles shouldn't really be discussed in separate articles even if their definition is not the same. While your arguments against renaming might not be fully answered by waiting, the opposition to the renaming is diverse and some objections are possibly a matter of time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A delay sounds reasonable. I strongly supported CC based on the usage I saw in the literature, but I concede that this isn't going to get a clear wp:consensus one way or another at this time. I'm not in a hurry to revisit this, though I'd be inclined to leave the wait time undefined or use vague language like "several months." The situtation could change before a specific date that we arbitrarily pick. If we wait "two years" we'll probably be arguing about whether we urgently need to rename it Climate crisis, Climate emergency, or settle on Climate crisis emergency. :) FWIW I noticed that Britannica is still using the GW title for the same topic content. So, mayby it is wp:toosoon for a rename. I'd like to see a different format for the next round. The multithreaded discussions have become such a convoluted free-for-all that I find it difficult to even follow what is going on. I can't prove it, but my gut feeling is that this might discourage participation from interested contributors who don't want to get involved in that. I'm both suprised and dissapointed by the low turnout in these discussions. I would have expected far more given that this is a core topic. --mikeu ^talk 23:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixing Temperature Charts

Global average temperatures declined for thousands of years, until fossil fuel-based industrialization beginning roughly 200 years ago reversed the decline. Global warming has intensified in recent decades.

Scientists have investigated many possible causes of global warming, and have found that accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, especially those resulting from humans burning fossil fuels, is the predominant cause.

@RCraig09: The temperature charts shown on the right need lots of work. There's very good content in them and I see no reason to throw out the intent behind the charts, but they need to be rebuilt from the ground up to be professional quality.

The same applies to the sea / land temperature chart and the top temperature chart, both of which I worked on. They should all be standardized, professionalized, and brought into alignment.

I'm happy to make all the changes, but I figure you created the charts on the right so maybe you'd rather take a crack? It's really up to you, I'll start hacking away next week unless you'd rather do the work.

Here are some of the top line items I'd fix, although I'm sure more would occur to me as I do the work. Feel free to add to the list and critique the other temperature charts... Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

@Efbrazil: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had not consciously focused on making images exactly consistent with each other, much less consistent with other editors' existing images. You make some good points, regardless. Since you're talking about harmonizing the two images at right with two existing images, it might be best if one individual did the work. I'll take a look at my original Photoshop psd files (would you use Photoshop?) within a few days, but I'll respond to the points below, probably Saturday 8 Feb. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Efbrazil is making a good point. The fact that the images aren't of professional quality is also the reason I was against including them when that discussion was helt. I'll probably change my opinion on that if we can get them professional :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your support on this. I agree with one person doing the work. I am mostly free to do the work next week, but I have no complaint if Craig09 wants to do the work instead. It will be a lot of work to get things right. I personally just use Powerpoint for graphics. I used to work on the product team there, so I know all the ins and outs of how to get poster quality content out of it. The only downside is there's no native svg editing, so I need to directly edit the markup on svg files (the top graph is svg). Also, I tweaked my comment on fonts- that's the big kahuna in terms of work here aside from professionalism- making the thumbnails and smartphone view legible. --Efbrazil (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Real natives edit SVG directly, right? :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020

Later today, I'll add comments in the individual sub-sections below. Then, within a day or two, I plan to correct the basic problems inside each of the two images at right, and then step aside to let you (Efbrazil) harmonize all four images. Also, I can send you my PSD (Photoshop) files directly, if that would help. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: I think we need to coordinate how much I should do to the basic images before you begin harmonization. At the very least, we must all decide whether-&-which images should be combined/eliminated (discussion below, re redundancy). My PSD files are very much "layered", and it would not be easy for you to modify from a resulting PNG; I could send you the smaller elements that went into the making of my two images. After considering my comments from tonight in following sub-sections, let me know what would make your process easiest. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It's hard for me to say what would be helpful in terms of source content until I dig into the content and start rearranging things, but of course more is better (data, source images, etc). I'll add asks stuff to this thread if I get stuck. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Distorted, inconsistent font use and inconsistent font sizes

Between the charts shown here, the left hand side fonts are too small and the right hand side is distorted and mismatched, and they're inexplicably different from each other. The charts need fonts standardized across the board. Same applies to the 2 temperature charts I made.Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

The big part of this work is going to be zooming the smallest fonts, which means changing the text in several places to favor brevity. The font type and size when viewed on a smartphone should ideally match the wiki text. This issue applies to all 6 of the charts.Efbrazil (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I can appreciate the general goal of making important text readable on both big and small screens. The only exception might be to include some text purposely so tiny (such as sourcing, or confidence interval explanations, or reference indicia like "1901-2000 average") that casual users won't even notice or care about, but scrupulous researchers will want to see without clicking through to the Wikimedia page. I purposely put such tiny text inside the images themselves, to avoid cluttering the textual captions for our predominantly non-scientist readers. It's a judgment call, more formal than substantive, and not a huge issue for me. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all this. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Smartphone rendering for the images needs to be fixed

Most people use wikipedia on a smartphone and the charts should simply look good there- be full width and be legible without zooming unless it's essential (in which case landscape mode should work, like it does for your causes and effects chart).

The images on the right look like they are optimized for PC thumbnail / zoom view, but having a few crazy big fonts and some super tiny fonts is not good. It makes it so the content is both unusable on a smartphone and too unprofessional to use in a presentation. The goal should be a legible thumbnail view whenever possible.

Also, the current wiki embedding markup is resulting in the images being badly shrunken on smartphone. That issue applies to the land / sea graph as well. The wiki embed formatting needs to be fixed. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

I had no problem viewing images in the the side-by-side { { multiple image ... } } markup (iPhone7, iOS 13.3.1), though if you are having trouble viewing, then so must others. Placing them vertically would make the images spill over onto ensuing sections of the article (bad). Combining images (consolidating them, per your suggestion in an ensuing section) may be a solution; I'll continue discussion there... —RCraig09 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The temperature images are squinched sideways on chrome and in the wikipedia app on my iphone 8. Don't know why you aren't seeing the issue. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The giant arrow showing zoom is a pixelated mess

Needs to be fixed. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

9sptfAq5VYDNKYYeVbCPaLtKuc7N2B58GKo3wPG4GSMTpeqnj5QQUwsNriGb Yep. I'll clean that up, before you (Efbrazil) take over. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

800,000-, 2,000-, 139-year global average temperature

"Observed global warming" chart is almost entirely redundant with "Since 1880" chart

The two charts are essentially presenting identical data in entirely different formats. We already have too many graphs in this section, and having one of them presenting the exact same information as another one but with different labeling and fonts is not good. I think it could be best to combine the charts and turn the 2 graphics each with 2 charts into a single 3-stack chart. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

Good idea, methinks, though combining the left (temperature history) chart with the right (causation/attribution) chart definitely blends substantive concepts, which may be controversial here. I'm totally OK with it, though, especially if it solves a smartphone readability issue. If we combine those two charts into a single 3-panel image, then I think the present File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg graph could be eliminated^:'( altogether, and your proposed 3-panel image may completely replace it at the top of the article. I this case, we would have only three panels, not four, to deal with in this process. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I mention the File:800,000-, 2,000-, 139-year global average temperature.png graphs at right would provide even more time perspective, though that chart was disfavored by others on this page in October 2019. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally: I think any temperature chart should emphasize with broader lines the smoothed/moving average (as in the left chart), not the individual years' temperatures (as the dots in File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg): emphasize trend over annual variations. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I like the 3 stack chart, but it does take a lot of space for just making the point that recent warming is atypical. The trouble with SVG elimination is that it's already translated into about 20 languages and is a good "summary" graph. SVG is always better than PNG when you can pull it off, because it zooms reliably and takes up less download bandwidth. I can change the SVG as you say though- to emphasize the trend and not individual years. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I upgraded the global temperature anomaly graph to emphasize the trend line like you suggested, among other tweaks. The graph is used in a lot of places and is being responsibly edited by a lot of people so I didn't go too far with changes. Plus the only way to edit the file is to edit the xml directly. Efbrazil (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: Thanks for your time and expertise in updating this widely-used chart! I think it's a definite improvement. In the next version, maybe consider:

(1) making the spikey annual trace lighter or non-existent (see File:20191021 Temperature from 20,000 to 10,000 years ago - recovery from ice age.png as an example of separate dots) so that the smoothed trace is much more dominant than the spikey annual data,

(2) remove or make lighter, the grid of horizontal and vertical lines (lay readers don't need precise grid lines),

(3) change "Temperature vs baseline" to "Temperature change" (less technical, for lay readers), and

(4) consider eliminating the "Annual mean" and "Five year average" legends altogether as being unnecessary to those who understand smoothing, and confusing to those who don't. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with (2) and (3), and have no strong opinion on (4). I disagree in (1) that points are an improvement over a line. If something is a timeseries, line is really the scientific standard and I would feel quite uncomfortable not following that. I agree that the smooth should be dominant, but a light grey or blue line should work. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

All these changes mean tossing the work of others, and I wouldn't make any of them. I strongly disagree with 3, and dislike 1 and 2 and 4 although my disagreement isn't as strong. (1) I already faded the absolute line in response to Craig's ask, I think that's good enough, although it could be faded more. There's nothing magical about a 5 year moving average, some us 10 years. Showing the real data is important I think, so I wouldn't remove the line. (2) Is the work of others and is very helpful for seeing where temperature has precisely been year to year- this is not fuzzy modeling type data, it is real data. (3) Is really just incorrect. Measuring temperature change means measuring how much temperature changes each year. So if it goes up .1 degree one year to the next the graph should show .1 degree. Maybe "Temperature vs 1951 to 1980 Average (c)" would be better, although that goes against Craig's intent. (4) Is helpful I think and has already been localized into a couple dozen languages. In general, I think these are fixes in search of a problem that doesn't exist. Efbrazil (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: My point "(1)" meant only that the line could be lightened more or eliminated, not the actual data points (which I agree should remain!). Also, "Temp vs baseline" is one type of the non-techy word, "change". I can't comment re the history of politics at Commons, so I'll acquiesce in its present less-than-ideally-friendly-for-non-scientists state after having left my suggestions on the Commons' image page's Talk page. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

To avoid wasted effort and mid-course corrections, I want to emphasize:

• A. Our audience is predominantly non-sci/techy. This critical fact suggests any new charts embody the following:

A1. Make only the most important traces dominant: use solid lines, strong colors. (Any less important traces: partially transparent or light gray, thinner lines, etc.)

A2. Minimize dominance of grids: discerning exact numerical values isn't appropriate for expressing concepts and trends to the public (fewer grid lines,^{less 'granulatiry'} less solid, more transparent) (example)

A3. Eliminate sci/techy words (drivers, forcings, anomaly, baseline, mean) that the public won't immediately understand. Substitute accurate common terms (causes, forces, change, average).

A4. Make legends—if they're needed—friendlier (not in a separate box); instead put color-coded label next to relevant traces (example) This is akin to "show, don't tell".

Attribution / causation chart

• B. Re Attribution/Causation chart: Parallel to discussion in "Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph?" (three sections below)

B1. A first issue is whether to combine the three natural causes (forcings) in the attribution/causation chart into a single "natural causes" trace. Efbrazil was concerned that showing three specific natural causes is "cheating" while I think the (small, non-correlated) natural causes in practice cancel each other out so that showing plural natural causes is not cheating. Also, identifying separate natural causes exudes a data-driven analysis—rather than a vague conclusion re generic natural forces; it's better to show (data) rather than tell (general conclusions).

B2. Conversely, a second issue is whether to break down the "human forces" into smaller component traces (presumably greenhouse gases, deforestation, agriculture?). This could be done, but GHGs are so dominant a cause that I think it isn't worth the added complexity for minimal additional edification.

B3. Efbrazil, you were worried about "explaining" the flat portion of the "human forces" model through the ~1970s and a short valley in the early 1990s: These are present in all the charts I've seen, and WP editors don't need to (in fact, should not) "explain" reliable sources. Do you still think it's a problem?

B4. In short: I favor breaking down natural causes (since they're all comparably weak), but leaving human causes broad (because one human cause does dominate all others).

• P.S. @Femkemilene: I realize you've already commented on A1-A4, but I think your subject matter expertise would be particularly valuable re B1-B3. 21:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC) and RCraig09 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A1 Agreed- key point should be instantly clear

A2 There's two sides to this. The grids can help with reading the graphs and make it clear they are real data, not some spark line data. My general approach is to fade the lines to nearly transparent so they're there but not obtrusive. If you really hate grids I guess we can kill them- I didn't put them into the temperature graph, that was somebody else a while ago, I actually faded them a ton already.

A3 Only if it can be done using words that are scientifically correct. As mentioned above a good example of going to far is replacing "vs baseline" with "change" on the temperature graph- "change" means the rate of change on every scientific graph I've seen, so using it in place of "vs baseline" is jarring and looks wrong. For clarity, we could switch to using real world temperature instead of a baseline comparison.

A4 The key issue here is that it's terrible for localization- strings need to be easily changed and be made longer or shorter.

B1 Clarity yes, biased propaganda no- I mean, all natural causes pale in comparison to aerosols, yet we aren't breaking out aerosols from greenhouse gases.

B2 I think we can resolve this by having a vertical bar graph beneath the "human" vs "natural" causes, like this but vertical and having the y axis be degrees celcius of warming. It's on my todo list next week.

B3 Judging from this graphic, it appears that aerosols counterbalanced GGE during that time. It would be good to add that to the article at some point. Efbrazil (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A1. ✔

A2. ✔ Grids: Widely spaced, lighter gridlines are fine with me; you didn't need to delete altogether. Goal: not to distract.

A3. Wording: I can't remember ever seeing "change" meaning "rate of change". What's your experience, Femke?

A4. Legends: re localization: I'm just getting familiar with Inkscape, and don't quite see why separate labels would be less changeable, but it's not a huge issue. It's just that list-style legends demand back-and-forth eye movement, which makes non-sci/tech readers work and could make color-blind people struggle.

B1. Combining natural causes: I'm not understanding the reference to propaganda. I've now labeled my earlier conclusion paragraph "B4." (above) and hope that clarifies. Not breaking out aerosols has only to do with human causes, not to compare aerosols alone to natural causes.

B2. Bar graph: That sounds like a new topic. FYI: File:Radiative forcing 1750-2011.svg is already in the article under "Physical drivers". (I just didn't want to rely on a bar graph instead of a line graph, since that would be closer to telling than to showing.)

B3. Aerosols: I notice that File:Radiative forcing 1750-2011.svg (already in the article) portrays aerosols.

B4. (Newly labeled above.)

—RCraig09 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A1. ✔

A2. ✔ (don't delete altogether)

A3. While I don't think I've seen it used as rate of change, I think we should go for vs baseline, as a confusion rate as low as 2% in our readers would be bad.

A4. I agree that legends are better placed next to line. For translations it would be more difficult with some software (f.i. python), but that's alright I think considering gain.

B1/B3/B4. I think it's fair to break out aerosols from GHG, and break out natural causes. Aerosols are massively uncertain and our biggest obstacle therefore to predict future warming. It's only fair to put it in.

B2. Would that not be duplicative with the causes timeseries graph? I prefer keeping the graph that's in there, to reflect different ways of looking at it.

C1. I'm not sure whether the arrows are still on the table for this/other graph. Wouldn't it be better to have a gif instead? I find the arrows quite distracting even if we fix the resolution. In a gif we can have the normal graph as first frame, a red square around zoomed in area in second, and then the new graph in third? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

B1/B3/B4: It seems that Ef's new simplified causation/attribution chart is a good replacement for my "old" dual-panel causation/attribution chart, and Femke's general idea for a GIF would be a good replacement for my "old" dual time chart with big arrow. Femke, I don't quite understand the details of your GIF suggestion, but I'm sure it would work (save space, draw attention, simplify the concept of how unusual the present warming is). —RCraig09 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Gray background is unusable in slides, not consistent across graphs

I would prefer a white background on all visuals, it makes it easiest to reuse and edit the content. At the very least, the two graphs shouldn't have different gray backgrounds. Efbrazil (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020

Yes, after our cause-effect discussions in January, I appreciate uses outside Wikipedia itself (slideshows). My early perception was that our readers, being predominantly non-scientists, might find graphs like File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg dry and not eye-catching. I have learned to largely surrender colored backgrounds (first career: engineer), but I still think a light gray border helps to aesthetically "frame" the content we are trying to emphasize to public readers. I certainly won't argue, though, since this is a scientific subject in a high-visibility article. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'll try to figure out another solution to the framing issue. --Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

US units instead of international

We should either have Celsius, or both on the graph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. Sadly, the elements in the source for the right image were published in the National Climate Assessment by the U.S. Government—a notoriously Fahrenheit organization! Especially if images are combined, I favor Celsius consistency and harmonization. ☺ —RCraig09 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll standardize on Celcius. Efbrazil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Celsius certainly should be included. But because because many Americans – who are the most significant block of CC deniers – are not familiar with Celsius I think there needs to be some accommodation. Could we have the equivalent Farhenheit temperatures on the right side? Or at least perhaps a mention that 2°C = 3.6°F? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020

I agree it would be helpful, but it's not easy. I can't add Farenheight to the existing graphics without substantially cluttering things, and if I do it for one I'd want to do it for all. Is it worth the added clutter and breaking localization of the graphs? Maybe we could add links in the captions of the existing Celcius graphics to Farenheight versions of the same graphics, but that would be a significant amount of work to get going and to maintain going forward, and I'm not sure how much they'd get used since you'd have to click into them. I'll keep thinking about it. Efbrazil (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If it was easy, it would already have been done, right? :-)

Or more likely the formatting is set deeper in the process, so it has more dependencies. Still, I think there is some scope for adding Fahrenheit. E.g., in the "Observed GW" chart above, the first and third panels have some room for a scale in reduced type. (And in any event I would suggest smaller type than for the Celsius scale, as the F. scale is derived, not in the original.) If not, then there is plenty of whitespace for an explanatory "[some typical range in C] = [the equiv. F]".

As far as localization goes, perhaps en-us could call a version of a graphic with a Fahrenheit overlay. But you are right that we shouldn't have links coming from within a graphic, that would be too much to maintain. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph?

I love the idea, but I'm concerned about the reliability of this graph. It shows human-caused impacts as flat from 1930 to 1970 and in decline in the early 1990s. Is the graph saying that between 1930 and 1970 humans contributed nothing to climate change, and we momentarily cooled the planet in the early 1990s?

The 2017 article that's the basis for it is drawn from a 2013 paper that I can't get into to evaluate. It looks to me like human contributions might just be a "leftover" component in their graph, and that they were studying natural variability.

The graph just raises too many questions for me. I'd like to cut it unless someone has a better basis for defending it, like a recent source from NASA or the IPCC. --Efbrazil (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The existing 2017 attribution graph ("Forces affecting...") does suggest what you describe, but there's a danger if we as Wikipedia editors judge reliability based on our own personal perceptions. This graph's 1990s precursor, Robert Rohde's File:Climate Change Attribution.png, suggests a somewhat similar "modeled" pattern, so maybe that's what the data data+model(s) should show even if details seem counter-intuitive to us. 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC) See also this NASA "Earth Observatory" graph. —06:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) The "human causes" include the climate-chilling effect of our aerosols through the 1980s (it's not all CO2/CH4); plus, it was the attribution chart chosen by NCA4. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A PDF of the 2013 paper can be found at https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3997/2013/acp-13-3997-2013.pdf, and its title, "An empirical model of global climate–Part 1: A critical evaluation of volcanic cooling", does suggest its focus was not on differentiating human influence... but I'm not sure its focus matters as far as reliability goes. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly believe that attribution should figure prominently in this article, and that images communicate much more effectively than text, especially to our predominantly non-technical readers. I think that if there's a better attribution graph, it could be compared to the current one and a substitution made if there are solid reasons. I can only say that I searched a long time before finding NCA4's 2017 Fig. 3.3, and I still had to adapt it to cleanly compare human to natural causation in a single graph. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Another brief search this evening for *.gov attribution graphs led me to Fig. 3.1 of the the same report (!), though that Fig. 3.1 undesirably compares natural-only versus observed, not the (desirable) natural versus human. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all well said. Can you research the basis for the flatline from 1930 to 1970 and the dip in the early 90's? If we present this data, I would like to explain those anomalies. I'd actually like to position it directly under "Global Average Temperature" once the formatting is aligned. That accomplishes most of what your 2 stack chart does, while elevating visibility. Efbrazil (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll do some searching, but I'm not sure how easy it will be to extract a definitive explanation of a climate forcing model for any particular time period (other than noting, as I did above, the cooling effect of aerosols until their ban in the 1980s/1990s). In a chart, especially an intro image in a high-level article, I don't think it's necessary or even appropriate to 'explain' what one perceives as a limited-time-period anomaly, especially if (as noted above) other charts basically agree. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I was fussing with it today for quite a while, but I came back around to really not liking the chart in the first place. Why treat solar, volcanic, and "other natural" separately while leaving human factors combined? There's also the problems I raised before with the human factors data fluctuation not being explainable. Chart 3.1 from the same source is maybe better since it groups natural factors, but it still has unexplained human factors phenomena and has the problem of using multiple real world data sets for no good reason.

The key thing we are trying to get at is the factors causing climate change, not charting their influence year by year. Make sense? Given that, I'm thinking the best thing to do is to adapt chart 3.2 from the same source, which is just a bar chart attributing recent temperature change to different causes. It's a confusing mess in it's current state, but I'm going to try to rebuild it for clarity. I'll first try to square it with the chart we already have in the article, which is "Physical drivers climate change" (reads like a typo). Both of them are as clear as mud right now, but I think they could be fixed to make the point we want to make. I'll tackle all that tomorrow. Efbrazil (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

- What's good about the current chart is that it shows how the "multiple real world data sets" are all down-in-the-noise (relatively negligible) compared to the Human-caused trace. That is the "good reason" you refer to, for showing multiple non-human drivers. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

- I think the key thing is showing (NCA4 Fig. 3.3 timewise graph) versus mere telling (Fig. 3.2 bar chart). In images we're trying to show what causes GW, and the current timewise graph based on Fig. 3.3 dramatically shows correspondence of drivers to the temperature-vs-time graph directly above them—adding credibility. In contrast, a bar chart is not much better than text, and merely tells a conclusion based on changes over a single reference time period, without showing attribution is based on data and thus leaving readers to question if the conclusion is credible. Graphs communicate far more than bar charts. Also, critically, a bar chart will change as the time period changes, rendering the bar chart wrong and not merely slightly outdated. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

- Maybe there are better timewise graphs out there (I sent you (Efbrazil) a private Wiki-email... I may save you a lot of time 'fussing'!), but in any I strongly think a bar chart is a step in the wrong direction. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Craig, I understand what you mean about "show" vs "tell". The graph chart definitely has more intuitive impact than a bar chart, no argument there. That doesn't mean it doesn't have drawbacks, which is why I keep looking for a third way. I haven't found it yet though, and if I don't figure one out today I'll just be upgrading your temperature chart.

The concerns I have about natural variability being broken out while human causes are not: First, I think it comes across as a "cheat" to have natural causes broken down so they seem smaller, while human causes are aggregated. Second, it would help a lot with making the point clearly if natural were grouped, since that's the key point being made (natural vs human). Finally, if something was going to be broken out, I'd like see it be greenhouse gas emissions, since that's really the driver behind warming. Aerosols and other human impacts are more in the "noise" category and would explain the flatlines and declines in temperature over recent history. Efbrazil (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New single-panel version, uploaded 13 Feb 2020.

- I've just finished the single-panel version at right. It saves space and reduces redundancy problems, and I've applied others' comments here, re font size & background color. Details can be changed (e.g., adding Celsius, etc.). This condensed image may change our thoughts on overall arrangement of prominent images. Also, it makes any perceived anomalies (probably aerosol-related) seem less significant and less in need of ~explanation on our part.
- I empathize with the desire to have some datasets combined and others distinguished, but, hey, the NCA4 chose this Fig. 3.3 arrangement (not to forget its Fig. 3.1). I agree it's been difficult to find a single source that neatly and concisely combines the exact dataset arrangements we want so that we as WP editors don't have to violate WP:SYNTHESIS.
- Your comment re making natural causes "seem smaller" is very perceptive, but I think the traces actually show that the various natural forces are mutually random (uncorrelated) and thus tend to cancel each other out. The 13 Feb 2020 chart specifically disproves deniers' claims that solar, or volcanic, or El Nino, etc. are "causing" GW. Also, bunching natural forcing agents together makes the chart seem less data-driven, and appear less credible. Breaking out GHGs, aerosols, agriculture, deforestation, etc. would definitely be instructive, but might complicate the chart (which seems near its limit now). It seems like the cooling effect of aerosols could be appropriately mentioned in a textual caption, to avoid complicating the image itself. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

In terms of aggregation and breakouts, Scroll down to figure 2.1 here, it's interactive. It lets you aggregate or break out human / natural causes. The report is from 2018 but unfortunately the influence data seems to cut off in 2010-ish.

I like the combined chart, but it's stupid for both of us to be editing the same images at the same time. I had basically already made the image you have on the right. Can you send me the assets or let me know if you want to manage changes? Efbrazil (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Stupid is as stupid does! As it turns out, my Photoshop psd file from Oct 2019 would have been frustratingly klugey for you to work with. I'll try to break out and send more 'component' graphs by this weekend (maybe even Friday if my Valentine lets me!) I don't plan on making any more new charts without mentioning here first. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Great! I also have a very busy day tomorrow and won't be online much. I did research today rather than twiddling with images and will wait to mess with stuff until you hand it off to me so we don't duplicate effort. If you use this in interactive mode it's fun because you can choose whether to break out human or natural components, and it's already in svg format no less. It is clear that if you separate out human drivers into individual components that GGE are the overwhelming component of them, with stuff like aerosols acting as modest dampers, and natural components just noise. The view does turn into a mess of spaghetti if you choose to show everything and for some reason some of the influences model data is older, even though the report is from 2018. The solution the authors used for their static image was to render the same graph 3 different ways. For some reason the data does differ a bit from what you are showing.

It is weird that the data from that interactive differs somewhat from your data. For instance, the human influence is a very jagged line in the interactive, and in yours it is weirdly smooth. Anyhow, my current thinking is we have a stack of 2 graphs like you suggest. The top will be the last 2000 years graph showing the spike at the end. The second would be similar to what you have on the right here, since it is the only one that has recent data and is a fair compromise. I'll probably go on a detour and try to turn it into a 3 stack chart, but then just end up where you already are. I wish we could do better, but CMIP6 should be out this fall and then it's all gonna get replaced anyhow. Efbrazil (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's an excellent interactive, except for its not-so-updated data. I think its curves differ from mine (jagged versus smooth) because they may result from different climate models or even averages of models; they're not raw measurements of the same "data". I'm not sure what you mean at this point by a 3 stack chart (not sure what the third panel would be), but... stay in touch here! I'll get to work extracting parts of File:2,000- and 139-year global average temperature.png, at least, noting with sadness the bottom chart only had data through 2018. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Planned change to graph sequence (cuts, adds, rearranging)

Good news is PPT supports native saving to SVG now, so I'll look to have all text in SVG format. That also lets me make the effort to combine all temperature graphs that go from 1880 to today.

Changes I'm currently thinking of structurally, beginning at the top:

1. World map of temperature change --> Keep, but convert to SVG so text zooms correctly
2. Global average temperature --> The trick with this one is it's used all over the place, including being localized dozens of times. It's also good to have in an intro, to get the point across. I will keep it but update the graphic and include the latest data.
3. Causes and effects chart --> No changes, although it should be convert to svg as well for localization.
4. 2000 years to 140 years --> Rebuilt as per all comments above. I might look at switching the 140 year graph to include land / sea info, so we aren't being redundant with the top graph. I could also look to put in markers for the max and min temperatures over the last million years, to capture a bit of Craig's third graph showing the last 800,000 years.
5. Observed temp and forcing --> see Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph?
6. Land / sea temp --> Cut as a separate graph, maybe incorporated into 2000 years zoom view if it doesn't look too weird
7. Video of temperature changes --> Keep as is, I don't see much value in it but it's pretty to look at

Efbrazil (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

- Good general thrust to a complex problem, though I'm concerned about a few things. (#5) Per my comments in the Cut the "Forces affecting global temperature" graph section, above, I do think a graph quantifying Attribution should figure prominently, regardless. (#7) Also land/sea might be confusing and inappropriate in a highest-level position; maybe it should stay in that Regional Trends section. (#4) The 14-degree range over 800,000 years would be far beyond the ~1.5-degree range of any 2,000 year graph (if I interpret your suggestion correctly). I think your original idea of combining two 2-panel graphs into a single 3-panel graph is most likely to succeed; I appreciate that a 4-panel graph including 800,000 yrs might be too much. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

- Idea: In the Attribution graph: superimpose the red "Observed GW" temperature trace atop the blue "Human-caused" trace to emphasize the high correlation. This combination would allow one full chart to be eliminated from the mix. Aside: making the "Observed GW" trace be partially transparent would allow the models' traces to be emphasized as they should. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

- I understand wanting to show attribution early on. If we want a graph, I think the best might be a Celsius version of the top graph in this article, because it's from a US government agency and shows uncertainty well, although it's low quality and an older data set so I'm not excited about it. It could be better to show a clear diagram of how CO2 / Methane create climate change, or perhaps a graph showing atmospheric CO2 / Methane / Temperature over time. There's a lot of those out there, but imho none of them are very clear at a glance. Efbrazil (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

- The EPA graph is in some ways a good find though for a non-scientist audience, uncertainty may be confusing, which we should avoid especially in prominent introductory images in top-level articles. And I think a separate human-caused trace is substantively more demonstrative than the EPA's combined "natural and human factors" trace. The age of the EPA data is another reason to keep searching, methinks. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

- Your suggestion for a CO2+CH4-->G.W. graph is right on track, but is one step short of affirmatively asserting that it is humans who cause CO2/CH4 in the first place. Also, it omits the cooling effect of aerosols—another human influence—before the ~1990s. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

All true, I don't have a solution yet. Today I updated the first image to be SVG and include 2019 data (released on 1/15/2020) and to be super-high resolution. I checked and it looks good zoomed in or on smartphone. As an SVG the text can be selected and localized and zooms correctly. I expect programs like Google translate can also do stuff with it. Also, the save as svg function in Powerpoint works but is buggy- you need to dive into the XML after exporting and make some clean up edits, then verify everything with SVG Checker. If you export as PDF and then convert to SVG all the fonts are converted to shapes, which is no good for localization / accessibility / etc. Mostly mentioning all that in case you decide to SVG-ize the causes and effects chart. I'll tackle updating the temperature graph tomorrow, then continue working my way down.Efbrazil (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: Regrets, I never graduated to SVG (somewhat intimidating to even set up the environment), much less XML editing. (html and C++ were as far as I got!) I plan to send you (Efbrazil) the basic elements I used to generate the composite graphs we've been discussing in this section—without textual labels since (as I understand it) you must use SVG to do labels properly. Sending you the basic elements should make it easier for you to generate more usable final products. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have the following observations & suggestions, to possibly influence any graphical work you are doing:

• A. The (static) heat map (presently at top) is eye-catching, but substantively seems suited to distinguish global differences in the "Regional trends" section, and the video already does that, arguably even more effectively than a static heat map. Is eliminating the static heat map an acceptable option? Or replacing it with the video?
• B. To emphasize how recent warming is ~unprecedented in recorded history: a composite of a 2,000-year graph and your File:Global Temperature Anomaly.svg, along the lines of a cleaned-up successor to my File:2,000- and 139-year global average temperature.png. Such compositing eliminates redundancy of ~140-year graphs.
• C. To emphasize causation (attribution): use the single-panel attribution chart File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.png. It includes a ~140-year chart, but doesn't take up additional space.
• D. To emphasize wide-ranging effects: keep the File:20200118 Global warming and climate change - vertical block diagram - causes effects feedback.png block diagram we've recently labored over.

Of course, individual images can be improved, SVG-ized, etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• A. The existing graphic captures arctic heating and land heating very well and is in good shape and is being widely used on the Internets. It's more important than the graphs to visually capture planetary impact- remember "show, don't tell". The video is cute but really is overwhelming with the amount of info and doesn't zoom or render well in a range of outputs. The current graphic is current and high quality, I would definitely leave it as is, I'm disappointed you aren't a fan.
• B. Yeah, that makes sense once we have something better to replace it with that includes attribution, like you say in C.
• C. I'm reworking that chart but it's a laborious process. I agree it's a good overview chart and could replace the other chart when done to reduce redundancy and elevate causes.
• D. Yep- it stays as is. It would be nice if it was SVG and provided more clarity at a glance. --Efbrazil (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your service! I'm learning Inkscape now and can generate SVGs, so let me know if you want to coordinate changes that we agree on. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does the 2000 year graph only go up to 0.6 degrees celcius?

@Femke: It looks like the 2000 year chart you made is normalized against a baseline of 1951-1980, so the squiggle at near zero degrees is the temperature flatline from 1950 to 1980. If so, the top of the measurement line should go up to nearly 1 degree celcius, but it maxes out at 0.6 degrees celcius. Is it out of date, or am I missing something? Efbrazil (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It is half a year out of date. As the proxies for the last 2000 years are not always yearly, the original paper used a moving average. For consistency, the current period is also produced with a moving average. Don't remember exactly how long it was, probably around 30 years. So the last point on the graph corresponds to the 1990-2019 average or smth, less than 1 degree warmer. I can easily change the baseline to be a bit earlier I think.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the 30 year moving average could be collapsed to 5 years for the observational data set? It would help with clarity for a non-technical audience if the peak was near +1.0 instead of +0.6. I think a more narrow moving average is intellectually honest- the older data is less precise, newer data is more precise, so naturally the recent "measured" values would be less blurred out. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reworked second graphic, chart of temperature since 1880

Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with observed temperature from NASA[1]. Human and natural forces from the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) [2]. Base period is 1850-1900 average as per IPCC definition of pre-industrial temperature[3].

I'd like to replace the second graphic in the article with what you see on the right. Tried to incorporate feedback from above as much as I could. I even labeled the Y-Axis "change", but clarified the baseline (pre-industrial). Content adapted from the existing second graphic. Efbrazil (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

- Your new graphic definitely conserves space and is preferable (for me) over a bare-bones temperature graphic, since your new graphic places causality/attribution prominently, and a good introduction to the Effects block diagram immediately following. Breaking down causality as discussed above (natural and/or human-caused) can be done in a separate graphic and placed further down—very preferably compared to a Temperature trace as in File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.png.

- On the substantive side: I've just adjusted the Temp trace downward in the apparently-soon-to-be-superseded File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.png to match a 1901-1960 baseline in the NCA4 Fig. 3.3 source. The difference in reference periods explains why your Temp trace is "higher".

- On the presentation side: The graphic itself is layman-friendly, but the proposed caption can be simplified, for example: "Scientists have investigated many possible causes of global warming (black line), and have found that accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, especially those resulting from humans burning fossil fuels, is the predominant cause (red line) rather than natural forces (green line)." I suggest that all sourcing and technical jargon can be placed inside the footnote itself so as not to make the public's eyes glaze over as they read. (Aside: placing the sourcing & jargon in a local footnote makes it more accessible than at Wikimedia Commons—though I think you should add sourcing there, in case the image becomes unused here down the road).

- Thanks for all your work! —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Craig! The graphic is now live. Your point on the description is a good one, I mostly adopted your text. I did leave references inline though, for a couple reasons- people that doubt what is being said can get directly to the source, and it helps to lock down the content against lazy edits, since lazy people don't want to mess with references. Efbrazil (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not paying as much attention as I should with the review (and life) ongoing. A few comments about the graph and caption.

1. We're not allowed to have things like "scientists say" in prose per WP:WEASEL
2. You probably know that external links are a no-go in the body of an article, so this point is probs moot. But if you didn't know, could you conform to the standards of this article?
3. I think 'And forces' should be deleted from the title. What you're showing is the temperature, and the temperature components, both with units degrees. Forcing is something else: in climate it usually means the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere measured in W/m2.
4. The squares at the individual years for the black line are distracting. Could you delete it?
5. To me, the font seems a bit off, or just a bit too busy. Maybe the frequency of tick labels can go down? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Good feedback, will tackle all that now. Efbrazil (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(1) done (2) done (3) Forces cut from title, forces changed to "drivers" in the key. Drivers is consistent with the source material as well. (4) done (5) Fixing the font is hard. I don't want to convert the font to images like you did Temperature_reconstruction_last_two_millennia because it blocks localization. It might look better if I recalculate all the points and sizes in the image so that the native scale approximates the thumbnail, but that's a ton of work. You know of a better fix? Maybe I'll fuss with all that later. I'd rather not change tick labels because they make sense (.1 degree, once per decade), but if craig has issues I can tweak them.Efbrazil (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The image is a straightforward demonstration of a critical concept. "Change from pre-industrial era" is a brilliant solution to the simple-versus-scientifically-correct issue. No changes are "needed" though I mention the following in case others deem them worth (re)considering: • legends close to respective traces • less granularity on vertical axis • a few light horizontal grid lines would be OK as I didn't argue for their deletion • light gray "frame" to aesthetically emphasize graphical area of interest. Happily, my Chrome for Mac does not render any areas black as it (perplexingly) does enlarging some other SVGs. In short, this chart is "ready for primetime!" —RCraig09 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and much thanks for your help on this! To get a white background I just put a solid white rectangle in the background before exporting- SVG with transparency is shown on black in Windows Chrome too. The horizontal / vertical grid line issue I really don't have a preference on, so I'm just going to leave it unless someone else chimes in advocating for a grid line comeback. The legend is as good as I could make it given the shape of the graph. Efbrazil (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(A very belated response, trying to do too many things off and on wiki)

5a. So about those fonts, I'm not entirely sure what the options are. Is there only one font you can choose from if you have adjustable fonts?

5b. In terms of tick labels: I think doing one every 25 years instead of 20 would be immensely helpful. Now the distance between 1880 and 1900 is about as big as a space, which doesn't work for me. Alternatively, you can make the fonts for everything but the title a bit smaller. The temperature tick labels could be similarly spaced: 0.25, but that would require more significant digits.

6. To get rid of more distracting details, you could consider removing the upper and right spine, making all the spines (dark) gray.

7. To gauge the natural factors, a light gray line at zero temperature may be helpful.

8. The line thickness for the actual information could be a bit higher. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

5a. It's tough, wikipedia has extremely limited font support for svg files. I'm trying to follow advice from a wikipedia SVG help request I made.

5b. I shrunk the font size on the axis labels so the gaps are better and so it matches the other graphics as I've been working my way through. I think it's better now. I don't want to change scale- what's there now works with tick marks being on decades, matches the data set (which starts at 1880), and also matches up with the temperature scaling.

6. The border helps with getting your bearings since there's no grid lines anymore. Color could be tweaked to match other graphs- I need to bring them all into better alignment still. It's hard because some are things I rebuilt from the ground up while others are tweaks to existing SVG files, like this one, and they have stuff like different native sizing on the svg viewbox.

7. It's already really busy around the 0 temperature mark, hopefully the border helps with bearings?

8. I'm not sure I see this problem- the trace lines seem very visible to me and the thicknesses are comparable to what you have in your graphic on "CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years" Efbrazil (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

5/6 Okay :).

7. Not realy. The right border doesn't have ticks on it, so I don't feel it helps at all. I think it's important to know what natural drivers do in the last 20 years. Have they been positive or negative? That's difficult to see now. A small grey line in the background wouldn't make it much busier.

8. I'm not sure I've put my finger on the problem yet. If I compare this graph with the other graph about attribution, I think those lines are clearer. There are three differences: thickness (tiny bit thinner these), transparancy: they seem to have a 80% transparancy and colour: the previous graph uses less primary colours. Maybe all three need changing for a more professional vibe? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Lots of minor tweaks done to chart:

1. Added tick marks to right hand side of graph, changed line weights to match other graphs
2. Fixed a bug where the svg converter was ignoring styles on fonts, so font colors in the key now match the lines on the graph
3. Trace lines a tiny bit bolder now
4. All data ranges re-verified, found that natural influence was offset a bit high, graph range extended down to capture full natural range
5. Fixed localization of one numberEfbrazil (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the 2000 year view in the "Observed Temperature Rise" section

Global surface temperature reconstruction over the last 2 millennia using proxy data from tree rings, coral data, and ice core data shown in blue (30 year moving average). Observational data from 1880 to 2019 is shown in red (5 year moving average). Temperature shown is relative to the 1850-1900 mean used by the IPCC to define a pre-industrial baseline.

My initial attempt at higher quality for capturing the 2000 year view is on the right. It's an updated version of the 2000 year view femke came up with that features recent warming the way craig wanted. The Y axis is baselined to 1850-2000 temperature averages since that's what the IPCC uses. It includes the 5 year moving average of data from NASA for 1880 - 2019, replacing the 30 year average femke was using.

Also, the other 3 graphs in that section go away I think- the attribution graph content is now covered in the intro area and the land / sea temperature graph we can live without. I could upgrade the land / sea graph if people like the content- it does capture how land is heating much faster than the ocean, pointing to how the ocean is absorbing a lot of the increased temperature. I guess we keep the video of change. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

- For ideas re the 2000-year chart, see this recent Ed Hawkins chart (which is licensed under Creative Commons).

- In your chart, "Proxy" (jargon) can be replaced with "Indirect" to balance the "Direct measurement..." legend. The main caption can be "Global average temperature in the Common Era" since the data axis is clear. I'd leave off the "–2019" so the graph doesn't advertise it's outdated next year. I'm thinking the two Confidence legends can be made super-tiny and at the bottom of the image, so casual readers aren't distracted/confused.

- I think it's important to have two charts in the Physical drivers section: (1) one with human causes graphed with Global temp, alongside (2) another image showing natural causes graphed with Global temp. I think it's too messy to combine them into one. (The second one is like this image but without the 'Human forces' trace.)

- In Regional trends, in addition to the video, I think there is value in showing (A) land-versus-sea as in the article now, and (B) Northern versus Southern Hemispheres (data is a this file description page).

- My foray into SVGs has been frustrating (here), so I hesitate to volunteer for anything that would have result in an SVG. Text renders differently on file page, enlarging Commons file page image, in en.wp, enlarging en.wp image, etc. . . . I could shoulder the work for PNGs, no problem.

- Probably too late, but I've cleaned up the pixellated arrows in my old charts. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm really impressed by what you can do with those images! I agree with RCraig09's suggestion to further improve, except I wouldn't even put the confidence intervals in there at all per Ed Hawkins chart (and because super-small things are just not that clear in my opinion). This information can be on the Commons background page. I don't mind having the 2019 in there, as that will motivate us to update the graph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your support! Addressing Craig's list in order:

- Good find! I overlaid the femke / composite graph on top of that one and the data matches, which is nice affirmation. I think I'll stick with current data since it has smoothing and is native SVG and I don't see much value in switching. The added labels and section description just clutter things I think.

- Proxy --> Indirect done, good change! The title of the top graph is already "Global surface temperature" so I want to leave in the time frame for this graph since that's the critical feature that distinguishes this chart. I removed the "2019" like you suggest (as femke unsuggested), mostly because I don't know that it added much value other than forcing the chart out of date in a couple years. I shrunk the font on the confidence indicators, but I don't see harm in leaving them in- it's clearly a subtitle under the main text, so it can be easily ignored when not zoomed.

- Yeah, I'll tackle physical drivers soon and see what I come up with- there's room for improvement there.

- I'll look at what I can do with showing regional info outside of a map view. I think map view is maybe the most informative though- it has everything there at once.

- SVGs have a learning curve for sure. I've struggled a lot with fonts- ideally the thumbnail fonts look the same as the article fonts, and I haven't figured out how to pull that off yet.

I'll look to make these tweaks live now. Probably other changes need to wait until tomorrow. Thanks for your support! Efbrazil (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that you look at it as support and not a work assignment! :-D ☺ —RCraig09 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Switching image used in the top line graphic

Femke changed the top line graphic yesterday, I reverted it back. The inserted graphic was of low quality and not consistent with the work I've been doing to clean up the fonts and graphics throughout the article, including conversion to svg. It had inconsistent fonts, wasn't localizable, didn't zoom well. Femke- if you want to switch the graphic, please make the case here. I can incorporate the new graphic source and update the SVG if there's agreement on the switch. Efbrazil (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the bold move.

The old image suffered from a couple of defects that can probably not be remedied easily: it showed mountains and other distracting features and it was too dark. Furthermore, it contained a 5-year average over 2015-2019, giving the impression that warming is not a global phenomenon, but has quite a few areas that didn't cooled instead. The ongoing peer review also noted that ENSO might not be averaged out completely with such a short average. The website I used: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html, also allows saving the image in pdf (which should be convertible to svg?) and PostScript (no idea how that works). Would you be willing to work from that image? Or tell me more specificly what you want me to do? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Femke, reverting stuff is not something I like to do. Sure, I'll make the update, I agree the new image source is better- I was using downloads from the video image source. If you have any other graphics asks please let me know in this section. I'm going slow but my plan is to work my way through all of the images.

Regarding time period, I'd like to stay after 1950 since that's what NASA does by default and going earlier misses temperature in areas of the globe, particularly the poles. I'd also like to have a 50 year time differential since that's a crisp number. If you want a 10 year minimum, we could do 1951 to 1978 vs 2010 to 2019, meaning an average of 1964.5 to 2014.5. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Though EF's graphic has more color gradations, I agree that mountain ranges are very distracting. More importantly, I appreciate Femke's substantive comments and suggestions, and give substantial weight to her demonstrated judgment and subject matter expertise. If moving the NASA video to the lede is off the table, I suggest the compromise of the two still-picture maps along lines described above by Femke. Afterwards, it seems like adding some SVG-localizable legends to a thus-improved map would be a relatively small additional step. Sorry, I'd offer to do more of the work, but I'm still in the I-have-SVG-font-display-problems stage. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Craig / Femke, change to the lead graphic made to use the new source image. I removed the stupid "+" over the globe (who thought that was a good idea?), shortened the temperature scale to only show what is on the map, and I changed the vertical height to match the prior image scale as that's more typical. I also updated the caption with the new dates. Let me know if you want anything further done. Efbrazil (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You used the January temperatures! Furthermore, I think the units should be displayed in the standard format of °C instead of Celsius:. I'm okay with removing some of the unused colours, but would like the colour bar to be centered. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Good points, fixing up now. Efbrazil (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry for the sloppiness originally. Let me know if anything else is off. --Efbrazil (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent result from your working together! I touched up the caption to reduce distraction for the general public. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

New temperature chart

File:500,000 Years of CO2 Impact.svg

CO2 concentrations are associated with global temperature changes and sea level changes. Recent CO2 changes are beginning to be reflected in global temperatures, which then lead to sea level changes. Between glacial and interglacial periods CO2 varied by about 100ppm, global temperatures by 6 to 8˚C, and sea levels by about 90 meters (300 feet).

This chart has been floating around in various forms for a while, it does a good job of illustrating the association between CO2, temperature, and sea level. Here's an older version for instance. The changes I made were to get current data, convert to SVG, and clarify recent changes relative to pre-industrial baselines. I also changed the time scale to 500K years instead of 400K or 800K, as I think that's easiest for people to wrap their heads around. All data was rerendered from the ground up, so changes are easy for me to make.

I'm a little conflicted about the graphic, so I'd like reaction here. On the good side, it's useful for highlighting recent climate change relative to glacial time periods to highlight the potentials for the climate system. On the down side, it's arguably too long a time frame for us to be featuring in this article and it takes some explaining, which I tried to do in the description but that maybe it's more confusing than clarifying. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a well-balanced, clean, and visually attractive graph showing successive correlations: CO2-->Temp-->SLR.

a. My first thought is where to place such a graph, since the first "-->" has to do with causation/attribution and the second "-->" has to do with effects. I think it's too detailed and complex for the lede, which is well-populated with images now.

b. Considering the caption: it seems the temperature variation is actually ~15˚C, and SLR is actually ~150m — unless you mean something different for "between glacial and interglacial periods".

c. The "1870 to today" looks like an alternative title to the entire graph. To clarify things, I would combine that legend with the ""+47% ... legend, and add a little line from that combined legend to the red part of the trace, surrounding that red part of the trace with an oval as in Femke's File:Carbon Dioxide 800kyr-nl.svg. Similarly, an arrow pointing from red legends toward the changed portions of the traces would make it clearer (it took me a long time to figure out that the four red legends correspond).

d. I'm not sure how 500Kyr is easier to grasp than 800Kyr, so I'd prefer the larger number for greater impact, but it's not a big issue.

e. In the caption, I think that "are associated with" and "are beginning to be reflected" don't state the case strongly enough. I think you can be more definitive about causation.

f. Sourcing may be an issue, and you must consider WP:SYNTHESIS. Include the entirety of sourcing in footnotes, not in the caption where it would befuddle non-sci/techy readers. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

g. Some of the sourcing may be accomplished with the Wikimedia Commons file description page, but I also think that putting basic sourcing in the image itself in purposely very tiny lettering—text that casual viewers wouldn't even notice—could remove some of the burden of sourcing in the article's textual caption. Such in-image sourcing has the additional benefit of crediting the sources when others use the image both inside and outside Wikipedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good article on the association- it's not as simple as CO2 causes the temperature changes between glacial periods unfortunately. There's a correlation, but the causal link is weak. At the very least, it looks to me like it's false to say that 100 ppm of carbon ultimately will result in a 10 or 15 degrees celcius temperature change. So I think I'll let that chart die, unless you have a more clear headed idea for it than I did when I made the chart. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see the problem with publishing a chart that encourages readers to make inferences that scientists know aren't so clear cut, but at the same time a good caption can fairly explain the level of significance the correlation does have. I don't think strict or unique causality is needed for the three traces to be meaningfully juxtaposed—just careful wording in the caption for its interpretation. Aside: I hate to see hard work go to waste! —RCraig09 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Much thanks for the kind thoughts here, it was a lot of work! At least I learned something along the way. Putting aside causality, the chart does usefully highlight the range of the climate system. It's chock full of interesting data for sure! Still, if the graph was honest it would begin with sun exposure, as that seems to have been the primary driver for glacial periods, with carbon dioxide more of a feedback mechanism that followed temperature changes. So then you're looking at a 4 stack chart with CO2 third, and that has nothing to do with modern climate change. Efbrazil (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I nominated the file for deletion. If you see another way to organize it then let me know. I'll tackle the air / sea temperature chart next week. Efbrazil (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's best to start with a goal or purpose or problem in an article, and then make a graphic to fit it or solve it. If one starts with a graphic, one can have a graphic in search of an article! I'm not sure this graphic should be deleted, even if it isn't used now. (P.S. When I open this SVG file in my Inkscape, the text objects are placed differently, sometimes overlapping even though everything's alright on WP & Wikimedia... it's still a mystery to me.) —RCraig09 (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I had great goals and purpose- to show how carbon has spiked unnaturally in current times and to show how temperature and sea level have historically followed carbon concentration and to show the range of temperature and sea level in prehistorical times. All noble goals and all reflected in the data. The problem is in implying that carbon is the driver for glacial cycles- it's correlated, but that seems to be as far as I can honestly go with it. Efbrazil (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Three-latitude-band SVG chart

"20200314 Temperature changes for three latitude bands (5MA, 1880- ) GISS" — Charts illustrate decoupling recent decades' divergence of temperature change across latitude bands.

• Especially to @Efbrazil and @Femkemilene: do you see an advantage using this chart in 'Regional trends'?
• Especially to @Efbrazil: Your explanation at SVG Help is much appreciated, but involved XML editing and was a bit over my head. FYI: Version 1 had terrible text rendering in thumbnails so I converted the text to 'paths' (vectors) for Version 2, and preserved the native text objects in a hidden layer for others to localize. The addition of the path/vector layer almost quadrupled file size (57K --> 214K); however, being a bit old-fashioned I'm of the opinion that computers should work for us, and not vice-versa! Comments welcomed. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• P.S. The kinky multi-parallel-line graph traces are chosen for people who are color-blind. Microsoft Excel does not have too many options in that department. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The path solution is covered in the bug description I filed. Having hidden text I don't think helps with localization. For localization to work the svg should "automatically" localize when pumped through a translation engine, then be touched up by a human being. Svg with text is best for smartphone and localization, and bad for the desktop thumbnail view. I don't see how to improve desktop view without losing one of the other advantages. Efbrazil (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the bug report and for this explanation. It looks like any true multi-platform solution/workaround would require a bit of work for the localizer person, regardless. If the original (hidden) text objects are automatically or manually translated, the human would have to delete the old pathtext,^{(I put it in a separate layer)} duplicate the translated text, and convert the duplicated translated text objects into visible paths. It doesn't seem to be an egregious amount of work especially if there is minimal text—numerals are easy to translate ;- . —RCraig09 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the graph, and wouldn't mind if it replaced the video that is currently used. There is no place for an additional graph, and I don't think regional warming patterns are important enough for two graphs. I'd use "T" as abbreviation for tropics, to be consistent. You can cut off the graph at -0.8 degree to amplify diffferences and make the asymmetry between warming and cooling starker. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The gallery has a big disanvantage of showing loads of white space at higher resolutions. Since there is overlapping information between this graph and the video, there is little priority to put both in. I think the strong decline in aesthetics and the summary style (if that's a thing for figures) are good reasons to choose either this figure, or the video. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've eliminated the NASA video since it resembles the blue-red map at the top of the article. I've right-justified the remaining two graphs.

Especially considering this article's ~4.7 million annual views, I strongly urge that our presentation be readily understandable to "butchers, bakers, candlestick makers". Sourcing and techy details can be in footnotes or in tiny print in the images, as well as on the Wikimedia file page, for the small fraction of readers who will scour the article as if its authors were defending a dissertation. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please bring the chart more in alignment with the other charts. 1. Normalize the temperature to the 1850 to 1900 average as per what the IPCC uses. 2. Remove grid lines, add ticks to right hand axis 3. Use standard text that can be localized instead of vector text. If you want to just send me the data I can generate it all pretty easily- I've got a system now. Efbrazil (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Graphic updated, but I'd like to get the video back, so I'll look to rearrange for that. The video had no text so no localization problems, and for some people seeing the video will be more compelling than just a static graph. Having said that, I don't see the graph as being a bad thing.

Also, stacked graphics are really not a good thing- you can't follow recommended sizing based on thumbnail scaling. That means that stacked graphics will not scale correctly based on screen resolution- they're stuck as a certain pixel resolution. So next I'll unstack the graphs and get the map animation back in to a different location where there is room. Efbrazil (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks: I appreciate graphs being consistent, at least within a single article. Agree re videos in general (despite what Wikipedia leaves you, after play is complete :-\ ). P.S. I don't know what "stacked graphics" refers to. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Perspective" video: recent GW in 2000-year context

Video showing recent (1880– ) global warming in a 2000+-year perspective. (Add part of caption from Efbrazil/Femke's two millennia chart).

Video is made as a general response to User:Femkemilene's 22 Feb 2020 suggestion here.

Video includes simplification of User:Efbrazil's chart, File:Common Era Temperature.svg, which was derived from an earlier User:Femkemilene chart, File:Temperature reconstruction last two millennia.svg.

I tried to make the video thumbnail be the same as the 2000=year chart so that the video thumbnail would look ~the same in this article as the current chart, and allow much of the ~same caption to be used. I thought that putting the 2000-year chart as the first frame would accomplish this goal, but it did not—the 1880- chart shows instead! If you know how to control the thumbnail in a video, please let me know!

I set thumbnail to first frame with thumbtime=0.

My intent is to substitute this video for the present still picture after the thumbnail issue is resolved. Comments welcome. —19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC) revised with strikeout RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer the existing static picture to the video. Videos are generally less usable and visible (e.g. in Internet searches, for reuse in Websites / presentations, for localization, etc), and I also don't see this particular video as being superior to the static graphic. --Efbrazil (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's true about automatic localization, though I purposely minimized non-numeric text. I'm not sure why a video would be less usable outside WP: the Wikimedia file page has the standard "Use this file" button at the top, as well as a pic of and link to the still image. My goal was to add to the Wikipedia article(s) rather than promote a file per se.

Substantively, you may remember from early-February comments above, re how File:800,000-, 2,000-, 139-year global average temperature.png emphasized how abnormal the present GW is... eventually Femke suggested^{10:14, 22 Feb} a gif and I think this video expresses the unusual nature of current GW best—show, don't tell. Also, maybe there's a sub-article where the video would also be appropriate (Temperature record of the past 1000 years?). Maybe User:Femkemilene still has an interest in commenting? —RCraig09 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Efbrazil that I prefer the static picture to the video.

-> A video is more distracting than a static picture, with an arrow shouting press me please. When you press it, it pops up in the middle of the screen. A gif doesn't have these problems, as it automatically plays in its correct location.

-> Both a video and a gif are more distracting than something static. This means that the execution much be close to perfection. In this case, that would mean having the frame, the title completely static, while only zooming in. Now, two frames merge into each other. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I dislike Wikipedia's way of ~blanking the video window after the video completes, but I do think videos are valuable and warrant the 'distraction'. I think videos are and should be more engaging, and preferably, cool while instructive. Granted, my first video is not aesthetically perfect, though I purposely wanted the 2000-year graph to aggressively "squeeze" the 140-year graph in order to show modern GW in context and perspective. But it looks like even an aesthetically perfect video won't meet consensus here, so I doubt I'll pursue it further, at least in this venue. I appreciate different points of view, though. Thanks to both for taking the time to express your reasoning. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board! —RCraig09 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with the fonts issue in SVG files

Fonts in svg files look good on smartphones or desktops with high resolutions, but not at lower resolution. This is most obvious to me when I view svg files as thumbnails on a "normal" resolution desktop screen (e.g. 1680 width).

It is possible to work around the low resolution rendering issue by saving all svg text as vector shapes, but then we lose the advantages of text in svg files: enabling localization, file compression, search and accessibility possibilities, and making it possible to edit the text in the files natively.

Here is the svg help page discussion on the issue: Wikipedia:SVG_help#How to fix SVG font rendering bug in thumbnail view?

I have logged bug T247567 against wikimedia for the issue as there's no good workaround.

I'm mostly posting this topic as a heads up, but if anyone wants to chime in then go ahead. Maybe limit comments here as to how it relates to our article and it's graphics. The rendering issues take to the help page or the bug itself. Efbrazil (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead in tackling this problem, which I am surprised still exists after this many years. The section above, 'Three-latitude-band SVG chart' describes one work-around that avoids some of the problems at the cost of increased file size. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Blurb

For the WP:TFAR we need a blurb. I've tried to write one, which is basically a summary of the mean page. It now has 965 charachters, and should remain between 925 and 1025 characters. Any comments? Can this be placed on the main page in this form? I plan to finish and close the peer review soonish, and than the article is good to go in my opinion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Global warming is the rise in the average temperature on Earth caused mainly by humans. It’s a major aspect of climate change. While there have been prehistoric periods of global warming, observed changes since the mid-20th century have been unprecedented in rate and scale. The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel burning is the dominant source of these gases, with agriculture and deforestation also playing significant roles. The effects of global warming include rising sea levels, more frequent extreme weather and diminished crop yields. Deployment of renewable energy and reforestation can help prevent future emissions. Societies are working to adapt to current and future global warming, including improved coastline protection. In the Paris agreement nearly all countries agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required and that global warming should be limited to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F).

Suggested changes:

Global warming is the rise in the average temperature on Earth caused mainly by humans, and is . It’s a major aspect of climate change. While Though there have been prehistoric periods of global warming, observed changes observed since the mid-20th century have been unprecedented in rate and scale magnitude. The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel burning is the dominant source of these gases, with agriculture and deforestation also playing significant roles. The effects of global warming include rising sea levels, more frequent intensification of extreme weather events and diminished crop yields. Deployment Use of renewable energy and reforestation can help prevent future emissions mitigate these effects. Societies are working to adapt to current and future global warming, including improved by improving coastline protection. In the Paris agreement nearly all countries agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required and that global warming should be limited to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F).

Generally: excellent! Re my suggested changes: It's my understanding that weather events are intensified but not necessarily increased in number. Strictly speaking, reforestation won't prevent future emissions. Specific link to Sea level rise. Minor idiomatic adjustments. Thank you for applying your expertise! —RCraig09 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Afterthought: it might be more effective to write about the 1.5 °C threshold rather than the 2 °C figure. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Version after incorporating suggestions. Underlining where I deviated from suggestions:

 Global warming is the rise in the average temperature on Earth caused mainly by humans and is a major aspect of climate change. While there have been prehistoric periods of global warming,  changes observed since the mid-20th century have been unprecedented in rate and global scale. The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel burning is the dominant source of these gases, with agriculture and deforestation also playing significant roles. The effects of global warming include rising sea levels, more frequent or intense extreme weather events and diminished crop yields. Use of renewable energy and reforestation can mitigate these effects. Societies are working to adapt to global warming by improving coastline protection among other measures. In the Paris agreement nearly all countries agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required and that global warming should be limited to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F).

In terms of extreme weather, I think the lede needs a better cite. Both intensity and frequency are true, depending on the variables under consideration. The 1.5 reports (Ch3) states:

Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950.

Several regional changes in climate are assessed to occur with global warming up to 1.5°C as compared to pre-industrial levels, including warming of extreme temperatures in many regions (high confidence), increases in frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation in several regions (high confidence), and an increase in intensity or frequency of droughts in some regions (medium confidence).

Well below two degrees also includes the 1.5 degree limit, which is considered unfeasible by most scientists I know. That number has been around for longer, and I believe it's still the more relevant one. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. That's a wrap! Minor comments: I would add a comma after "human" to separate two same-importance ideas in the first sentence. FYI: "While" connotes mostly time but "Whereas" and "Though" and "Although" relate more to concepts. But I think your 14:06 version is fine. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't see your comma, but that's definitely an improvement. I think the words though and although are a bit too string and whereas doesn't fit in this context. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Update

The coordinators indicated we're not there yet. We'll have to go through FAR first. I'm going to work a bit on updating references as far as I believe it necessary, and then I'll sign us up. They indicated three things that needed improvement on first glance: layout, outdated references & links that don't work as expected anymore. More likely to come out of FAR. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Replacing "Climate change and global warming causes and effects chart"

The primary causes and the wide-ranging effects of global warming and resulting climate change. Some effects are feedback mechanisms that intensify climate change and move it toward climate tipping points.

Separating causes and effects

I spent time trying to rework the chart shown here and I'm concerned that it's biting off more than it should. There's really 2 key topics here- the causes of climate change, and the effects of climate change. I don't see a good reason to combine those 2 things in one chart, as they're really separate issues. So I'm treating them separately down below.

(a) Oy. I completely agree that "the whole system is complicated to represent visually", but thankfully, representing the system is not the diagram's purpose, and would indeed be "biting off too much". More simply, the purpose of this intro diagram is to visually portray GW's causes and effects, including feedbacks.

(b) Your "Causes..." section (below) has more detail than appropriate for an intro chart. And textual tables lack the impact of a block diagram in visually (instantly, intuitively) showing (not telling) the many pathways of wide-ranging effects—without being unmanageably complex. The diagram also visually portrays the feedback principle in a way that laymen can instantly see.

(c) Motivation for the chart was the very fact that, indeed, "nobody on the Internet has created a coherent graphic describing..." these causes and effects, including feedbacks. With valuable contributions from you and others, I think it has achieved that ambitious purpose.

(d) Diagrams embodying your ideas, being detailed and seeking "data", could find a good home in the 'Physical drivers...' or 'Effects' sections. Within the scope of the diagram's purpose, you know by now that I'm open to specific suggestions. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I go back and forth on the chart. I spent a lot of time trying to tweak it. What I came around to thinking is that, without backing data justifying what's in the chart, it will be viewed not as unbiased information, but as alarmist propaganda. I think it could be easily picked apart by someone that is skeptical about the threat of climate change in a way that the charts showing data can't be picked apart. There's individual things like how increased plant growth is a much stronger negative feedback than permafrost methane release. Then there's larger things like how impacts on the environment and humans are mostly just a lot of text- I don't know that the flow chart format helps to illustrate them. That's how I ended up thinking of a reset, but I could be persuaded to just go back to being incremental and editing the chart. I'd be interested to know what @Femkemilene: thinks. Efbrazil (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Anything can be picked apart. Granted, the block diagram is qualitative rather than quantitative, but the quantitative GST graph directly above it can also be picked apart as alarmist propaganda since it's so general (why I favored breaking out drivers). Again, within the context of causes and effects of global warming—in the title of the diagram—the details of the entire climate system are so numerous and complex that they couldn't, even shouldn't, be included. Other commenters are invited. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The difference with the GST graph is that it has sources that justify the information presented and is showing data from those sources. You raise a good point though about the GST graph over-abstracting human and natural influences though- I'll improve the source links next. The flowchart does not have backing data- what's there is strictly a qualitative editorial decision. It's true anything can be picked apart, but I think the flowchart can be justifiably picked apart. Efbrazil (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia for mass consumption, in a lede graphic, in a top-level article—one with ~4.7 million views/yr—quantitative data is not needed or, arguably, called for in the lede; note the lede text itself is devoid of numbers except for "1.5-2 °C" and 42 gigatons. Rather, directly-understandable concepts like those in the diagram's blocks are absolutely critical to our primary duty here, science communication. As an engineer I appreciate the techy/sciency/graphy impulse, but many intelligent-but-non-techy people see a line graph and their eyes glaze over, so it's best to have concepts be as immediately accessible to all, with "drilling down" being accomplished through references, article sections, and sub-articles. The four (qualitative) sources ensure the diagram's qualitative content can't be justifiably "picked apart". And the flow of the diagram—which you even call a flowchart—visually portrays causal paths even though the blocks themselves are textual: show, don't tell. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll refrain from commenting /(making up my mind) until I have a better idea of what LAYOUT issues we don't comply with. I asked whether GW could be run on the front page, and the coordinators indicated that the current article doesn't comply with the layout criteria of FA. I suspect this is because we have too many figures, but I'll have to check. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble understanding the change in opinion over the past five weeks, after an intensive two-week multi-editor collaboration. I don't perceive my arguments, above, have been specifically responded to, so I've made this chart to crystallize any issues. Feel free to add to it; I'm hoping to keep things short & concise.

Objection	Support
...don't see a good reason to combine cause, effect	This GW article concerns both causes & effects (& feedbacks)
whole system is complicated (consider increased plant growth, etc.)	Chart is designed to show causes & effects of GW/CC—not whole (climate?) system
"does not have "backing data"	Yes it does. See the RSs! They "justify the information". It's just presented as linked concepts, not plotted as "data". Most of our readers aren't dataheads, but so care about flooding, crop yields, etc.
can be "picked apart"	No more than any other diagram; see the RSs!
Large size	... and with good reason! The graphic hasimo the highest concentration of content per sq. inch. Substance should trump form.
Too much text	Flow diagram instantly, visually shows causal paths, and relation of causes & effects & feedback. A visual is more impactful than prose buried within paragraphs. Consider: stripped of its decoration, the GH Effect schematic is a flow diagram of text, also.
Echos Table of Contents	Precisely! Lede images should summarize. Plus, causal flow diagram concisely links concepts better than any ToC could.
(Possible) layout issues	If there's a conflict: substance should trump style. Consider what readers are seeking to find, quickly, when they come here.
Replaced with GH Effect schematic	GHE schematic shows internal mechanisms that are behind GW— not summary content that should be in a lede. Note that the lede does not even mention GHE.
Text "unreadable" (presumably on UHD displays-?)	Is clicking on a graphic to enlarge, too much to expect? The red/green/blue color-shaded regions' labels are clearly readable, inviting clicking if needed in particular screen resolution.
___
___	Summary: objections seem mostly formal, stylistic. Substantively, it concisely summarizes essential GW content

——RCraig09 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

My major objection is these two contradictory requirements: the figure must be displayed sufficiently big to be readable. At upright=1.5 it was just about readable. At 1.35, which is the max in the lede, the figure becomes unreadable. The placement in the effects section is less ideal, and enlarging it there brings us back to the problem we started with: sandwiching. I think photos are essential to make this article accessible to a non-geeky public. We might want to consider adding the GHE into the lede, but that may be difficult as one of our 'assignments' before FAR is shortening the lede a bit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about high-pixel-count screens? iPhone screens? . . . Agree, some 'pictures' are needed, to humanize the topic.

I appreciate your points. True, MOS:IMGSIZE states that "Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most"—but the language isn't mandatory. In the context of this important article—sometimes criticized for being 'bloated'—and a public that^imo usually doesn't dig through long prose details, I think that either a upright=1.5 "stylistic rule"-stretching, or expecting people with certain screen resolutions to (gasp!) click to enlarge an image, are reasonable. I fear that drive-by reviewers, from FAR or anywhere else, may not appreciate the richness of this article's content. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Click at right to show/hide refs
References

Causes (feedbacks and the carbon cycle)

The causes section of the flowchart diagram is meant to capture climate change as a system. I like the idea, but all that's really there is to say FOSSIL FUELS with a sprinkling of land use and a few select positive feedbacks. The feedbacks in particular are unweighted and strike me as alarmist based on how much space they take when presented without data in the diagram.

For instance, why does feedbacks ignore negative feedbacks? Negative feedbacks include increased vegetation uptake of carbon, which has been a strong negative feedback so far, plus increased heat emissions to space as the temperature increases. Even positive feedbacks like permafrost melting to produce methane in the short term has a flip side of yielding more arable land for vegetation in the long term. The IPCC weighted feedbacks to be net positive in the near term, but they explicitly weren't looking at the carbon cycle and they didn't assign a net number to feedback impact that I could find (the article also refuses to assign numbers to feedbacks).

Ideally we could get good numbers to describe climate change by aggregate cause (fossil fuels, feedbacks, land use, other) and use that here in a simplified graphic. It would be like the physical drivers chart, but instead directed at sources instead of gases. I don't see that data clearly laid out, does anyone else?

The best numbers I see are these, but they don't spell out feedbacks and introduce the complication of needing to show the carbon cycle in addition to radiative imbalance:

1. GGE Sources- 72% Fossil Fuel Combustion https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ (agriculture 11%)
2. GG causing energy imbalance 76% Carbon Dioxide (Same source, methane 16%)
3. Carbon Dioxide 46% to air, 23% to ocean, 31% to biosphere, from global carbon project (http://folk.uio.no/roberan/GCB2019.shtml
4. Energy Absorption 92% to Ocean

The truth is that the whole system is complicated to represent visually. Either your just say "FOSSIL FUELS" in big, bold letters, or you collapse into a muddle because you need to include both the carbon cycle and also radiative imbalance. I think we do a good job in the physical drivers section, but just picking out a few select issues for the flowchart seems problematic. The fact that nobody on the Internet has created a coherent graphic describing climate change as a system illustrates the difficulty.

Effects on the environment and humans

	Effects on environment	Effects on humans
Air heating	More intense heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes	Direct physical harm, economic losses
Land heating	Wildfires, desertification, and ecosystem damage	Farmland loss, spread of tropical diseases and pests
Ocean heating	Coral bleaching, fish stock declines	Fishery and tourism losses
Ice sheet melt	Loss of arctic and marshland ecosystems	Flooding of coastal cities

The list of environmental and human impacts is really just a lot of text that might be better done as a table, so we can use real text. I have created an example here, sized to a width approximating thumbnails.

The down side of the table is that it's really just the paragraph of text in the intro broken down into a table format, so it's arguable as to how much value it adds. Of course the same applies to the flowchart view of effects.

The up side of the table is that it avoids svg rendering issues and can be easily edited, but is arguably more organized and digestible than a paragraph of text. It kind of splits the difference with the flowchart. I also reorganized the content in a way that I think is more accurate and clear than what's in the flowchart.

Elevating another graphic

The Climate Change Performance Index ranks countries by greenhouse gas emissions (40% of score), renewable energy (20%), energy use (20%), and climate policy (20%).

One graphic I think would be good to elevate is the climate change performance index, shown here. The graphic clearly shows how the performance of various countries stack up against each other in addressing climate change problems. It's good as a snapshot of who is doing what to address climate change, which is an important topic to elevate.

So if I was just going to pull out the big edit hammer right now I think I would replace the flowchart with that graphic and then tack on the effects chart so effects get clear visibility as well. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not following what you mean by "flowchart" versus "that graphic" versus "effects chart".

The Performance Index is a meaningful graphic, but—based on the principle that a Wikipedia article on "X" should prominently describe X's causes, characteristics, and effects—I think that since the Performance Index deals with human response (not a true effect) it's not so central to the GW article that it warrants a lede image position. It's excellent where it is now, in 'Political response'.

I plan to add the Performance Index to the CCPI article. I think specific sourcing is needed, at least in the Commons file page if not also here. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoa. This graphic seems to be an exact copy (converted to SVG) of the image on the CCPI.org website. Is there a copyright/licensing issue? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC) I'll delay adding to the CCPI article until the possible copyright issue is resolved. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In terms of licensing, maps are a grey area- are they data, or are they an image containing copyrighted info? According to the wikimedia article discussing derivative works using maps none of the following are subject to copyright: data, colors, systems, and geographical boundaries. That covers all that this map contains. I could rerender the map using a third party tool, but I don't know that it would make a difference. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The data itself can't be copyright-protected, nor, probably, is there the required "modicum of creativity"^{(U.S. law)} involved in simply painting different countries different colors. The only possible issue is the bare-bones country-outline map itself, which the CCPI.org website designers probably did not create, themselves. So I think it's safe, at least from any claims by CCPI. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Which figures can go?

I know that multiple people here have worked their asses off to get good quality figures in this article. Unfortunatly, we now have too many according to one of the TFA coordinators. Specifically, we're not complying with the manual of style: MOS:SANDWICH. I will be deleting some figures boldly, and that may hurt. If you disagree with any of my choices, please put forward other figures that should be deleted instead. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The article was getting ~choppy in appearance, I appreciate the wise selections you've made this morning. Efbrazil, especially, has provided both substantive content, format standardization and SVG adaptation.

Separately, I'm worried that non-scientists visiting during any review process will exalt form over substance. This science-intensive article needs to visually project the abundance of solid scientific support—while presenting it in a way that is immediately absorbed by laymen.

My first impulse was to delete some of the "heart-tugging" pictures (e.g., polar bear), but those images are further down, in less crowded locations in the article. I doubt deleting them would affect any reviewer's opinion.

As far as specifics:

- I think that File:CO2 Emissions by Source Since 1880.svg and File:Carbon Sources and Sinks.svg don't add much to the much-needed File:Carbon Dioxide 800kyr.svg that precedes them in the important "Ghg" section. I think that only the 800kyr graph should remain, since the other two can be readily expressed in text.

- I plan to right-justify some images where possible to reduce zig-zags.

- Using the multiple image template to arrange images horizontally (preferably right-justifying) avoids text-chopping. Is there a problem using this template?

——RCraig09 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There is still bad sandwiching in the Physical drivers of recent climate change section. Also, a MOS review is needed. Check WP:NBSPs, and also there are missing convert templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: Sorry for semi-undoing your edit. If you add any graph back, please suggest another graph to remove instead, to make sure that images aren't all pushed down to the wrong section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The current effects section is horribly full and overflows into the next section at quite a few higher resolution settings. Efbrazil, which figure would you be okay with deleting? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I'm fine with cuts and moves, but when I checked in this morning the article was really a total mess- distorted graphics, key graphics cut, and so on. Part of how things appear is related to your screen resolution and device. Having a more clear definition of the problem here would help. Please don't stack graphics in a block unless it's essential.

Cuts I'm OK with: The flowchart at the top about causes and effects- for now, I just moved it down and moved the greenhouse effect graphic up to make more room in the physical drivers section and because I think Craig's graphic is better presented after we lay out more hard data. My apologies to Craig. I cut the sad polar bear, I think it was both biasing and ineffective, I'm glad it's gone. The unclear ship tracks picture can also go, although I left it for now. I'm also OK with the cuts already made to remove the latitude chart and the animation of planetary temperature changes. Finally, I'm fine moving the remaining graphics around to different areas.

Cuts I'm not OK with: The chart of carbon sources and destinations is key for understanding the full picture of carbon in the atmosphere. Just talking about where CO2 is coming from and ignoring where it is going is telling only half the story, particularly when it comes to the issues of feedbacks and mitigation and offsets. If you want that graphic moved I'm fine with that, but please don't cut it. I also reverted the cut to see CO2 emissions by industry, land use, buildings, etc. It's an important way to break the problem down, but I moved the graphic way down in the article, so hopefully it's not conflicting anymore.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Overview re recent changes:
- The bar charts are less valuable, to the extent they can be readily expressed in text.
- The carbon cycle graphic shows internal mechanisms of GW rather than the causes and effects that readers likely seek, but what was subordinated to the 'Effects' subsection without response to my repeated arguments above and before Femke even expressed her opinion above.
- Instead of being in the lede—which is supposed to be summary—the carbon cycle graph is properly placed in the now-full 'Models' section, but the 'Models' section can be streamlined by choosing either the RCP line graph or the dual heat map, the latter being more illustrative of essentially the same information. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to move the causes and effects chart, but after seeing the massive changes this morning I figured it was open season to try and move things around in a way to make more space. I do think femke needs to express an opinion on the causes and effects graphic. We also need real clarity on the problem here before we make more cuts and moves- I don't want to just wildly cut stuff in the hopes of fixing a hypothetical problem. On both my desktop and smartphone everything looked great yesterday, then all these edits happened, and this morning it was a mess. What exactly was the problem and how do we know we've been successful addressing it? I have to go offline for an hour or two, will then check back in. Efbrazil (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we've build up enough trust with each other that very bold edits are okay.

Yesterday, we had four WP:SANDWICHES. I'm usually looking at the page from my desktop, but on a smaller screen sandwiches are really ugly (even though less common). There was barely any space left on the right, so the only logical conclusion is that we need to cut figures.

• There were a lot of figures about CO2 emissions. I don't have that strong of an opinion about which ones should stay or not, as long as we have them in logical places, which is in the GHG subsection, in mitigation and maybe in political response. I'm against putting one of these figures (about GHG emissions per sector) in the controversy subsection.

• Considering the causes and effects graph is big, many of these problems could be solved if we decide not to use the graph in this figure. I'm not a massive fan of the figure, because of its size, and because it's a lot of text. To some extent and saying it crudely, the figure is a flow diagram of a part of the table of content.

• I'm okay with the polar bear to go, but I think it's extremely important to have a good balance between photos (normal public) and diagrams (more geeky public). ~

P.S. Also, I've been repairing a lot of cites lately. Could you try guys try to stick to the cite var? Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

> I agree about the CO2 (and other) bar charts; but the carbon cycle picture is very illustrative, in a proper place.

> I still think that File:CO2 Emissions by Source Since 1880.svg and File:Carbon Sources and Sinks.svg (~expressible in text) don't add much to the eye-opening File:Carbon Dioxide 800kyr.svg.

> Please consider: The cause/effect diagram shows more content than the Table of Contents, shows causal paths as no ToC could, and constitutes a concisely crafted detailed summary of what readers are seeking (causes and effects)—all in plain language. Do you not agree: it has more pertinent content per cm² than anything else in the entire article? This is why the diagram is so uniquely valuable. If attached to the lede, it would appear beside the Table of Contents and not "push other content down" as it would if positioned lower in the body. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I moved the one graphic on carbon destinations down towards the bottom and tried to clarify why the other graphic on carbon sources is important. Suggestion on the cause-effect graphic: We take some time making it even better than it is now, then look at bumping it back to the top when that work is done. I'm happy to do the additional work on the graphic or to critique the graphic and have you do the additional work. Efbrazil (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should take a top-down approach by deciding which image belongs where, and afterwards tweak the minutiae as needed. Improving details of the cause/effect diagram is always a possibility, though the content seems fairly stable. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Shout out to the graphics wizards! Just wanted to express my admiration and appreciation to Efbrazil, as well as Femke Nijsse, and RCraig09 for the fantastic work you all have done in creating so many wonderful graphics for this article.Dtetta (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the RCP figure per suggestion RCraig (nobody objected (yet)). There are still two major problems remaining, with (1) three GHG figures not being in the right location and (2) figures still being pushed down into different sections on common resolutions. I propose

• We delete the global energy consumption graph, as the information is similar to carbon dioxide per source. I think the latter is better suited for the necessary small depiction of a Wikipedia article.
• We either delete (preferred) or move the emissions per industry. The scientific discussion is tangibly related, so they could be placed there. Of the two figures RCraig propose we delete, I mostly agree with Carbon Sources and Sinks. The carbon cycle is important, but this graph does not communicate one of the essentials: how the fraction of CO2 between these three reservoirs (ocean, sea, vegetatation) might change over time.
• If we keep the big overview graph, the most logical place is indeed the lede. I'm a bit concerned that the lede then would have too many images. The MOS is not clear about it I think, but uses the singular (image, not images) when describing the lede: MOS:LEADIMAGE. Before we start more work on it, we'd need some clarification. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

> Femke, I'm having trouble understanding exactly which images you're talking about in the first and second ● paragraphs (09:25). Can you change your description to recite literal titles? (if they're still in the article)

> Re the "big overview" (cause/effect?) graphic: MOS:LEADIMAGE concerns style, and I think substance should trump style, especially in this important article that is properly rich in content about causes/attribution/drivers, degree-of-warming, and effects etc. Specifically: I think the (highly instructive) carbon cycle graph ("Greenhouse effect schematic" is too specific for the lede and, conceptually, fits best in the "Models..." section. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Femke, please specify the "common resolution" you are having problems with so I can trouble shoot. Everything looks good at 1024 by 768 and at higher resolutions and on smartphone. I'm just not seeing the problem you are trying to solve, and I can't fix things or agree to graphic removals until I see the problem. There may be ways to change graphics sizes or otherwise fix things here. The RCP graphic needs to stay, and I don't support the removal of any graphics until I see the problem we need to solve. Efbrazil (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll reiterate with proper links:

• We delete File:Global_Energy_Consumption.svg, as the information is similar to File:CO2_Emissions_by_Source_Since_1880.svg. I think the latter is better suited for the necessary small depiction of a Wikipedia article.
• We either delete or move: File:Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_by_Economic_Sector.svg

• My screen res on my desktop is 2144 X 1340. I often compare that to my laptop with 1408 X 792. Which means I have to zoom out to like 60-70% on my laptop to simulate my desktop resolution. We've done quite a lot already with summarizing captions to make space, which was probably necessary anyway. I'm not keen on making graphics much smaller, but we can try. As long as there easily readible still.
• I don't think the GHG schematic fits best in models really.. It was fine where it was originally, explaining the cause of GW.
• Style is there to support substance and one of my philosophies is 'less is more'.
• Bit of terminology. The carbon cycle is how carbon/CO2 moves between soils, vegetation, air and ocean. The greenhouse gas effect schematic shows how energy in the form of radiation moves between the surface and outer space. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The thing I was not checking was ultra high definition monitors. I'll look to make edits in that direction today. File:Global_Energy_Consumption.svg is essential for understanding how renewables are performing relative to other energy sources, and to understanding performance in recent times relative to Paris. It should not be deleted. I already moved File:Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_by_Economic_Sector.svg once, I'll double check appearance. When you say "I don't think the GHG schematic fits best in models really" I think you mean the opposite, right? What do you suggest for the third graphic at the top? I'm concerned about putting in the flowchart in its current state. I suggested the country performance chart, but Craig thought we should keep the focus on the problem in the intro, not the mitigation. Efbrazil (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

> I actually prefer File:Global Energy Consumption.svg over "Emissions by source..." since, even on iPhone the general shape of the column charts is clear. Meanwhile, File:CO2_Emissions_by_Source_Since_1880.svg doesn't really present much more information than its text caption, is less demonstrative than the 800,000 year chart above it; removing "Emissions by source..." would make a good home for the excellent GH Effect diagram.

> It's the Physical drivers (causes?) section that is crowded, which is why I suggested the excellent "GH Effect" graphic could also go to the "Models..." section. GH Effect should stay, somewhere, as I don't think the public truly understands the GH Effect.

> If "GH effect" goes to "Models..." then "Models..." becomes crowded, which brings up how the RCP line graph overlaps with the "CMIP5 projected changes" heat map. I actually favor the heat map because the line graph's "output" (dependent variable) is CO2 Equivalent, which is an intermediate mechanism causing the final, important effect—which is the heat map.

> Femke, I am just afraid that style could conflict with substance here.

> Efbrazil, I'm not sure what you mean by "the problem"... I think that in a "GW" article, GW's causes and effects should be in the lede—not coincidentally, that's what's in the lede text—rather than drilling down to different countries' "Responses" which is a step beyond effects.—RCraig09 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• A good 20% of desktop users have a high res (1080 X 1920) (upon double-checking, mine is 1200 X 1920)., and >10% of all users, so we should definitely take that as one of the reference cases.
• The reason I prefer File:CO2_Emissions_by_Source_Since_1880.svg over File:Global Energy Consumption.svg is that it's a bit less busy to the eyes. {{u|Efbrazil, would you consider cutting the words 'for oil' from the latter, to make it less busy. I don't think they are necessary. I'm okay with either though.
• @Efbrazil, I meant the GH schematic, which doesn't fit the model section as good as the other two candidates. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Efbrazil: the reason we had to start this whole discussion was because people at WP:TFAR made clear we don't comply with WP:MOS' WP:SANDWICH; having text sandwiched between a figure on the left and on the right. We started with four sandwiches, and have now increased that to 6 on my screen (adjusted to 1920 X 1080 to be a reference case). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

When in doubt, default everything to the right. If an article is too crowed with pictures, you can't frequently shift alignments, because you can't account for every monitor size no matter how well you try. GMG^talk 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit pass and standards for images

I took a pass based on the discussion above, please let me know if you think it's acceptable. These were my goals:

1. We shouldn't sandwich text when there's only a few words between images and it looks stupid. This generally means having about 3 paragraphs between images. Sandwiching on laptops should be minimal or none at all.
2. On a high definition desktop monitor where the width of the screen means there's plenty of space between images for text then it is fine for the text to be sandwiched, but we don't want graphics to be stacked out of scope into the next section.
3. On smartphone, which is most users, we want to make sure the images appear in contextually appropriate locations and with good frequency (no wading through a sea of text). Smartphones are how the majority of users view the content so we need to prioritize that view.

These are the general changes I made:

1. I reduced size on all graphics from upright=1.5 to upright=1.35, which guidance says is the max recommended size for graphics in the lead. It looks great on high definition screens and solves some of the stacking and sandwiching. The down side is pixelated text on low resolution screens that really requires clicking through to read. It doesn't impact smartphone rendering.
2. I tightened up the captions on several images, moving some text to image summaries.
3. A lot of moving images left and right, a little up and down.

I would rather not see further cuts to images, but if more cuts are made let's please have a discussion first. I think you know my preferred cut is the causes and effects flowchart, as per the long discussion in the other section. Efbrazil (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that looks professional all of a sudden, thanks. We're technically allowed to have the figures a bit larger in the body if necessary. I didn't expect this to work for most figures, but it did. However, we can still make some further improvements: (ignore if you don't agree)

• File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg. Will be difficult to up the fontsize, but might be worth a try
• File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg. We already had a discussion whether the confidence interval should go. I'm now even more in favour of putting this in the image description
• File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg. I could try to up the font size the tiniest bit and choice a better colour for the orange bit.  Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• File:Projected_Change_in_Temperatures_by_2090.svg drop the space between RCP and number?
• File:20200118_Global_warming_and_climate_change_-_vertical_block_diagram_-_causes_effects_feedback.png unreadable unfortunately. I fear it has to be upped in size (not allowed in lede), redesigned or removed.
• File:Total_CO2_by_Region.svg and similar. Remove the 'for oil' in the text, and up the font a bit?
• File:Mitigation_pathways.svg I could move the <1.5 and <2.0 into the graph and make them bit bigger.  Done. I also tried to make the text editable.
• File:Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_by_Economic_Sector.svg the agriculture & forestry Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Femkemilene! I'll take a crack at those image tweaks over the next few days.

@Craig: How do you suggest we address the issue with the block diagram readability in thumbnail view? That was one of the major things I was struggling with when I was trying to compress it for SVG. There's really not enough room to show 3 columns of text, which is how the current diagram is structured. That's the main reason I went to the table view- if the focus here is on text then it makes sense to use a view that is built for text, not for images. Other thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I added my 15:37 comment before seeing your 15:30 comment. I will think about it (big change). —RCraig09 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for massive amounts of coordination work done here. I've added an "issues" table, above, re the cause/effect flow diagram.

Efbrazil, can you point me to the source that tracks viewing, to know that smartphones are main readers of WP articles? —RCraig09 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good usage breakdown Efbrazil (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph lede

The second paragraph of the lede has a few problems:

• It uses the 2013 IPCC report, with more recent reports available. Specifically, it says it's extremely likely that human caused the majority of GW since 1950, whereas newer reports state it more as a fact. The 2018 SR15 states: "Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade (high confidence)." (Ch1) The 2017 NCA follows the 2013 IPCC report in saying 'extremely likely'. The 2019 IPCC ocean report reiterates the SR15 report. We might want to slightly strenghten this sentence, but pretty sure the SR15 quote is too technical for the lede.
• The last sentence states that national academies agree with this assessment. However, it cites a 2005 source for that. I don't think those national academies invented time travel.

Dtetta, you've been a massive help with rewriting other parts of the lede. Wanna help out here as well? I know what's wrong, but don't have a good picture yet about possible improvements. A further piece of feedback was that the lede is probably a bit too long, so we might want to consider that as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to address that.Dtetta (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are the edits I would propose (deletions in strikeout, additions in underline):

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report has concluded that , "human influence on climate has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[18] The largest human influence has been the eEmissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are the principle cause of this effect. Fossil fuel burning is the dominant source of these gases, with agricultural emissions and deforestation also playing significant roles.[19] These findings have been endorsed by organizations throughout the world recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[12][13] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[20][21]

The only reference changes are substituting SR15 chapter 1, p. 53 for the older IPCC cite in footnote 10, and the deletion of citations/footnotes 12 and 13. I thought about ways of shortening the last sentence, but given the current level of climate denial on the internet[22][23][24], it seems like this somewhat repetitive phrasing is, unfortunately, still warranted. One other editing option would be to move the two sentences discussing greenhouse gases and sources to the end of the paragraph.

Let me know if you think more editing is needed.

PS - I liked the time travel bit:)Dtetta (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Great start! I feared that the IPCC didn't have an accessible statement this time, but it did, hidden on page 53. I agree that we can spend quite a few words to explain the scientific consensus, and that this paragraph should not be our number 1 priority when making the lede a bit shorter. Comparing with other FAs, I think we must probably only delete another long sentence or so.

• Sentence starting with: "The largest human (...). I understand why you want to ce this one, but I'm not sure whether 'are the principal cause of the effect ' is better.
• endorsed by organisation around the world? A bit vague. We could instead follow the NASA website and say something about peer reviewed sources.
• The words 'Not disputed by' is not supported by either of the cites. In the scientific consensus bit, three different sources are given for this statement, but the last one is from 2008. It also uses a 2006 source that contradicts this, saying there there is was a single scientific body still denying it then. I'd like to find a more recent book or paper stating this (>2015) Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent “Land use change” edits and overall treatment of deforestation/reforestation in the article

Moved from closed peer review by Femkemilene

I think I understand what you’re trying to do by moving the paragraph I had created for the Land Use Change subtopic to the last paragraph of the”Greenhouse Gases” subtopic, but just cutting and pasting the entire paragraph is problematic in a few ways: 1) it degrades the readability of the paragraph it was inserted into, 2) it deracts from the logical flow of the original Land Use Change subsection. Not so important in and of itself, but this also contributes to: 3) it aggravates one of the significant flaws that remain in the GW article; which is the lack of information to help a reader understand the effects of deforestation/reforestation, both on GW/CC itself and its significant role in future mitigation plans. When I added that paragraph into the sub section that was formerly titled “Land Use Change”, I was hoping that section could be strengthened and aligned with other parts of the article in order to help the reader further understand the ways that deforestation contributes to the GW/CC problem, as well as the ways in which forest preservation and reforestation are seen as a potentially significant mitigation tools. I am guessing these edits you’ve made are part of an overall revision plan to make the organization and content in the “Physical drivers of recent climate change” topic line up more closely with the radiative forcing graphic you created (which is an excellent graphic), and that you have modified what was formerly Land Use Change” to make it more consistent, both in title and content, with the “land reflectivity” bar in that graphic. I don’t understand your latest revision explanation statement “The previous demarcation of section wasn’t logical”, but that seems to be what you are referring to.

Although I disagree with this approach, you’ve clearly done a heroic job in editing this article, particularly over the past few months, so I would defer to your judgement in terms of overall organization. But I think that the paragraph starting with “Global anthropogenic greenhouse” now needs a good bit of editing; it reads to me like a bit of a mishmash of disparate ideas. I think it really needs to be broken into two paragraphs to accommodate the insert that you’ve made in a readable manner. I also believe that both the “Physical drivers...” and “Mitigation” topics still have flaws in the limited manner in which they treat deforestation/reforestation.

Over the next couple of days I’ll work to present an underline/strikeout version of the changes I would suggest for the “Global anthropogenic emissions” paragraph, and also provide some thoughts on how the Mitigation topic could be strengthened in terms of its coverage of the deforestation/reforestation issue. At a minimum, I think the topic deserves its own section. Its current placement as part of the Technology section makes no sense to me.

Please let me know if you have any concerns with what I am proposing. Dtetta (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right I made a bit of a mess of the prose. Eager to hear about your suggested improvements. It was an attempt to line up with the NCA2017 report, which approximately lines up with IPCC from which I got the data for the radiative forcing graph. If land use change is a subsection, than the GHG subsection has to be renamed into industry and energy or smth. I find that a less logical distinction. The previous subsections were overlapping in content.

I've been staring at the "global anthropogenic greenhouse" paragraph for a bit, because I've transformed that into an ugly tangle. Feel welcome to rewrite and split into two paragraphs. It would be good to have a small paragraph entirely dedicated to land use GHG emissions, yes.

In terms of space, I don't think that we can use the proper summary style and have an entire subsubsection (I assume you meant that) decicated to that. But surprise me. My reasoning in splitting technology and policy/measures was to create a paragraph with the actual things we need to do (reforestation/energy transition) on the one hand, and the policy tools to get there on the other hand. Feel free to rename. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)