Talk:Climate change

Sentence and Citation to Number of Scientific Entities that Support Consensus

I propose adding the following sentence both to the intro section of the article and also separately to the lower down "scientific discussion" section.

"Nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action."

The citation is here: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

In that citation, the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research lists 197 organizations, and provides links to their websites. Unfortunately, the links are not to the specific parts of the websites where they evidence their support, but in my view the original page should be trusted as an authoritative statement, due to the scrutiny such an office would face for posting such a statement and list on this topic. I believe citing this number adds to users' understanding of the topic, because while the current version talks about the percentage-support in the literature, it does not discuss the number of important organizations that support this view. Please let me know your response and if the answer is yes, edit the page accordingly.

Thank you.

TheDumbMoney (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)TheDumbMoney

Hi Money, thanks for the link and suggestion. Initially I was in favor, but now I'm dubious because the source doesn't tell us what filter they use for "scientific organization"? I mean, gee.... the Dept of Biology at University of Nevada is a "scientific organization" aren't they? If they had a position on climate change (and I have no idea if that is true) then would they be eligible for inclusion on this list? Question Noting that we already link to Scientific opinion on climate change, do you think our related text here could be improved somehow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

---

I am sorry, I do not yet know how to do the indent. Looking at the list, the filter is two categories only. 1) Country-specific organizations associated with a whole country and/or sponsored by its government (e.g., Royal Irish Academy); or 2) nationwide or worldwide field-specific associations of scientists (e.g., American Anthropological Association). In other words, the list is limited to the largest groups. This corresponds with the "scientific body of national or international standing" language in the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change article. In other words, the OPR in California is plainly attempting to create a long list, but it is being rather conservative about it, excluding things like the Department of Biology at University of Nevada, because while I'm sure whatever department that is is great, it is not a scientific organization of national or international standing. One way to re-write my original text that might be better and respond to your valid critique is: "By one list, nearly 200 scientific bodies of national or international standing hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action." Using the same citation. What strikes me is that the current "scientific discussion" section in the article talks wholly in terms of percentages, and does not attempt to put a total number of any kind on the status of scientific opinion among organizations. My revision above would qualify the finality of the list, while providing such a service, at least as a placeholder until more data could be found. TheDumbMoney (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)TheDumbMoney

CO2 Levels 20M Years Ago vs. Today

When educating those people not convinced that human activity is the root cause of global warming, the following 2 sentences from this Wikipedia entry are being constantly referenced as some kind of proof that whatever took place 20M years ago may well be happening today. (Please see quote from article below). Please, would someone with a better understanding of what exactly took place 20M years ago and why that phenomenon is not repeating itself today add something here to make the narrative a bit smoother.

"... (CO2) levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[75][76][77][78] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago"

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the intent is to say there is a direct record (air bubbles) going back X years, and geologic proxy record going even further back; That the air bubbles in the direct record have lower CO2, and the most recent proxy records of around 400ppm CO2 are about 20M years ago. It doesn't seem to say anything else to me, so I don't really understand what you're asking. Did you leave out a citation to something that discusses all this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The objection is not clear, but my guess is that the objector wants the statement of fact to include an additional statement explaining how scientists know the current global temperature anomaly is not due to thew same mechanisms that occurred "20 million years ago." If my guess is correct, then the additional statement is not necessary: the entire article addresses how scientists know the current global temperature anomaly was caused and is caused by human activities. Desertphile (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

During times with high CO2 content, different life forms existed than today (humans didn't evolved in such a climax) and more Co2/heat means less and less advanced forms of life. prokaryotes (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What about personal experience?

You know, the experience of those who have walked past a smoke-belching factory and seen the temperature go up and the air become thick and uncomfortable as they approached it? The experience pf just watching the waves of heat rise above a traffic jam? Is this collected and documented anywhere? DeistCosmos (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never been able to think of anything that humans do that produces a net cooling effect in the local environment, but I don't know if the effects have been collected and summed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking about the use of personal observation and experience in establishing the existence (or not) of global warming? Such first-person reporting would be in the nature of journalism, a form of a original research, and likely not even a reliable source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Auto archiving appears to be busted

I have a love-hate thing going with the archival templates. Would someone better skilled than I please figure out why old threads are lingering? ThanksNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's working right? It keeps 8 threads and only works once/day. There are 8 old threads and two threads updated today so I don't see any malfunction... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I didn't think to check the specific number of oldies to keep. I don't think I've ever noticed a number higher than 4 for that setting, and was just assuming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead too long

While the content of the introduction is of a high quality, it does not "briefly summarize" the article. I hesitate at putting this template in the article itself, due to its scientific nature and Featured status. However, the introduction is bloated and should be at most four paragraphs. Thanks, Greggydude (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, way to much information in the lead atm. There shouldn't be a wall of text. prokaryotes (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let's look at it collaboratively. The lead should summarise the article's main points, so first here is a list of the main headings of the body of the article:

1. Observed temperature changes
2. Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)
3. Feedback
4. Climate models
5. Observed and expected environmental effects
6. Observed and expected effects on social systems
7. Proposed policy responses to global warming
8. Discourse about global warming
9. Etymology

Here is my own outline of the paragraphs of the existing lead:

1. Global warming is... definition, plus some observed figures
2. Causes, per AR4
3. * Quote from AR5
4. Projections per AR4
5. Effects and impacts globally
6. Proposed policy responses - mitigation, adaptation etc
7. Emissions growth (brief)

It is clear that there is some correlation, but some room for improvement. Perhaps we should aim for something like the following:

1. Global warming is... definition, plus some observed figures
2. Causes: Forcings and feedbacks, plus models
3. Observed and expected environmental and social effects
4. Proposed policy responses - mitigation, adaptation etc
5. Discourse

It's still five paras, can anyone propose a better outline? Then we just need to write the paragraphs, based on the article text. Anything important currently in the lead, and referenced there, that is not in the body, should be merged into a better place rather than lost in the changes. --Nigelj (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort; I had in mind going back to the day this article appeared as a featured article and compare what's changed since then, and what should be updated, but have not done that yet. As a preliminary matter, the subject of article title & scope has been on my mind since a January talk thread linked in the "revisit" subsection below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the latest IPCC statement needs to be in the lead. Other than that i agree with Nigelj's proposed improvements. It is also a matter of how many details we include in each paragraph. prokaryotes (talk)

Which of the multiple statements on the thousands of pages are you talking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ofc, i refer to current lead content - the main findings. prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion for quick result, move the part from the lead below IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers, to a new section called "General". This way readers are not confronted with a "wall of text". prokaryotes (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of when Mom told me to clean my room and I just shoved everything under the bed en masse. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am very much of the opinion that the lead is bloated and does not read well - I feel it is one of the weakest areas of this article, which is a shame since it is probably the most important. I fully support NigelJ's analysis and suggested structure. One dreadful example - in the very first sentence the use of the word "unequivocal" is terribly grating (much discussed, but inexplicably still present) - this is not part of a definition of global warming, which the opening sentence should be, but a comment on attitudes of scientists to global warming. Global warming is the identical phenomenon, regardless of whether it is seen as unequivocally true or not. Atshal (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for Lead paragraph

(A) I agree the lead is bloated.

(B) Before fixing the lead, we should look at the body

(C) Before reviewing the body, we should all be on the same page about article scope and to focus discussion I propose changing lead paragraph 1 so that it is consistent with the hatnote in place since 2011 ("This article is about the current change in Earth's climate.")

CURRENT TEXT

Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system.[2] Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.[3] Despite the oceans' dominant role in energy storage, the term "global warming" is also used to refer to increases in average temperature of the air and sea at Earth's surface.[4] Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[5] move the rest to body of article- Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

PROPOSED NEW FIRST PARAGRAPH

In common speech, "global warming" is often used to describe the climate change Earth is now experiencing.see RSs below It's an accepted scientific fact that the planet's climate system is warming up. The oceans, which provide a large buffer, have absorbed about 90% of the energy added to the climate system since 1970. Much of the rest heats the atmosphere, where global surface temperatures have increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring since 1980.

In addition, add text (not yet drafted) to etymology section to include the narrow meaning of "global warming" related to increasing global surface temps

POSSIBLE RSs FOR SENTENCE 1

• 2011 Skeptical Science post while noting technical meaning notes

[T]o sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

• May 2014 Guardian, re: a Yale study

The two terms are often used interchangeably but they generate very different responses, the researchers from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communications said.

• 2011 NPR's Richard Harris

We use both "climate change" and "global warming" interchangeably.

The term scientists prefer is actually "climate change," because that encompasses effects other than warming, such as changes in rainfall patterns, melting glaciers and rising sea levels. There are several scholarly journals using the term "climate change," such as Nature Climate Change and Climatic Change and the International Journal of Climate Change. The 1992 treaty that governs global warming is called the "Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Global warming is a familiar term, so we feel justified in using it as a more concrete, but less complete, expression of the phenomenon.

• Aug 2010 Guardian, re: 35th anniversary of Broeker's coining phrase 'global warming'

I strongly doubt whether Wally Broecker realised that when his 1975 Science paper was titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" he knew that the term would go on to gain such international traction. I doubt, therefore, that he gave it much thought whether it would withstand the rigours of intense scrutiny and debate that it would attract over the coming decades. * * * [T]he two terms are largely interchangeable in common discussion, even though climate scientists will rightly argue there are subtle, but important distinctions.

• OXFam's faq

[Q.] What is climate change? [A.] Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that there have been changes in the global climate since the early 1900s, and that these climate changes, and future climate change predicted over the next century, are largely due to human activities and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, which are warming up the Earth. This is climate change, often referred to as "global warming".

IN SUM This change would make the first paragraph consistent with the hatnote and better reflects the articles content. If the consensus is to use "global warming" to mean something other than the current climate change (e.g., being "just" about rising surf temps) then I think eds like DHeyward (talk · contribs) have a good point about the article going beyond its agreed scope. So what do YOU think? Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have two problems with this, straight away. First, WP:NOT says "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." We are not writing an article about the phrase 'global warming', and that (the phrase) should not be the subject of the first sentence. The phrase is the topic of the hatnote, but that is what the hatnote is for. The article is about the warming of the globe, and should start on that topic straight way. Secondly, there is a serious false dichotomy in the question, 'Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps?' A planet's climate depends on the total amount of energy in its climate system. If a planet's climate is going to change, there is only one possible axis of change, and only two possible directions of change: more energy or less energy. We use the shorthand 'warming' or 'cooling'. (Planets' global climates also depend on other things such as the size of the planet, the arrangement of liquid, solid and gas, the amount of free gas in the atmosphere and so on, but if our planet was changing size or shape, we would be unlikely to refer to that as a change in climate). Therefore when we see, for example increased storminess, a slowed jet stream, or increased flooding, these are not something other than global warming. They are part of global warming. They are part of the overall phenomenon. The global climate is changing, the change is in the direction of global warming, and this is the top-level article about that change, that warming. I don't know what nonsense American industrial advertisers have been putting onto US TV screens about this to lead to such confusion, or how American talk-show hosts and other media personalities have been trying to spin it, but here to me it still seems quite simple. And I don't think we have to alter our position away from describing and explaining the simple facts, per the scientific sources. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigelj, do you agree with the hatnote's assertion that this article is about the current climate change, regardless of article title or verbiage in the first paragraph? If you say "no" then please identify a single aspect of the "current climate change" that does not belong in this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with the hatnote's assertion. --Nigelj (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Me too, thanks for the direct answer.

You gave two reasons for opposing

Reason A - "(the phrase 'global warming', should not be the subject of the first sentence. The phrase is the topic of the hatnote, but that is what the hatnote is for. The article is about the warming of the globe, and should start on that topic straight way."

ANSWER - If "subject" means like in grammar, we at least agree the topic is accurately stated by the hatnote (current climate change), which is named twice in the first sentence... first with "global warming" operating as the grammatical sentence subject, and secondly as "current climate change" operating as the grammatical subject of the subordinate clause. So both subjects (grammatical) appearing in the first sentence identify the topic. The rest of the paragraph expands on it. This proposed text was written in an attempt to introduce this subject to a non-specialist, most of whom have no clue about technical niceties and etymology of "global warming" vs "climate change". See Wikipedia:LEAD#Opening_paragraph.

Reason B - "...false dichotomy..."

ANSWER - Moot, since you were replying to talk page commentary not the proposed article revision.

Any response?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if I answered you again, I'd only be responding to further talk page commentary, so you would just say it is moot again. So I just say 'no' to your suggested text, and move on. --Nigelj (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigelj (talk · contribs)

At first I did type a reply, which I redacted when I couldn't see how it related directly to the proposal. But since you apparently feel that it does directly relate, I will re-enter it.

Reason B - "there is a serious false dichotomy in the question, 'Is this about the current climate change, or just that part of the current climate change dealing with rising surf temps?'"

ANSWER - This source defines "false dichotomy"

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.

By that definition, there has to be a third unlisted possibility or else there is no false dichotomy. You did not identify a third possibility. Instead you appear to have embraced one of the two options in the question, as evidenced by (A) our agreement - setting aside the wording we use - that the hatnote "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate." is accurate, and (B) the rest of your post appears to lump into one pot both rising global surface temps and the myriad of interconnected responses permeating throughout the climate system. So what false dichotomy? We apparently agree - whatever words we use - that we're going to cover the whole shaking spider web of climate system stuff now underway. There is no third unlisted possibility making question a "false dichotomy". Is there?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how the proposed first sentence is an improvement, it appears to be much more confusing (with referring to RS's and uncommon wording). Also i do not agree with the approach of NAEG. We should focus on reducing the wall of text in the lead and not the context, or change definitions.The content is good as it is, just move some parts to improve readability. As i wrote above, the discussion about "Global Warming" belongs into the etymology section. prokaryotes (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't just shove EVERYTHING about "global warming" down into the body because that would not comply with Wikipedia:LEAD#Opening_paragraph, and whatever we do say in that paragraph about "global warming" needs an RS. Although I wrote the current first sentence I've changed my mind about it and think it is not supported by the RS I used. So something needs to change, it needs to be verified with RS, and it needs to introduce this article's topic (articulated in the hatnote "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate." ) to nonspecialists per Wikipedia:LEAD#Opening_paragraph. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to hat notes at GW and CC

"This article is about the current change in Earth's climate." This sounds much better, see also my recent talk page reply to you. prokaryotes (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds much better than what, and what should we do about it? As for your talk page, you just vaguely waved back to this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward (talk · contribs), thanks for this comment at a user talk page. In response, do you agree/disagree with the existing hatnote (in place since at least 2011) which reads "This article is about the current change in Earth's climate."? If you disagree, how would you change the hatnote? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the hatnote. We have a Climate Change article. It has some strange contortions to make it different from Global Warming but the hatnote seems to imply we have two articles on the same topic. That should not be. Scientists have long established the difference in GMST (Global Warming) and Climate Change. It is fair to simply say in the lead that this article is about GMST and for the broader topic of Climate Change see Climate Change.

"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures. More than half of the observed warming is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases from such activities as fossil fuel consumption and cement production. Since <date> the mean global surface temperature has risen <X>. IPCC AR5 has adopted four Representative Concentration Pathways to estimate the effect of different greenhouse gas emission scenarios on future climate change including temperature. The estimated range of temperature increase for those scenarios in the year 2100 is <Y>. The term "global warming" is often used to describe the broad aspect of Climate change." For definition and why it's better to delineate the two terms, see NASA essay [1]. They seem to have grappled with the same issue and chose scientific meanings so that confusion is easily corrected and not cluttered. It makes dealing with topics like the so-called "pause" or "hiatus" so much easier because when someone says "Global Warming Pause" and they have lots of sources that have used the term, it's not contradictory to the article and it's never "Climate Change Pause". Scoping it narrowly and pointing out where "global warming" is not representative of "climate change" then becomes easier. --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion and with the recent reorganization, I want to be clear that my italicized quote is not a hat note. It is a proposal for the lead. There is plenty of factual surface temperature measurements (after all it is our longest recorded measurement). Proxies and reconstructions as well ice cores, glacial history of expansion and contraction, tree rings, urban heat island, ocean surface temperature record and alternate methods like the new arctic reconstruction (I forget the name but WMC subscribes to it and can name the authors). There's also GMST that's affected natural variability of ENSO, volcanic eruptions, aerosols. That's plenty of background for a single article on how all of those things affect our longest recorded measurement and most felt change in climate: the place where people live. Secondary effects of climate change like deep ocean heat content, sea level rise, isostatic adjustment, stratospheric changes, long-term land use change, changes in storms, drought, floods, etc, are where this article goes off into the weeds because those are not directly tied to GMST. By narrowly scoping the content to the scientific use, can direct the reader to specific articles that address their interest but not at the expense of conflicting information about what "Global Warming" is because the colloquial usage is too broad to not conflict with scientific usage. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Global warming refers to the rise in the observed land and sea surface temperatures." What RS do you propose citing for that definition? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

See OHC per ARGO, IPCC and or GISS? prokaryotes (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided it. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html NASA. They provide the entire history of terminology including first usage, Hansen's usage, the scientific debate in the 1970's about whether there would be cooling or warming ("Inadvertant Climate Modification"). That article provides a side box, and even more references.

1 Wallace Broecker, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science, vol. 189 (8 August 1975), 460-463.

2 For example, see: MIT, Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man's Impact on Climate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971).

3National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.

4U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change, part 2" 100th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1988, p. 44.

Side bar -

Definitions

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2]

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.[3]

--DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also the dictionary [4] --DHeyward (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And Encyclopedia Brittanica [5]. global warming, the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries. ... Global warming is related to the more general phenomenon of climate change, which refers to changes in the totality of attributes that define climate. In addition to changes in air temperature, climate change involves changes to precipitation patterns, winds, ocean currents, and other measures of Earth’s climate. --DHeyward (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This message is a test

Revisit article title and Scope

hatted by OP, see instead proposal for tweaking lead para 1 in another thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal - move from Global warming to Global warming (current climate change) OP's Reasoning I like the article's current scope and am not suggesting we change the topic, only the name. Here's why Sometime before my arrival here in 2011 eds had agreed to treat Climate change as a generic topic unrelated to geological time period (and references to non-earth climate changes have come and gone in that article). Meanwhile, we reported on the current climate change here at Global warming. There are two problems with this set up. First, "global warming" has two meanings. The title doesn't really tell the reader which meaning will be emphasized by the text. The first is the original technical definition (just the increasing trend of global surface temps) now supported with an RS in the lead first paragraph. However, over time, "global warming" also became a WP:Neologism, serving as a synonym for current climate change. Before long so many RSs had embraced the neologistic meaning of the phrase "global warming" that it had became firmly established. So it has these two different meanings. Arguably, the text covers both meanings,,,, I did add some text to the lead's first paragraph awhile back to try to address this problem. However, complaints have still been raised about this article's scope - here is one notable recent thread where more than one ed spoke about revising the article's scope. IN SUM: "global warming" has two meanings, the original narrow one and also as a synonym for current climate change. You don't know which one is the emphasis from the current "global warming" article title, and we should recomit to covering the broad meaning here. The second problem with the article title "Global warming" is that it is susceptible to claims of POV (whether POV exists is besides the point). Since the scope of this article currently encompasses current climate change, several recent studies become relevant. These studies show that there is a difference of public perception whether one says "global warming" or "climate change". (Just one example) Since these terms have import for public perception, and since lots of RSs covering the broad topic use "global warming" and lots of others say "climate change", seems to me that the only way to avoid accusations of WP:POVNAMING is to move this article to Global warming (current climate change). Reworking the lead is overdue, but I think we should get a consensus on this title/scope issue first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with the title. Attempts to change the title are imho counter productive. prokaryotes (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Counterproductive compared to what goal? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Seems inappropriate to me. I suppose we could do that, but we would need to delete the article climate change, in order to prevent it being a WP:POVFORK. In addition, it would make the Michigan Kid's effort to place "global warming" wherever "climate change" occurs, and the reverse, almost reasonable. It isn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Neither proposition is blatantly obvious. But I suppose we could clarify by also moving Climate change to Climate change (generally) or something like that. Again, the scope of these articles would not change. The only change is that the article titles would tell people what the scope is, instead of us having to constantly explain that we arbitrarily decided to use these terms the way we do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Re NewsAndEventsGuy, essentially the topic is summed up in the first sentence "Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system.". However, we could (or rather should) add that it is also referred to as the current climate change. Actually this is missing now. But, i see no reason to reflect that extra in the title when we could just mention it. A title with an addition appears to me as a complication, rather than a simplification, which is important in communication. prokaryotes (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Replying to "i see no reason to reflect that extra in the title", please see WP:POVNAMING and the link I already posted "Just one example". The public reacts differently to these synonyms. Thus, we need a really really good reason to adopt one for our article title and not the other. Without such a reason we might be seen as POV pushing. Please see this additional example too - "It's all in a name: 'Global warming' versus 'climate change'" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Ok thanks NewsAndEventsGuy. I just read http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html, and indeed from this perspective the name should be global climate change. However, peopel will still refer to just climate change in discussion, but it becomes more accurate with the "global" as an addition. prokaryotes (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Except that phrase of neologistic wordsmithing (or if you prefer scientific jargon) never really caught on in the hundreds of thousands of RSs, so that "global climate change" won't work. In addition, that phrase could easily mean the PETM as much as it means today. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC) From the NASA link i posted above, we could at least stick to basic definitions, quote - "Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth." And then we dedicate a part to explaining the proper meaning (scope of entire article). Additionally we could create other terms and link here to the main site. The naming issue can be explained without creating a lot of additional content. prokaryotes (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC) I remember at least one long discussion a while back, and after a lot of evaluation of sources and original research counting of names in newspaper articles and Google searches and general tantrums thrown this way or that, a reasonably strong consensus emerged that "global warming" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the current episode of anthropogenic climate change. I don't think this has changed significantly --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC) I can't see the point. The proposed new title is clumsy; the existing one is fine William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC) I agree (although I am unclear why Schulz's post was removed)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Guess I'll be collating the research that shows there is a difference in public perception of these terms, and then broadcasting an RFC to non climate eds to weigh in whether we can pick one name or the other name without appearing to be POV pushing. It's interesting that none of my fellow climate regulars have commented on the merits NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy, please focus on improving the text and related explanations rather than renaming of a high profile title to something not used in public discourse. As i mentioned above i would support a few other semi solutions but there are really more pressing issues with the article. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) No. Please respond to the merits of my argument - "global warming" and "climate change" are both abundantly used to describe the same thing, with significant differences in public response. Er go, using one but not the other for an article title looks like WP:POVNAMING; moreoever, the longer we go with kneejerk dismissals of my reasoning the more it looks like there's an investment in using one and not the other, which changes the mere appearance of POVNAMING to a belief that there really is a POV push behind the name. I think I've asked you 4 or 5 times to take up the substance of my reasoning. Your reply is what? "Let's not go there"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC) It has been pointed out that the title is WP:COMMONNAME and i suggested to you to focus on the text explanation. There isn't really much to add at this point. prokaryotes (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC) No, say rather that Stephan mentioned a vague memory of a discussion that arrived at that conclusion, which I emphatically disagree with. As of 2014 there are thousands of sources that go either way, thus we can not say that in 2014 either "global warming" or "climate change" clobbers the other as being "right" and the other "wrong". I have asked Stephan at user talk for a link to that discussion. Without a specific pointer to the past consensus we can't even discuss whether the past consensus should change. So that's a redherring at this point, and just another way to ask me to shut up, which - it should be readily apparent - I don't plan to do. So you might as well respond to the substance of my reasoning if you want to move things forward. I'll be glad to be wrong, but I don't plan to just go away. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Both terms you mention are used and the lead should explain the details. You suggest something entirely new, and not used in discussions. Also you seem to take comments today a bit personal. Maybe sleep a night and think again about the necessities and how to progress to a solution. Also you need to acknowledge arguments made and maybe start from there. prokaryotes (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) If we set aside the variants of IDONTLIKE, to which specific substantive arguments do you refer? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Alright. Arguments against a title change Current name reflects a common usage in public discourse. New name addition is already in the lead explained (though can be improved). There appears no reason for a sudden title change The term global warming is used for current climate change on Earth, there are no two meanings, just that the name doesn't fully reflect the impacts. prokaryotes (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC) True or false, "climate change" is also a common name for the subject of this article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC) I can answer your suggestive question with yes. prokaryotes (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Progress! Thanks for answering directly. Next question, on what basis do we name this article by one of the topic's common names ("global warming") and not on another of its common names ("climate change")? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC) On the basis that, whatever we call this article, the name global warming will still exist in the Wikipedia namespace, and will still be extremely popular and visited by 10s of thousands of people per day.[6] All we will have done is move the debate: we will still be debating what article global warming will redirect to. In the meantime, the most important GW article will have moved to a made-up name, and a prime piece of namespace real estate will have become a redirect (or worse still, will have some crappy little article about varying terminology take its place). We can't just move this article around because Americans have developed an allergy to some words they don't like, or because some US politician or pollster thinks they've hit on a new angle. --Nigelj (talk) (1) "still be extremely popular and visited by 10s of thousands of people per day", and that won't change, it would just be redirected to the new neutral and more precise name (2) "We can't just move this article around because Americans have developed an allergy to some words they don't like" Of course, part of the basis for this proposal is peer reviewed scientific literature regarding the import of these phrases; hard for me to understand how understandable antipathy to politicians and pollsters is a rebuttal to the professional scientific literature. Can you shed light? (3) I think you're implying that a name change would be a massive clerical bomb in the wiki servers in terms of article interconnectedness. I don't see that.... I'm proposing a run of the mill name change and redirect. Happens every day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC) The suggestion you made is "Global warming (current climate change)" - just think of the hassle to type that into your mobile for instance), i don't see from your cites or what i came across involving the topic, that people have problems to make a connection between global warming and current climate change. Also the term climate change is used more in general terms and global warming is just the common phrase which is used for today, as well as just climate change (in context to a specific time and more scientific). You did not responded to the argument that we could just improve the article content. prokaryotes (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC) The discussion of terms and references belong under the etymology section of this article. prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC) New points, following some user-talk discussion. (1) The archives do not contain any discussion of the point I am raising, which is POV and confusion in the title, based on published research. I'll be organizing those sources and quotes sometime this week. (2) Among the archives' threads containing "commonname", and eliminating my own references to that guideline (unrelated to the current point), most threads were debating whether we could use "global warming" to specifcally refer to the current warming instead of limiting ourselves to the generic meaning first used in the sci lit. The consensus was "yes" and I think we should keep doing that. (3) The couple remaining archive threads compared "global warming" to "global warming in recent years" and "global climate change". To the extent reasons were given, the questionable google hit count method was used to show that at the time "global warming" wasthe hands down google-hit winner.... but those threads were old. (4) Updating the admittedly dubious GoogleScholar hit-test... lets start the tally in 2008 since AR4 was released the year before. Google Scholar - uncheck patents & citations - years 2008 to 2014.... the results are "Global warming" 163,000 hits "Climate change" 774,000 hits (5) So not only are there multiple published research reports discussing import of saying "global warming" versus "climate change", but since AR4 the professional literature appears to be embracing "climate change" over "global warming". Of course, without reading all the sources one can't know the context, so it's a shaky test. Just seemed like we were relying on that test to get where we are, so if we're going to ignore the essentially same test's different results today we should have a reason based in logic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC) The number comparison is flawed, since climate change covers a much broader area. If you mention old threads it would help if you link to them too, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC) On the opposite side of the ledger, this article is about global warming and not about climate change. Which, as an important aside, highlights an issue with this article. For example, the term climate change includes issues such as: droughts, flooding (due to rainfall rather than sea rise) Curiously, the term "rainfall" occurs in the lead, but not in the body of the article. Similarly, "drought" occurs in the lead, but not in the body. Given that the lead it supposed to be a summary of material in the body, it appears that the article has been primarily about global warming, but someone decided to add some aspects of climate change to the lead, without adding them to the body. In addition, the article barely mentions issues such as tornado frequency and intensity or hurricane frequency and intensity, both of which are prominent aspect of climate change but understandably not emphasized in an article referring to overall warming. In other words, if the consensus were to change the title, it would require a substantial rewrite, as this article is primarily about global warming, and doesn't have adequate coverage of climate change issues. Addendum: It didn't sink in until after I posted that my point is largely an expansion of the point made by User:Prokaryotes--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC) (A) If Stephan will pardon me picking on him, this article has been about the current climate change, not just a slice of the issue, for a long time. In this 2008 thread, it was proposed to change the title to "Global climate change". No one disputed that this article covers that entire subject. Rather, they opposed on the basis of "global climate change" being not a well used common name. In particular, Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) defended using "global warming" to describe the entire subject, saying "While GW concentrates on just one effect, it is the name under which the current climate change is best known."(underline added) (B) I agree there are various mis-matches between the lead and body, and a lot of things could be said about the current climate change this article has not included. It's a huge subject after all. These are editing problems and not really evidence of a consensus one way or the other. (C) Assume we form a new (or reconfirm an old) consensus to only cover the warming-related aspect of the current climate change here. I'm having trouble defining a line of demarcation for what goes in and what does not. Being a systemic problem of many interconnecting components, in my view the issue isn't really amenable to bifurcation. But assuming your view that we should only talk about warming-related stuff here, and put the rest of the current climate change issues in Climate change, where would draw the line? (See also Dr. Gavin's Ted Talkwww.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change. "You can't understand climate change in pieces, says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. It's the whole, or it's nothing.")NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC) PS Although I'm abundantly trying to rebut, I thank everyone for their comments. In light of Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) and Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) comments above, and maybe others, and definitely others from other threads in past 12 months, should we break out a section just to talk about scope, regardless of title, lead-body matching, and other editing issues? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC) The scope thus should be to best outline current climate change. As i mentioned above, we could add links to this page redirected from "Current climate change" and "Global climate change" and maybe then we decide to rename the title to "Current climate change". The lead can always be used to clarify the different terms, one way or another. prokaryotes (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Picking either synonym ("climate change" and its variants versus "global warming" and its variants) does not solve the problem I think I see. If I'm correct, it just shifts the cargo from one leaky boat to another. Only putting both common names in the title solves the alleged problem. (With appropriate redirs that won't create any navigation problems, either.) Since my cursory remarks haven't gotten traction I'll elaborate on the alleged problem later this week, but I'll need some research and writing time.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Is there any dispute here besides what NAEG is generating? Was there any dispute more than ten minutes before he tagged the article? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC) (A) JJ, please change "generating" to the Assuming-of-good-faith and more civil "alleging". (B) Answering your question, yes. We have established that some editors think this article is about something they conceive as the global warming component of the current climate change rather than being the top main article about the entire subject current climate change. At least, that's how I read this comment from Sphilbrick (talk · contribs), and in a not so ancient thread, DHeyward (talk · contribs) was making a similar argument (Apologies to both of you if I misunderstood your statements). Obviously before we can agree on a lead outline we need to reconfirm the scope of the article. (C) JJ, please remember to de-personalize your earlier remark. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC) I'm puzzled by the intense interest in renaming this article. I get that there is a general desire to name article correctly, but this doesn't come down to a correct versus incorrect, not even in a narrow technical sense. Most casual observes, which includes most of our readership, and I daresay a large proportion of our expert readership, use the terms almost interchangeably. In fact, it is my belief that some of the push for one term or another is politically motivated, and ought to be resisted. That further puzzles me, as I have seem no evidence that NAEG has pushed for politically motivated changes, as opposed to working in the best interest of getting the content right. When an article has reached Featured Status, and has been in existence for a long time, I think one needs quite strong reasons for making a change. I haven't heard any compelling reasons that would convince me that readers are misled by the current title. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Agree. As far as I can tell, it's still perfectly common to talk about "global warming", and pars pro toto take the term to refer to the current episode of climate change, not just the increase in average surface temperature. If the context is clear, it's similarly common to talk about "climate change" and use that to refer to the current episode only. But note the condition. For global warming, the presumption is that it is the current episode (unless otherwise specified). For "climate change", that presumption is not there (or not as strong). For me, this is enough to consider the current title adequate, and certainly better than any parenthesised construct. Yes, some people play up the names against each other, effectively playing an etymological fallacy for political reasons. But that's not a good reason to abandon a perfectly (or even imperfectly) good name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC) @Sphilbrick, I am confused. I in your earlier remark, were you saying this article should cover the entire scope of the current climate change, or just a subpart(s) related to increasing temperature? I think this article should cover the whole gamut of current climate change, and I understand remarks my several others to generally be in agreement. But I think I heard you say that it should only cover a smaller subset, the "global warming" subset. Is that right and if so where does the rest of the material about the current climate change go, in your opinion? (Arguments about lead outline/name changing are all premature until we clear up the issue of scope.)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC) We have an article called Climate change It covers a number of topics such as thermohaline circulation, and orbital variations which are either not covered, or covered much less in Global Warming. I accept Schultz's observation that global warming is a pars pro toto term, covering more than the narrow issue of temperature, so I am not troubled by the fact that the current article goes beyond narrow coverage of the term, but if the title were to be Climate Change or some variation, then I would expect far more coverage of many issues. Some of those things are covered elsewhere, so moving that coverage here would be enormous work and disruptive. I don't see the value in changing an acceptable, albeit imperfect title to one that is also imperfect and would require enormous work. if all that material were already in the article, I think the evidence would weigh more heavily in favor of a title change, but it isn't, so I think the current title is an acceptable description of the contents. Ultimately though, my main point is that we are spending time on a trivial issue, when there are articles to write.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC) NAEG: A) I think I'm fine with "generating". To "allege" a dispute at its first mention is rather self-referential, and carries the common connotation of "without definite proof". I would think "generating" is more gentle in regard of your intentions. It certainly does not arise to any assumption of bad faith, as you are alleging. B) "Some editors"? Ah, what editors? You cite Sphilbrick's comment, but that isn't disputing the adequacy of the current title. You mention DHeyward, but I don't see that he has commented here in a long while. So which editors currently dispute the adequacy of the current title? C) De-personalize what remark? That you are the one, ah, alleging a here-to-fore non-existent dispute? I believe your involvement is adequately documented in the edit history. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) For the record, my comment was that this article was so screwed up, it became "Climate Change" while the "Climate Change" article became global warming. That hasn't changed. This article should be about the increase in global mean surface temperature. That's the definition of global warming. Climate change is broader than surface temperature. As long as the OWNERS of the article insist on ignoring the scientific litereature (i.e. Hansen's very distinct use of the terms), this is just more deck chair shuffling. I in no way support an article title change and infact, would prefer that the article on Global Warming be written to reflect Global Warming and the article on Climate Change focus on Climate Change. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Having just skimmed this article, it seems pretty focussed on global warming. Of course it also has to include enough info about the broader topic of climate change to show the context. If there are any specific points you'd like changed or moved, please set out detailed proposals in a new section on this talk page. . dave souza, talk 07:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC) For starters, the opening sentence is dead wrong from scientific literature. That's the definition of Climate Change. GW is the rise of Global Mean Surface Temperature, not the "climate system." An encyclopedia should enforce proper lexicology. As long as this article cannot distinguish between climate change and global warming, it's useless and changing the title to make it less distinct doesn't help. --DHeyward (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Naming of global warming While climate change has long covered variation over many centuries, Spencer R. Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming consistently uses this term to refer to the current changes: he specifically notes that Wallace Broecker wrote in 1975 Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?", taking the lead in warning in an influential Science magazine article that the world might be poised on the brink of a serious rise of temperature. "Complacency may not be warranted," he said. "We may be in for a climatic surprise."[7] So, a clear distinction. What's the problem? . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC) I appreciate the comment, but confess to thick headedness. Can you please explicitly say the X and Y about which there was a "clear distinction", and then explain how that relates to the question I'm asking about the scope of this article? Are we trying to have main top article about the current climate change across the board, or just a subpart that is explicitly warming related, leaving the remainder of current climate change to go somewhere else? Personally I think it is the former, because I think the terms at least in the common language are now synonymous. I think that's what you think also, so I am confused about the "clear distinction". Help please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC) This article is about current climate change (Global warming is the name given to current climate change), if something is missing (as you mentioned about floods), add it. If it is a lot of content link to the main page. prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC) For example, "It was in a newspaper account of Revelle’s scientific work that the phrase "global warming" was published for the first time and "climate change" for almost the first time, although neither phrase would become common until the late 1970s." [8] Phrases first published ("a large scale global warming, with radical climate changes may result" in The Hammond Times (Indiana), Nov. 6, 1957, from the Global Warming Newspaper Archive. Only one earlier relevant use of "climate change" is found there, from 1952. The archive shows only scattered uses of "global warming" (and little more for "climate change") into the 1970s, with a significant rise for "global warming" after 1975. The publication that brought the phrase into widespread use was probably Broecker (1975) (titled, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"), although a Sept. 1976 statement by M.I. Budyko that "a global warming up has started," as quoted by the Soviet news agency TASS, was more widely reported.[9] . . dave souza, talk 07:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision of section on social impacts

As discussed on previous threads [10], I've written a draft revision of the section of the article that deals with the social effects of climate change]:

"The effects of climate change on human systems have been detected on agriculture and indigenous peoples in the Arctic (Cramer et al: Executive summary, pp3-4). The future social impacts of climate change will be uneven (Volume-wide FAQs: FAQ 7 and 8, pp2-3). Many risks are expected to increase with higher magnitudes of global warming (Oppenheimer et al: pp39-46). All regions are at risk of experiencing negative impacts (Field et al: pp27-30). Low-latitude, less developed areas face the greatest risk (Oppenheimer et al: pp42-43). Examples of impacts include:

- Food: Crop production will probably be negatively affected in low latitude countries, while effects at northern latitudes may be positive or negative (Porter et al: p3). Global warming of around 4.6 °C relative to pre-industrial levels (see note) could pose a significant risk to global and regional food security (Summary for Policymakers: p18).

- Health: Generally impacts will be more negative than positive (Smith et al: p37: FAQ 11.2). Impacts include: the effects of extreme weather, leading to injury and loss of life (Smith et al: pp10-13); and indirect effects, such as undernutrition brought on by crop failures (Smith et al: pp22-24)."

Note: I've converted the reference temperature period in the source from the late-20th century to pre-industrial times (see: SPM: p14: Assessment Box SPM-1).

References: All taken from the IPCC 5th Assessment Working Group II report: Cramer et al (Chapter 18); Field et al (Technical Summary); Oppenheimer et al (Ch 19); Porter et al (Ch 7); Smith et al (Ch 11); Summary for Policymakers; Volume-wide FAQs.

Enescot (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you want to include the notes about the authors and page numbers directly into the article, but these should be in the references - nobody wants to read that (other than nerds, but that is to technical). Crucial findings should be backed up by more than one study. Though maybe mention the IPCC directly, especially refer to the impact study report, maybe even include the website to it https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. Related video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMIFBJYpSgM prokaryotes (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)