Talk:Global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the [show] for references at the bottom of the FAQ.
Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?
A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists.[1][2]
Q2: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of "skeptical" scientists?
A2: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Roughly 97% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.[2] This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably-compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change.

Some lists of "skeptical scientists" have been widely shared with the intention of undermining the public's confidence in the scientific conclusions. Notable among them are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999–2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws:[3]

  • Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
  • Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell") and companies.
  • Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes[4] or the interactions between quarks and gluons.
  • Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and includes people who say they aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One of those on the list, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored.[5] Similarly, Steve Rayner of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous".[6] The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list.
Wikipedia itself maintains a list of notable scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming but it helps to keep its minority viewpoint in mind when reading it.
Q3: Did global warming end in 1998?
A3: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998.[7]

More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out;[8] thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend.

In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.[9] This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.[10] On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.[11]
Q4: How can we say global warming is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place?
A4: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time - that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."[12]
Q5: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?
A5: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics,[13][14][15] including academically-trained ones,[16][17] they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives:
  • Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions.[18] This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
  • Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.[19]
  • Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.[20]
  • If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or more accurately, less basic).[21]
Q6: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?
A6: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum.
Q7: Why haven't the graphs been updated?
A7: Two reasons:
  • There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like Global Warming Map, are static meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
  • However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get," meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.[22] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.
Q8: Isn't global warming "just a theory"?
A8: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess but a scientific theory, roughly-speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the latest IPCC report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense) but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess.
Q9: Does methane cause more warming than CO2?
A9: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years). So methane tracks current emissions, while CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles.
Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement?
A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."[23] Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD.

While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice shelf, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference:

  • A map of the Eastern Settlement [1]
  • A satellite image of that area today [2]
  • A map of the Western Settlement [3]
  • A satellite image of that area today [4]
  • A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located [5]
Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?
A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties.
Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years?
A12: Measurements show that it has not.[24] Claims that global sea ice has stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice.
Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming?
A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time, and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming.[25] The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press such as a short nine paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975.[26] (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)[27] The author of that article has repudiated the idea that should be used to deny global warming.[28]
Q14: Doesn't water vapor cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?
A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms any excess water vapor is removed by rainfall while any deficit of water vapor is replenished by evaporation from Earth's surface. Thus water vapor cannot act as a driver of climate change.

Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will allow the atmosphere to hold more vapor. This leads to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, while water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends.

Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)?
A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming.
  • A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.[29] Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."[30]
  • There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change.[31][32] This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.[33][34]
  • Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates.[35] Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit - it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article.
Q16: Do scientists support global warming just to get more money?
A16: No,
  • Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly direct expenses.
  • Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, but only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
  • It could also be argued that more money lies in examining the policy debate on global warming.[36][37]
Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity?
A17: It does but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see latest IPCC report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction.
Q18: Should we include the view that global warming will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe?
A18: This page is about the science of global warming. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying.
Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.3 degrees Celsius) important?
A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.3 degrees Celsius) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world.
  • Earth climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e., the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the absolute temperature, but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate, and the related effects to human societies. The IPCC AR4 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.[38]
Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is Scibaby?
A20: Scibaby is a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,077 confirmed sock puppets, another 224 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination, turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects, apparently with the aim of wasting time and/or appearing as the innocent victim of Wikipedia's alleged AGW cabal. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them.
Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?
A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:INFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.
Q22: Why does the article define "global warming" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before?
A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "global warming" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. See for example Meriam-Webster, Encarta, OED. Similarly, "global warming" is used nearly exclusively to refer to the current episode in the academic literature.[6]. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. Climate change deals with the more general concept.
Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that global warming is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays?
A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:[39]
  • Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
  • The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
  • Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
  1. Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation,
  2. These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN),
  3. The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and
  4. Cloud cover on Earth must be declining.
Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: " [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."[40]
  1. ^ Cook, J.; et al. (13 April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11 (4): 6. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
  2. ^ a b Doran, Peter; Zimmerman, Maggie (20 January 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
  3. ^ Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". New York Times.
  4. ^ Gray, Vincent R. (November 1986). "Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal". Fuel. 65 (11): 1618–1619. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(86)90343-1.
  5. ^ Today: George December 3. 2007
  6. ^ Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
  7. ^ Climate Central (January 18, 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
  8. ^ World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs
  9. ^ BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
  10. ^ RealClimate: Daily Mangle
  11. ^ BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
  12. ^ World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs
  13. ^ Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  14. ^ Watson, Paul Joseph (9 March 2007). [ "Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax"] Check |url= value (help). Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  15. ^ Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  16. ^ Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  17. ^ Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". The Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  18. ^ Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  19. ^ "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 2007-09-10.
  20. ^ Battle, M.; Bender, M. L.; Tans, P. P.; White, J. W. C.; Ellis, J. T.; Conway, T.; Francey, R. J. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.
  21. ^ The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.
  22. ^ "Met Office:Climate averages". BBC. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
  23. ^ The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.
  24. ^ "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.[dead link]
  25. ^ Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
  26. ^ Gwynne, Peter (April 28, 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.
  27. ^ Verger, Rob (May 23, 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.
  28. ^ Gwynne, Peter (May 21, 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong".
  29. ^ Ravilious, Kate (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
  30. ^ Ravilious, Kate (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
  31. ^ Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
  32. ^ Goudarzi, Sara (2006-05-04). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Retrieved 2007-05-09.
  33. ^ Philip, Marcus S. (2004-04-22). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
  34. ^ Yang, Sarah (2004-04-21). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
  35. ^ Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.
  36. ^ Juliet Eilperin (5 February 2007). "AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  37. ^ "Bribes offered to scientists". The Sydney Morning Herald. 3 February 2007. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
  38. ^ "The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report". 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
  39. ^ What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
  40. ^ Brumfiel, Geoff (August 23, 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.
Featured articleGlobal warming is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.
In the news Article milestones
February 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 4, 2007Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 5, 2004.
Current status: Featured article

Dispute about what to do about global warming and who should do it - should it be included in the "Public opinion and disputes" section?[edit]

I realise that Climate change mitigation and Politics of global warming would be the main articles for it but should the dispute about what to do about global warming and who should do it be mentioned briefly here, perhaps in the "Public opinion and disputes" section?

For example should ............... and consequences of global warming. be changed to ................,consequences of global warming, what should be done about it, by whom and how quickly.

Perhaps the paragraph starting "By 2010 ....." could be shortened and something like the following added at the end of the section:

Disputes about what should be done about global warming include how quickly to phase out fossil fuels and whether or not to use climate engineering. Differences of opinion about who should take what actions are sometimes due to different ideas on the economics of global warming. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree if you can find a reliable source. The paragraph starting with By 2010 is a bit outdated, but unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be more global polling on that scale since (20 minutes google search). The sentence that a majority of US citizens think global warming is natural is not true anymore ( Please go ahead! Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Basically the industry uses environmentalists to put sanctions on competitors or the industry as a whole, and have scientists both private and public sector that ensure the envirment in which sustains their industries. So....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:30A2:28C0:3403:B1F0:1966:ED1 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: I saw you added it, without providing a source. I know the sentence didn't have a source before. Could you please help find a source for this statement? Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
In a reply to the anonymous contributor: I don't understand your point. If you want to make concrete suggestions for improvement, please be clear what you want to have changed and provide reliable sources. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Tentative citation model[edit]

It is proposed to establish the citation model for this article, with a tentative specification (subject to further determination and modifications) in the following box. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

First draft[edit]

(Moving on to the next draft)
Citation model (tentative, and in flux)
  • a: Every source cited in this article to have exactly one full citation with complete bibliographic details.
  • b: Full citations to be collected in the "Sources" section (not in the text, not in <ref> tags).
  • c: Full citations to be templated.
  • d: CS1 formatting style preferred: use {{cite xxx}} templates, or {{citation}} with |mode=cs1.
  • d': {Cite} templates to include |ref=harv to enable linking from short-cites.
  • e: Special arrangements (TBD) to be made for citing IPCC reports.
  • f: In-line citation of content to be done with short-cites (such as done with {{Harv}} templates or similar).
  • g: All notes, including {{Reflist}}, to be in the "Notes" section.
  • h: In-line citations to show location (e.g., page or section number) of material within a source.
  • i: Use of {{rp}} template rejected.
  • j: Initialization, or not, of author's personal names per source.
  • k: Use of "named-refs" to "re-use" full citations not allowed.
  • k': Use of "named-refs" to "re-use" short-cites: TBD.
  • l: Incomplete citations moved to Talk until verified? Default template to be made.
  • m: Sort sources by author. If not available use publisher's name (NASA/The New York Times).

(tentative, and in flux)

Last changed: Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for giving the discussion structure!

  • Yes to every source have one full citation.
  • Yes to sources section. Sources section to be subdivided into reports(/books if we have any) and online sources? The reports section can either be subdivided again in report and report chapters OR have a list of cited chapters (their full citation) 'hanging' from the full citation of the report.
  • Yes. I think IPCC and NCA reports are probably very similar in how they should be cited.
  • Yes, all notes in notes section
  • I propose initialization as full names are not always available.
  • Incomplete citation: just tag them in the text if that's possible? That will probably lead to faster resolution. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have augmented the model, and added labels for convenient reference. A particular addition: are "named-refs" to be allowed? Use with a full citation is always (in my experience) an attempt to "re-use" it where a short-cite is preferable, and use with short-cites is over-zealousness in suppressing supposed "duplicate citations". (More high-level work needed.)
I don't see any reason to subdivide sources.
Citation of the IPCC Assessm (tentative, and in flux)ent Reports (AR) is (as you have noticed) hierarchial. Each AR includes a report from each of the three Working Groups (WG). Each WG report has multiple Chapters that are separately authored and (in the printed form) paginated. The Chapters are the basic citable source. Each Chapter's full citation is cited as "In" the WG report, with a short-cite to the WG report. Similarly, each WG reported is cited as "In" the AR, with short-cite to the appropriate AR. (Other IPCC reports are similar.) Multiple "references" (citations) to the three WG reports, and in turn to the AR, are thereby done without duplicating the full citation.
I am okay with initializing the names of scientific authors generally (because that is very common in the scientific literature, and personal names are not always readily found), but in the non-scientific literature the full names of the authors are generally more recognizable. (E.g.: not C. Mooney or S. Weart, or even M. Mann and J. Hansen.) I could see not insisting on consistency in this regard (being the hobgoblin of small minds?), perhaps sticking with names as seen in each source.
I am quite disenchanted with the notion of "if you don't have the full citation just stick it in anyway and someone else will fix it" because, first, they rarely get fixed. And second, if someone can't be troubled to get a proper citation, or simply can't do so (for whatever reason), then it is most likely that any assessment of suitability is likewise inadequate. If someone wants to suggest something for inclusion, the Talk is the proper venue. If they want to actually include something in one of our premier articles then any indication of not doing the necessary work should be a basis for non-inclusion. It's not that we care about an imperfect citation per se, but that it's a "tailight" issue. (Old joke: "the tail light be dammed, my wife was in the trailer.") ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(k) I would say yes to named-refs for short-cites (no for full citation). I think it is beneficial for an article to be succinct when possible. Also, when editing, it's easier to copy a short-cite, than to introduce a new one. We shouldn't make life to difficult for ourselves.
(j) Okay with sticking with names as seen in each source
(l) About improper citations: you've convinced me. My work in the last weeks has proven your point to be often true. I do think this policy should be executed with caution, as this might be scary to newer editors. I'd very much like to engage more (tentative, and in flux)editors in this topic, and hope we can have a friendly environment for people to learn. So when we do this, maybe have some nice message ready for talk pages encouraging them to improve.
(h)/(i) Agree
I can see multiple reasons to subdivide sources. 1) To avoid having a wall of text. When we move all full citations to the sources section, it will be huge. This will look intimidating. Subsection titles will make it more pleasing to the eye. 2) For general sense of reliability: I think readers would want to know on what type of sources this article is based. When we subdivide between reports, scientific articles and online sources, readers get a feel for the types of sources used in one glance. 3) Updatability: this point is quite subjective, but for me, subdividing might help with keeping a better overview for what type of sources need updating.
Additionally, do we want to sort the sources section/(subsections) on year or on last name? I'm tempted to go for year as this works well when you want to check if sources might need updating and some of our sources have last names, while others have editors+organization names. [from Femkemilene 08:11, 17 April 2019]
j: Yes. The more I think about doing the names per the source (instead of coercing them to a WP consistency) the more I like it.
k: I agree that we shouldn't make WP more difficult than necessary. That is exactly why I am opposed to any named-refs. Short-cites are generally easier to add (don't require checking to see if a "duplicate" already exists), and won't break if someone deletes a section somewhere else. What very little gain there might be in succinctness is lost in increased difficulty of maintenance.
l: I agree that idea is sufficiciently novel to require some advance preparation. E.g., we could specify an arrangement where content not adquately cited is moved to the talk page with a standard (i.e., templated) message explaining the problem and suggesting how to proceed. If the deficiencues are made up then it can go back. However, it might be better to try this out as pilot project before incorporating it into the citation model.
As for subdiving sources: I don't think "wall of text" is a valid objection here. Sources are available for examination, but the Sources section is not intended as narrative that we're trying to get people to read. There is something to be said for separating technical and scientific reports from sources intended for a general audience, though that distinction is often vague and even arbitrary. Note that though journals tend to be technical, and "news" and "web" sources not, segregating "cite journal" and "cite news" citations is not reliably useful. As to tracking what may need updating: I don't see how that is aided by having subdivisions. Any scientific report could "need updating" if new results are reported (which may have little to no correlation with age), and I don't see that any "types of sources" that need more overview than any others.
At Hock (tentative, and in flux)ey stick controversy we put the sources into chronological order because the nature of the controversy was that it evolved over time, and the sources need a chronological context. I don't know if that would be entirely useful here. Are we documenting the current understanding of global warming, or the evolution of that understanding? While I think we should provide some of the historical development, I also think the article is (should be) mainly on the current understanding of the topic. At any rate, collating sources by author (whether personal or organizational) is generally more useful than by year. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you make valid points on all counts, so I've incorporated most of your suggestions in the tentative template. I'm okay with their being no subdivision as well. One more thing: do we have to have absolute consistency with named refs? I can imagine if named-refs are obligatory, it's going to be a pain to maintain, but if you're just allowed to copy your previous ref, life for me at least would be easier. I find that short-cites are not easy in VE, and that is my preferred way of editing wikipedia. Also, named refs don't break in VE as far as I'm aware when sections are deleted. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
With all the years I have spent working out some of these issues, I should hope my ideas have some validity!
I point out that splitting the Sources into "general" and "technical" might be good. Rather than resolving that now, perhaps we should simply allow it as a possibility. (By the way, I am substituting your signature/timestamp in the box, as you are the last one to edit it.)
I am a little pained (ouch!) that you would even contemplate obligatory named-refs. (No!!!!!) I think we are agreed they should be disallowed for notes with full citations, and the question is whether they should be allowed for notes with short-cites. I am disinclined to allow them at all, it being easier to maintain, and less likely to confuse someone looking to see "how it is done", to have a total ban than a partial ban. But then I forgot that VE makes short-cites hard. (And it makes {sfn} easy, which uses named-refs. Sigh.) Well, that is a long-term issue that needs to be worked.
I think we should recognize that bringing the article into accord with the citation model is going to be an extended process, likely done in stages. Also, while it may be unhandy at times to allow named-refs for short-cites, it doesn't seriously break anything, and could be tolerated. I'll ponder on this tonight. At any rate, I think we should not expect to fix everything in the first pass. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking (again!) that I could start splitting named-refs into individual short-cites (there's only sixty or so!), but two problems. First: someone comes along with Citation_bot and merges all the "duplicate citations". So we probably need to explicitly disallow that as not being "in keeping with the existing citation style" here. (And more long-term work.)
Second: the links won't work until {cite xxx} is replaced with {citation}, or augmented with |mode=cs2. As discussed above (21:10 14 April in the previous section), I don't know if that fixes the other problems with CS1. If everyone is fine with switching to CS2 ("{citation}"), then fine. Otherwise, I need to do some experimenting on what might be possible.
Is it too early to query if everyone would agree to CS2? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay to resolving splitting sources later.
Obligatory named-refs: I thought you were implying that I was implying that already before :P. My head is too sleepy for sentences like this. My preference is to tolerate named-refs for short-cites indefinitely, but my preference is weak, so please override me if you think otherwise is better.
I think choosing CS1 or CS2 with short-cite/full citation system is equally annoying with visual editor. CS1 makes you add |mode=cs2, while CS2 makes you change the cite web/cite book into citation using the source editor. So I don't mind eitherway. Maybe we can (again?) ask the technicians to open up a smoother way for the short-cite/full citation system. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
(I hope the there is only sixty or so was sarcastic. If not, I admire your spirit. That seems daunting to me!). Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Putting full citations into a named-ref is definitely bad practice, and should be rejected. I would like to reject named-refs totally (allowing it in some places, not in others, is confusing), but VE is a confounding factor. I am still chewing on this, but it may have to be left unresolved for now. VE is definitely an impediment, but getting that fixed is going to be a lengthy effort.
If (big "if") everyone (nearly?) was agreed to using CS2 the wiki-editor's search and replace function could change all instances of {cite xxx} to {citation}. And I think it would work, but I don't know what little problems might crop up. As to using citation with |mode=cs1: that might suppress the very options for which citation is preferred. It looks like I need to do a bunch of experiments.
I wish we could get far enough on the model to start moving full citations out of the text. But that requires the linking ability, which requires either CS2, or the adjustments which I have not yet figured out. With an allusion to "maybe the horse will sing", I am wondering if we should ask if everyone would be fine with CS2.
I counted 61, but could have been off a little bit. And no great challenge. It's like hammering nails: you keep hammering, and eventually you're done. The hard part is trying to figure out where they should be hammered. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── We're putting all full citation in a separate section. Hence, even to new editors to this article, making full citation named-refs will not be a mistake easily done. As you say, leaving it unresolved for now is not that bad, because we've got bigger fish to fry.

Do any of the following contributors (selected by having posted on talk recently & not on wiki-break) have any objections to the use of CS2? User:Chidgk1, User:zazpot, User:William M. Connolley, User:dave souza? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but hold off a bit. I think I have worked out a rationale why we should go with the {cite xxx} family of templates: that accommodates a future {cite ipcc} template easier and better than trying to modify {citaton} for the same functionality, and is more in accord with the {cite} philosophy of specialized templates. This implies CS1 display style, as that is the default for {cite}. (The {citation} template may be used, but should include |mode=cs1 for display consistency.) The |ref=harv parameter will need to be included to enable linking from the short-cites (pending a future conversion of the {cite} templates to default to that behavior). This also approach minimizes changes to current practice. Unless some problem or objection is found I now definitely favor using {cite} templates. Which does not require CS1 style, but the main reason for favoring CS2 style was based on the use of {citation}. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for being a bit too enthusiastic here. Another question: is there a way to easily figure out full citations are still being used (i.e. linked to from a short-cite) in the article? I assume it is desirable to check whether full citations without a short-cite linked to it are actually still used for the material of the article. As sources are sometimes used to determine structure and scope of an article, some full citations are useful even when not linked of course. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Quite okay, no harm done. As to sources not explicitly cited: good question. I don't believe we have any handy tools for that. After contemplating this for a good hour or so, I will say that the answer to your question is: no, not easily. Perhaps some day someone will create a script for this.
In the hope I am not getting too far ahead of possible discussion I am going update "the box" to indicate where we seem to be going with this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Femke Nijsse, Do any of the following contributors ... have any objections to the use of CS2? ... zazpot I do not object. Thank you for asking :-) Zazpot (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Something else that came to mind: while I think acronyms (such as "IPCC") should be used in the full citations, should they be sorted (collated) by the acronym, or the spelled out name? (I'll try to check with my style guides tonight.) Also, I think every article from a newspaper should be listed in chronological order (regardless of authorship) under the entry for the newspaper. (As seen at 2014 Oso mudslide#References.)

Earlier you said the VE did not break named-refs if the master named-ref gets taken out. I wonder, especially as most of the named refs currently in the article are typically clustered in a single section. And while it would not be hard to properly manage this when within the scope of an edit, I am doubtful that if VE deleted a master named-ref in one section it would promote a dependent named-ref in a section outside the scope the edit. So let's test this. I have added the master named-ref "Bourbaki" at the end of the Global warming#Terminology section. Go there, and use VE to edit that section and remove "Bourbaki". Save, then go to Global warming#Climate engineering and see if the dependent (slave) named-ref there still works. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I did as you said, and it seems to be working fine :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
So just to be certain: in this edit, using VE, you hit the [edit] tab on the "Terminology" section and removed the Bourbaki named-ref. And finding the dependent named-ref in the other section and transferring the {cite} there was done by VE. Correct? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Correct. I feel that there is no or very little difference in the VE between editing a section or the whole article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Which can lead to other problems, but not our concern here. Okay, thanks for the verification. So what do you think about collating by acronym versus spelled out? (I am still trying to get to my style guides.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't have strong opinion on it, but to me collating by acronym is a bit more logical, because a lot of the institutions are better known by acronym than by full name. If the style guide disagrees with me, of course follow them. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Small nit: If "IPCC" were an acronym it would be pronounced "ipses". I think it is pronounced "i pee see see", so it is an abbreviation. But I never heard it pronounced - maybe I am wrong? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

So you and I have worked out items a through k (but not k') into a tentative form. What do think of putting those forward as the second draft, hatting this phase of the discussion, and then inviting a broader discussion of the second draft? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: you are right. It is pronounced i pee see see.
@Johnson, sounds good! Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and I stand corrected: acronyms are (essentially) abbreviations accepted (and pronounced) as words, and my question is really whether abbreviations should be collated as if they were spelled out. Perhaps not (and I still haven't got to my style books). Nor can I think of any cases, so I think we ignore that until there is a need to deal with it.
While you two are peeing away I'll wrap up this phase of the discussion as "First draft", and see to ginning up the second draft. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Second draft[edit]

We have worked up the following draft of a Citation Model, and are inviting comments and discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft Citation Model, for discussion
  • a: Every source cited in this article to have exactly one full citation with complete bibliographic details.
  • a': "Full bibiliographic details" requires attribution of authorship, data, and title.
  • b: Full citations to be collected in the "Sources" section (not in the text, not in <ref> tags).
  • c: Full citations to be templated.
  • d: CS1 formatting style preferred: use {{cite xxx}} templates, or {{citation}} with |mode=cs1.
  • d': {Cite} templates to include |ref=harv (or similar) to enable linking from short-cites.
  • e: Special arrangements (TBD) to be made for citing IPCC reports.
  • f: In-line citation of content to be done with short-cites (such as done with {{Harv}} templates or similar).
  • g: All notes, including {{Reflist}}, to be in the "Notes" section.
  • h: In-line citations to show location (e.g., page or section number) of material within a source.
  • i: Use of {{rp}} template rejected.
  • j: Initialization, or not, of authors' personal names per source.
  • k: Use of "named-refs" to "re-use" full citations not allowed.
  • l: Dates in DMY format
  • m: Multiple authors: only the first five need be listed. If more than four add "|display-authors=4".
  • n: For human authors and editors, use |last= and |first= or equivalent separate name parameters, not |author= or |editor=. For institutional authors, use |last= only.
  •  ??

Last changed: – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


1) What do you think of the current way I'm citing the IPCC reports in the sources section? That should do, right?

2) How long do we want to wait for input? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I want ping a number of current and recent editors for comment or implied acceptance, but I have been a wee bit rather busy of late. I'll try to get to this in a few days. And take a look at your work. (That should be a pleasant change of pace for me.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you're referring to sub-listing the WG reports under each AR? An interesting idea; I'll have to think about it. In my rather sketchy notion of how some of this works out I reckon that each "IPCC AR[X] WG[1,2,3]" would naturally immediately follow each "IPCC AR[X]". So perhaps (as far as the WG reports go) the difference with what you have done is merely indentation. I'll have to think about it. But! as the chapters in each WG report are not cited as "IPCC AR[X] WG[*] Chapter #" (and presumably arranged in numerical order), but by author(s), and authors are sorted alphabetically, there is a significant inconsistency. I don't think that is going to work. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
So, we could order alphabetically under each report? I was mostly referring to the fact that readers now have to hover over the citation twice. The first one leads them to the chapter and the second one leads them to the full report. Is that okay? And if we split sources into technical and non-technical, we'll probably want to move the summary for policymakers to non-technical, which simultaneously solves a potential problem of the SPM not having the same format. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
FN: when you add to or modify the draft text, please add your signature after "Last changed".
The "IPCC AR4/IPCC AR4 SR/IPCC AR4 WG1/IPCC AR4 WG2/..." ordering is convenient for collecting the full citations of the major componenets of each AR directly following the citation of the AR. This happens naturally if we sort by the acronyms (which were arranged with this in mind).
I think what you are suggesting is to arrange the chapters in a similar way under each WG report, like a table of contents. But that would not make sense unless the chapters were sorted numerically, ignoring the authors, and that implies that the short-cites in the text would be by chapter number/title instead of author. And while that could be done (and is an intriguing prospect), that would require more CITEREF magic then I think we could get even experienced authors to do. If we just collect the chapters under each WG (collated by author) then we have a rather confusing situation of nested levels of alphabetization. As long as the IPCC chapters are cited by authors (with the "In IPCC AR4 WG1" tags) I think we should stick with just one span of alphabetization, across the entire list of sources. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
While this is not my preferred route, I completely see the sense in your arguments and don't want to spend more time than necessary on this discussion. I'll concede and do it alphabetically from now on. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you could tell me more about your preferred format?
In looking through the code I was reminded how frequently |author= and |editor= have been used in lieu of |first= and |last=. At some point we should go through and split those up properly. And I wonder if the citation model should have a reminder that individual ("person") authors should use first/last, and that "author=" and "editor=" are for "non-personal" authors, such as "IPCC WG1".
I am also wondering if we should say anything about preferred formatting of full citations. E.g., something like "preferred formatting is generally vertical, with major items on separate lines, but some related items (like an author's first and last name and author link) on the same line."
I was looking at some of the shortened urls for the IPCC reports. I think that is mainly the difference between a complete url that downloads the indicated report directly, versus a url that goes to the page where one may select which report to download. I think I favor the latter, but perhaps that should be reviewed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Naahh, not going to tell you about my vague idea preferred format. Yours probably makes more sense and I'd rather move quickly to editing content.
While it is a bit weird to put the correct use of author and editor in the citation model, people do seem to forget, so I don't object. I used to think it was a valid way of being lazy in writing down the citation.
I don't think we should write something about formatting. The more we add, the more likely people give up altoghether on following it and even if they try, they might gloss over items if there are too many. Less is more. (Which is also the mantra I try to use while editing the article).
About pdfs. I don't really care one way or another. The reason I often go for the webpage instead of the pdf is load time. Many of the IPCC reports are quite big, so leading people to the webpage might prevent people from opening huge files if they don't want to. Typing this, my reasoning seems flimsy, so please feel free to insert PDFs. I'll do this as well from now on. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Right: large, lengthy downloads. That's why (I'd forgotten!) it's better to go to the place (webpage) where the reader has the option of downloading (usually with a little more information) than to automatically download. Okay, lets stick with that as preferable, and thanks for reminding me.
Strictly speaking, the correct use of "author=" and "editor=" should not have to be specified at this level (it's a higher-level matter), nor am I suggesting that we should specify that here. But given the prevalence of incorrect usage, I think we should have a reminder of the correct usage. We might structure this as "here are the standards for this article, which might differ from other articles", and "by the way, here are some other points to remember". Alternately, we could just fix'em as they show up, but I think it would better to have a statement somewhere. Maybe having some place in the MOS we can point to would suffice.
I would like to have something in about formatting, because 1) it does make a difference in clarity, and therefore facilitates error-checking, and 2) there are editors and bots that don't respect anyone else's formatting. Something to work out later? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Attention significant editors William M. Connolley, Curly Turkey, Dave souza, Dmcq, EMsmile, Jonesey95, NewsAndEventsGuy, Ed Poor, Prokaryotes, and Stephan Schulz:

As you may have noticed, Femkemilene is doing some major work on this article. As part of that we are working out a consistent and preferred way of doing citation, per the draft shown above. If you have any objections, comments, etc. now is the time to speak up. If you are fine with where we are going with this we still need your approbation to establish consensus with this. (And to avoid future bickering.) One way or the other, please give us a shout. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I applaud the attempt to make citations more consistent, but I can't really become enthusiastic about any particular style. I always tell my students that the primary purpose of a reference is to enable the reader to find the source with minimal fuss, to include the important bibliographical data, and to to be as consistent as possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
You are correct about consistency, which is why this discussion is happening. Unfortunately, attempts to establish a consistent reference format in highly trafficked articles have sometimes resulted in unproductive controversy; this formal discussion is an attempt to prevent that controversy.
I like the proposed formatting suggestions. We still need to choose a consistent date format. I propose DMY, since it is the most internationally understood format and also the most common date format used in the article at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Let me add a point. I think it's a good idea to have a suggested style. I think it's commendable if people follow the suggestion, and laudable if incomplete or inconsistent references are improved. But neither should we require new references in any given format, nor should users be berated if they add a less-then-perfectly formatted reference. That just scares away new contributors. We have plenty of rules one can run afoul of - let's not add more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with DMY.
As for a consistent citation style: this is a requirement for being a featured article. I think global warming currently doesn't meet the requirements for featured articles, and this is one of the things we need to fix. I fully agree with you that this should never be used as some sort of stick to ward off new users. So if new users add information, we should treat them kindly. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I like the Harvard way of doing things. I think it encourages extra cites with the page number given. People do not seem to like giving a big long cite a second time just to put in a different page number. Of course somebody putting in a cite wrong is not a reason to remove a constructive edit and I think there are enough good style gnomes around the place to cope. Dmcq (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey has it hit the essence of the matter right on the head. We do need (or even merely should have) consistency of citation, and it is better to dance this out before someone comes along and nails their foot to the floor. (Or roof, but that's a different story.) As to Stephan's concern: there is quite a difference between good-faith edits by well-meaning but inexperienced editors (newbies), and citation warriors or bot drivers who insist on doing it their way on the basis of "there's no rule against it". For the latter we do need "rules", or at least standards, and particularly to establish that whatever standard gets worked out is consenual. For newbies (or least innocents) I am quite in accord with Femke: "we should treat them kindly." And that should include clear communication of any expectations and standards. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So: notice having been given and several editors having responded, I think it is a fair summarization that there are no objections to, and consensus for, where Femke Nijsse and I are going with this work. Thank you all, and feel free to comment as we proceed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Date format specification[edit]

Specifying DMY dates happens at the article level (and this article is already tagged with {use dmy dates}). Application to citation follows from MOS:DATEUNIFY: "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format". Which may be "the format used in the article body text". Personally, for citation dates I'd rather use the same format as in the source (sometimes it makes searching a little easier). But, short of a strong case for going against MOS:DATEUNIFY, I think should go with "the date format specified for the article", without re-specifying it in the citation model. Can anyone think of any reason why we might want the date format in the citations to be different from that of the article text? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I might not fully understand your question, so I hope my response makes sense. I propose we add DMY to our citation model with the note that it is already specified at the article level. I assume that if you specify the date format in a single citation, it overwrites the article settings. So, we do want to prevent people from adding this information wrongly in the citation. I cannot think of a reason to have a different date format in citations.
On a side note, once we agree on the citation model, I'd like to rewrite it so that it's easier to understand for newer editors. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
My thinking is that the model specify that publication dates should be in the same format specified for the article. Which (because some editors might not be able to figure what that is?) can be followed with by an explanatory blurb "which currently is DMY format". But even without that explication, just specifying "same format" I think would be sufficient, and reformatting done as needed.
For sure the results here should be cast into a suitable form, perhaps rearranged. But keep some kind of indexing so specific points can be referred to explicitly. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Having just waded through the first two batches of citations as ugly as I have ever seen (this article was once FA???)(more on this under "Current work") I am convinced that PROPER FORMATING MUST BE MANDATED. There is just too much sloppyiness and outright incorrect usage, too much cutting of corners, which is thoroughly obfuscated by the haphazard tossing together of what ever parameters an editor thinks of. However, the details don't have to be in the model; they can be specified in a user tutorial that includes sample templates. But we do need to mandate a proper format. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of et al.[edit]

Just added a source with about 50 authors, which I was a bit too lazy to add. Do we want to establish a default for the use of et al? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But I'll have do a quick review before I can say anything sensible. :-o ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think we need not, and probably even should not, be that obsessive. So the question is: how many authors should we list, that is sufficient to adequately identify an article/chapter by author (and year)? At least four, as that is how many Harv will handle to distinguish sources. (If more are needed, special steps are taken.) That's the question: how many authors should we cite? But also: is it necessarily the same in all cases?
Another question is whether it is useful to specify authors that are not displayed. Perhaps for generating COinS data, but otherwise I don't know.
Which takes us to how to generate the "et al." required when a list of authors is truncated. I think (now) that explicitly adding "et al." in any author parameter is wrong; we should use |display-authors=. (I must ask for forgiveness: when I devised the IPCC citations I didn't know about 'display-authors'. That will need revision.) 'Display-authors' takes either "etal", or a number. In the first case, all authors are listed, with "et al." appended. That would be a nicely flexible arrangement, except I don't know how it handles just two or three authors. (Needs to be tested.) Otherwise we just set an arbitrary number – 4? –, and any case where that is not appropriate gets adjusted. I am slightly in favor of "etal" (depending on how it handles two and three authors, and the answer to the previous question). But a number would probably work, and either way it probably would not be much trouble to switch if a problem was discovered in the future.
So what do you think? [Besides that the other editors should be really impressed that we are taking such care to get all these details "right", or least "right enough". :-) ] ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

IPCC Chapter links[edit]

@Femkemilene, Jonesey95, and Izno and anyone else: Up to now IPCC AR chapters that list authors have been linked using the Harv default of the first four authors and year, while other IPCC elements use the acronym form (e.g.: "IPCC AR5 WG1 TS" for that Technical Summary, etc.). In working with these 1) I have found chapters that are not distinguished in the first five authors, 2) am feeling that chapter numbers are more significant to readers than the authors' names, and that 3) it would be clearer and more consistent to use acronyms (such as "Ch1") instead authors. An added benefit is that non-conforming links are plainly seen as such, thus self-identifying as needing attention. Any objections to doing this? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It might be that my mind is used to much to scientific notation in citations, but I don't find it that nice to have three 'abbreviations' as the short-cite name and prefer the full names of the authors. We could still use this methods of citation for the non-chapters (Summary for policymakers, technical summary). I assume the non-uniqueness is only found for these sources? If you would like to make these non-chapter sections (SPM/TS) consistent as well, we could opt for notation with 2013a/2013b, which is how it is done in scientific sources. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
A preliminary comment: I don't see the SPM and TS as "non-chapters", but "unnumbered chapters", with "numbered chapters" being a subset of chapters. (Though I allow that the IPCC seems more aligned with your view.) Initially I was using (e.g.) "IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM" and "IPCC AR5 WG1 TS", but as those are bit too cryptic for most readers and practically call out for "Technical Summary" (etc.) I started spelling them out as "IPCC AR5 Technical Summary". Note that this isn't just descriptive; as part of the CITEREF it has to correspond exactly to what is used with the "ref". (I.e., "IPCC AR5 Technical summary" would fail, because of the "s".) As these are short titles used the same way across all of the AR reports I think they are workable. [More explanation later.]
As to using the author's names for the numbered ("authored"?) chapters: yes, that would be standard, and what I went with years back. But experience has raised several difficulties. First is the potential non-uniqueness of three (and even four) author names for a given year. Yes, that can be handled with year suffixes. But! First, that is more appropriate for a fixed (such as printed) result, where someone can scan the whole for conflicts and adjust as necessary. We have a more dynamic situation, where a duplicate short-cite is added subsequently, and then we have an ambiguous situation: is the subsequent editor expected to properly suffix all of the original cites? My experience here says: that's too much to expect. Alternately, we could say only the subsequent cites get the suffix, so we have "Jones, Smith, and Brown, 2014", and "Jones, Smith, and Brown, 2014a". Even if the subsequent editor checks that there is a conflict (not to be counted on!), the result carries a whiff of error.
Second: I am trying to develop canonical forms that can be used across multiple articles. I'd prefer not having to explain "by the way, in some articles this source can be cited this way, but in other articles, depending on what other sources are used, it should be cited this way."
What tilted me to using the "IPCC AR5 Ch1" form for numbered chapters (instead of authors) is the realization of just how much trouble editors have with the authors. (I have seen confusion regarding 'particles', compound names, and non-English characters. And in some cases the impetus to use names is supplied by using editors instead of authors.) Any way, it seems to me that for most readers, and even most editors, the authors are very non-signifying, and that "IPCC AR5 Ch11 2014" is more meaningful, carries more information, than "Bindoff, Stott, AchutaRao, Allen, et al. 2014". (If you are writing up some material from that chapter, which form of short-cite would you prefer?) In addition, using an acronym for chapters makes the citation of IPCC reports entirely consistent. Which also means that when someone uses one of these sources without reading the (someday to be!) instructions, the use of "authors" is a flag that attention is required. Anyway, I have to leave right now, so perhaps more tomorrow. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your superlong answer. I'm convinced. But, could we also write out the word Chapter in full? This makes it consistent with Summary for Policymakers and prevents the look of having 3 abbreviations next to each other. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Working to final version[edit]

Should be the same as second draft proposal in terms of content, but explained for so that less experienced Wikipedians can understand too. The differences that go a bit further than textual:

1. I've now specified what we do with IPCC reports. I think this was the conclusion from a previous discussion, but correct me if I'm wrong

2. I've changed the {{harv}} into {{harvnb}}, which is the template we've been using so far

3. I've removed the k: Use of "named-refs" to "re-use" full citations not allowed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't use named-ref for full citation anyway now that they're in the sources section, right? For sake of brevity, I'd like to not mention this.

4. I've changed n in response to Johnson's comments: institutional authors should use |author=.

To make it easy to verify sources, we keep a consistent citation style in this article. This consists of the following:
  • a: Every source cited in this article has exactly one full citation with complete bibliographic details.
  • a': "Full bibliographic details" requires attribution of authorship, date, and title.
  • b: Those full citations are put in the "Sources" section (not in the text, not in <ref> tags).
  • c: For consistent formatting, templates are used for full citations.
  • d: There are two systems of formatting in Wikipedia: Citation Style 1 and 2 (CS1 and CS2). CS1 formatting style is preferred here: use {{cite xxx}} templates, or {{citation}} with |mode=cs1.
  • d': {Cite} templates to include |ref=harv (or similar) to enable linking from short-cites (see f).
  • e: Reports with different authors/editors for the chapters and full report (such as the IPCC) can be cited using a separate full citation for the chapter and the full report.
  • f: In-line citation of content to be done with short-cites (such as done with {{harvnb}} templates or similar).
  • g: All notes, including {{Reflist}}, to be in the "Notes" section.
  • h: In-line citations to show location (e.g., page or section number) of material within a source.
  • i: This means we don't use the template {{rp}}, which shows the page number not in the note, but in the main text.
  • j: Initialization, or not, of authors' personal names per source.
  • l: Dates in DMY format
  • m: Multiple authors: only the first five need be listed. If more than four add "|display-authors=4".
  • n: For human authors and editors, use |last= and |first= or equivalent separate name parameters, not |author= or |editor=. Use |author= for group or institutional authors.

If you agree, I'll put this on the top of the page. I was also wondering whether we can put a pointer towards this in the editing screen. Now it's only giving a warning of discretionary sanctions. I assume there are rules about what can be placed there, but I have no idea where to find such rules. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Several details.
1) "e" needs revision: Citing material from the IPCC AR reports is a special case, as it involves three levels of "work": AR, WG, and chapter; this is handled differently than the usual case of a chapter within a book. The details need to be mentioned; I'll try to get to that sometime. Until then I would just say that material from the IPCC Assessment Reports takes special handling, to be explained.
2) While we generally use {{harvnb}} ("no braces"), other variants (e.g., {{harvtxt}} and {{harvs}}) are also useful. "Harv" is used as the generic name for the entire family.
3) Possibly I don't understand what you mean by "you can't use named-ref for full citation ...", but I would say that is not correct. Note that named-refs can also be used to replicate any note, and is often used to replicate short-cites. Considering how contentious many WP editors are ("it doesn't say we can't use them!" :-)) I think it needs to be mentioned. Perhaps just say "no named-refs", to make it simpler.
4) I tweaked the "authors" bit.
5) The basic statement of the model should be on what it is; why can follow.
6) We should note that these are still subject to change as we work them out.

I think this should not be at the top of the Talk page, but in its own subpage, with links at the top of the talk page and the edit window. We need to come up with a good name. I think something a little broader than "Citation model". (Besides stating the "model", I think we will need some explanatory text, perhaps a recommended skeleton template, perhaps reminders of basic citation practices.) "Citation details"? Perhaps inspiration will strike tonight. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

1) For the IPCC reports, I think it is safe to just refer to them as four different 'books' right? (or should we use cite report, I wasn't sure, so I think I used both..): AR1, AR2, AR3 and SYR. And for the NCA: the physical basis and the impact (impact is mainly focussed on one country, so less relevant here).
2) Okay
3) I think we should allow named-refs for short-cites. Makes life a bit easier. If you really feel strongly about this, I'll concede, because I don't think it's worth our time to continue discussing this.
4) Thanks
5) I think it might be wise to include why a bit in the model to make sure people don't get contrary when reading this
6) Okay.

If we put in on a separate page, I would like to transclude it into the talk page. Expanding a box on the top page is just a bit more enticing than going to a new page. I'm okay with Citation details, but not fuzzy at all about the name. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "Citation standards"? Transclusion is usually done where it is desired to have something appear in multiple places (sort of like named-refs), though it can be useful for protecting text from drive-by editing. However, no matter how it is implemented, nor how succinctly expressed, I think that is too much detail for the top of the Talk page. I think we should have a box that warns editors that (e.g.) "This article has an established citation "style" and standards, with which, per WP:CITEVAR, editors are expected to comply. See xxxxxx for details." Of course, that could be an expandable box (with [Show details]), which may be what you have in mind. And the normally collapsed part could be transcluded from the subpage. We could try that out, see how we like it. But the text of the model/standards/explanations should not be on the Talk page itself, but on a subpage. I may create that, so we can play around with it. (And don't worry about the name: it can be moved.) Another advantage of a subpage is that it can have its own Talk page, which is very nice for collecting future discussions of it, rather than having the relevant discussions spread all across the main Talk page archives.
Re the IPCC reports: it's a bit more complicated. The principal IPCC reports are the periodic "Assessment Reports" (AR), such as the "First Assessment Review" (FAR), "Fifth Assessment Report" (AR5), etc. Each of these has a volume from each of the three Working Groups (WG1, WG2, WG3), and ancillary volumes such as the "Synthesis Report" (SYR); these are what get printed as separate "books". This is similar to the structure of a multi-volume encyclopedia, but a big difference regarding the "volumes": whereas an encyclopedia's volume is merely a convenient partitioning of the total content, the IPCC "volumes" are separate and independent reports, with separate editorship. So what we cite are "Chapter X (with full citation!) In WGX In IPCC ARX". What has been developed here is streamlined way of doing that ("In IPCC AR5 WG1 2013") that does a home-run without skipping any bases. (And I do need to write that up.)
I do feel strongly about named-refs (lots of bad experiences), and absolutely we shouldn't use them for full citations. I'd rather not have them for short-cites either, but that's an issue for another day.
And don't mis-take me: absolutely we should have some explanation of "why". But there should be a clear and concise statement of the model, then explanations, etc., can follow.
I think I'll create a subpage for you.(!) Perhaps Talk:Global_warming/Citation standards? It can be re-named if you prefer something else. And we can play around with how that gets tied into the Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Done! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review[edit]

Every day I edit this article I find things that are clearly not in line with the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The first step in the FAR is identify and solve problems ourselves. Please add any problems you can identify as a section here.

1a) Well-written. Not a word smith at all, but even I can detect and improve some sentences.

1b) Comprehensive. It missed (misses?) newer context, and the non-physics parts of the article were lacking before that.

1c) Well-researched. I'm not entirely sure whether all claims we make are still supported by the latest research. Also, paraphrasing by non-experts has also lead to errors in using sources.

1d) Neutral: I do feel that some non-neutrality has crept it, making climate change out to be worse than it is (it's 'sufficiently' bad if we just follow the RSs).

2a) The lead is somewhat too long (but we've tried solving this multiple times). yellow tickY Merged last two paragraphs so we're now at 4, but we can maybe write it even more succuntly

2c) Consistent citation style: being solved now. (Please comment whether this is okay for everybody!)

4) Summary style is not always there, with unnecessary details being added regularly.

Terminology section[edit]

I think the terminology section is too long. Should part of it be moved to public opinion on climate change or history of climate change science??

Scientific discusion[edit]

Scientific discussion on climate change: the 2018 IPCC report does not belong there I feel. The report is important, but I'm not entirely sure where to put it. Maybe under mitigation. To me, with statement from 2005, it feels like it overlaps a bit with the history of climate change section. Which direction should this section go?


Mitigation: to me it isn't clear why only co-benefits are named. Surely there are some trade-offs (bio-energy vs food production for instance). Need to look up in RSs how much space to give to these two, so that we don't create a false balance if more trade-offs or more co-benefits exists.

Regional climate change[edit]

Regional climate change: only mentioning Africa and Arctic is a bit weird. IPCC WG2 SPM has identified some key risks for each region, let's have a more global perspective here.

Not done. I've been reading how other science communication typically did this. They typically sort per impact type, so that's what I've done now as well. Examples: National Geographic, [IPCC (part A)], NRDC, Union of concerned scientists. Not subdividing led to a wall of text. I'm a bit worried about the fact that the subsubsections are a bit too small. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


A general comment on the prerequisites of attribution is not done yet. In the IPCC this is summarized as a) determining that aerosols + GHG are sufficiently strong to explain b) determining that other forcings don't play role and c) determining that internal variability doesn't play a role. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. These sources are highly technical and many different techniques exist. I think I've distilled the main idea here, but would appreciate if somebody could check. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


Tropical cyclone (or hurricanes in US) are not mentioned yet. I think the amplification of them is the biggest visible effect of global warming people see. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Added them to physical effects. Might add something to impact on humans as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Other small things[edit]

Tone. A lot of 10 year old research is references, whose claims now have more backing. We need to critically look at sentences like: A probably causes B, it is thought that C causes D. If they have become more certain in the mean time; make them more active.

Do we want to mention Twoney and Albrecht effect of aerosols by name? I think we can leave out the names, but we'll lose the link to the proper article. Feels too specialized to mention them.

Over the x last years/decades is an often-recurring phrase. Might need updating and rephrasing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases sections needs updating[edit]

This section needs updating, possibly restructuring, is possibly only 98% neutral and should focus more on non-CO2 GHGs.

1) It misses the specific fingerprint of CO2 (cooling in stratosphere). This is now mentioned under solar influence.

2) It contains sentences like: last 20 years (meaning the last 20 years before 2001)  Done

3) The subsection contains two figures, and two other figures that are now used in the overall section, actually belong here. I don't know whether a gallery of some sorts is a possibility, as I do think all these figures are important.

Moved a part of the text to mitigation, but I'm not entirely sure this is the best placement of figures. With figure size a bit reduced, this problem is less urgent.

4) The figure with the GHG emissions only contains current numbers. Within the IPCC negotiations for the SPM many developing countries objected to this in terms of neutrality. They wanted a figure like this to go hand in hand with a figure detailing historical emissions.

5) We need updating in terms of the scenarios described. The shared socio-economic pathways are the modern thing. Much has changed in terms of scenarios since 2001 (years of relative inaction + huge progress in technology/ political debate). I think that emission scenarios might have to be moved to mitigation, right? yellow tickY Moved this to mitigation. With socio-economic pathways being quite new, I'll wait with this till the end of my editing spree. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

6) More on non-CO2. I suspect clinker production (I don't even know what they are) is significantly less polluting than animals used for food).

yellow tickY Removed the clinker production Cement (for which these clinkers were produced) is already mentioned separately.

7) We now have longer proxy records than 800 000 years. I think ice is a million.

Not done Let's keep it at 800 000, that's what most sources still use.~They might have a reason for that. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)



... Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing content[edit]

Prokaryotes commented (now under subsection general) that the article is missing climate action, how the world is approaching global warming, what is done subsequently in response to all these reports, and what it means. While these are the points that need polishing the most, I don't agree that they are missing.

  • climate action is now part of Society and Culture#Public opinion and disputes. It currently has one sentence, and could be expended a bit, but not too much as to not give it undue weight. Not sure what information should be added though.
  • how the world is approaching global warming & what is done subsequently: under mitigation and under political response. I have updated both recently. Missing now is for instance how institutions, cities and companies reply to global warming. Will add this in the mitigation section.
  • what it means: societal effects are listed under Effects#Social impact. Mitigation has a section that we're not on track to meet 2 degrees. Might add a note under political response as well: a statement like the national commitments so far are not sufficient to meet this goal (RS). Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
These article sections are sometimes too vague and context is often not sufficient. For instance the carbon tracker figure also cites 4.4C, and other estimates suggest even higher figures. It has been suggested that higher figures are more likely. And when discussing mean temperature projections, extremes should be mentioned, which are higher and longer in duration, which should be pointed out when discussing climate actions and temperature targets. Also it should be pointed out that countries lack their pledges, and that we track the worst case scenarios.
It is difficult to sort all these topics since they overlap, ie. with feedback thresholds. prokaryotes (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll critically evaluate what extra context should be added again. (if you have more examples, please add!). About the carbon tracker 4.4C (the top estimate for 'current policy'). This is partially based on IEA outlook, so I'm not so sure whether to adopt it. IEA has very consistently underestimated uptake of renewables in the past (most notably solar PV). So this number might be overly pessimistic? Will have to look further into it before adding it and trying to figure out what other RSs say.
About climate sensitivity (discussed in lede with different projections and in section about sensitivities), many studies also indicate lower values are more likely. This source contains an overview of all decent studies 2000-2018, (I think included the one you cited): There is no trend upwards. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
CMIP6 results prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware that many of the CMIP6 models have high climate sensitivity. I've also seen how some of these high ECS models perform over the historical period: not good. Anyway, we cannot really include any of this until proper evaluation of these models has been performed and published in RSs. I think that will be at least another year. High complexity models are just one way of estimating ECS as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's difficult to sort these topics. This is one of the reasons I'd like to go through the FAR eventually. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


History of climate change science is on the history of the science, climate change is for history of climate change in a broader context. Generally the problem is the high influx of new studies each month versus updating this article, many authors usually use the larger meta study kind of publications, unless there is significant coverage. What the article is missing is the topic about climate action, how the world is approaching global warming, what is done subsequently in response to all these reports, and what it means. prokaryotes (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Could you put your comments under the right subsections and/or make clear whether they are new points or responses to previous comments? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference errors[edit]

  1. Harv error: link from CITEREFIPCC_AR5_SYR doesn't point to any citation.
  2. Harv error: link from CITEREFIPPC_SYR_SPM2013 doesn't point to any citation.
  3. Harv error: link from CITEREFNCADAC2013 doesn't point to any citation.
  4. Harv error: link from CITEREFUNEP2010 doesn't point to any citation.
  5. Harv error: link from CITEREFIPPC_SYR_SPM2013 doesn't point to any citation.
  6. Harv error: link from CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG22014 doesn't point to any citation.
Thank you, DrKay. You may have noticed that we are doing a major revision of how citation is done here, and in the interim will probably be making more of a mess. When things get sorted out (in a month?) it would be good to check these again. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2019[edit]


In the section "Climate change feedback", second paragraph there is this line: "After an initial warming due emissions of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will hold more water." which appears to be missing a "to" after "due". With the "to" added the line would read: "After an initial warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will hold more water." (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing this out! – Teratix 13:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2019[edit]

The summary states that global warming is anthropogenic, but the main article does not provide the reader with any idea how scientists arrive at this striking conclusion. Could someone please provide a referenced sentence or two explaining why scientists believe that humans are at fault? (I suspect the anthropogenic claim is based on computer simulation rather than real-life experimentation, because you cannot easily experiment on a whole planet. But please prove me wrong: I can for example imagine that scientists gathered real-life data on global cooling/warming when a complete flying ban was imposed after the twin tower attacks in New York in Sep 2001.)

And a minor point: The summary states that global warming started in 1900, but the first graph seems to show that warming started in about 1935. Some explanation here would be helpful. Or a new graph starting much earlier, say 1820 or 1850, to demonstrate that warming was indeed under way by 1900.

Finally, let me say that this article has much improved since the advice I provided a year or two ago. Thank you. Keep up the good work. (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Danny, please be patient. Wait a week whether someone can come up with the requested reference. If that does not happen within a week, then feel free to deactivate my request. (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
IP 86.*: Please note the text in the box above: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. You are not requesting a specific edit, you are saying that the article is deficient in some way. Which is fine, perhaps some improvement can be made, which is a matter for discussion. As it is, you do not have a specific edit to request, so there is nothing to be done. If you think something should be done (or at least considered), please start a new section explaining that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Attribution is now mentioned interspersedly in the physical drivers of climate change section. This should be made clearer. I've added this to the discussion for FAR. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Any objections to not having columns in sources section[edit]

The columns generated by {{refbegin|30em}} are basically uneditable from the Visual editor. With our push to bring all of our full citations to this section and to encourage newer editors to do the same, I think we don't need to put them in columns. I'm not sure whether there was a reason to put that template there in the first place.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I object to not having the "Sources" section (as wells "Notes") in columns, and also reduced size text. It's a matter of readability, and a significant degradation if it is lost. If VE has a problem with that then we need work out why. What do you mean by "basically uneditable"? Does it have anything to do with the size of your browser window? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that the text size is smaller, and agree that that is desirable. I've turned it back. My browser window is not the problem (I edit on three different devices with substantial differences in monitor size). In VE, we basically get a small pop-up box in which all 100 sources are put together. It would take me about 2 minutes to find the correct location to add a source. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not the browser window that could be part of the problem, but the size of the window. More specifically, the window's width, as that does affect the display of columns. I was going to suggest trying (in lieu of {{reflist|30em}}) something like "{{div col|colwidth=30em}}{{reflist}}". But if the problem is basically how things are displayed (previewed?) in VE, well, I don't know. Perhaps VE would honor the {div col}. Or (cross your fingers) may be there is a configuration parameter for that. See if you have any problems at Moment magnitude scale#Sources (which uses {div col}). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I have the same problem in Moment magnitude scale. And the problem is the same if I zoom in extremely, mimicking a small window width to get only one column. So I guess I'll just have to switch to source editing for a bit... Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I just tried to do an edit with VE. And the experience was so atrociously awful as to be Dantesque. I am becoming firmly settled that VE is so bad that no accommodations should be made. If you can't do something in VE (let alone do it well) there is only one useful answer: don't use VE. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to go through that :P. For this article, I'm switching to the source editor. I really hate the fact that full citations are in the middle of the text, but we're working on solving that. If I recall right (can't find the page back, but some page said rich editing is highest priority now) VE will support editing {{refbegin|30em}} easily in the future. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Most people almost universally take what they consider the better alternative. Once in a while I like to try the other, and see if it really is as bad as I thought it to be. :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Photos of impact climate change humans[edit]

I've added a photo of climate change impacting humans: the California wildfires. Attribution of single events to climate change is a rapidly developing field of climate science, but it can still be controversial. I think it is important that we add is, as the conversation and scientific studies about global warming are now turning more to humans instead of those poor polar bears. I've decided not to include a photo of a hurricane, as my assessment is that tropical cyclones are quite difficult to attribute to climate change. I'm trying to find a figure of flooding, but have not been able to find a good figure on Commons that I can find a decent scientific study of, linking it to climate change. The link between coastal flooding and climate change is quite well-established, so I should be able to find one. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request re possible typo[edit]

Hi, I don't know if I'm doing this right, but ...
7.1, final paragraph, contains the sentence:
"In 2009 several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord, which has been widely portrayed as disappointed ..."
A disappointed Accord is probably a heartbreaking sight, but should it possibly have read "disappointing"? T (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out.
P.S. You're doing it right :). Alternatively (sometimes the response is quicker), you could use an edit request by clicking View Source and click the blue 'Submit an edit request' button. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Current citation work (May, 2019)[edit]

FN: I've been pretty busy, and feeling a little guilty I'm not helping you much. I'll try to make it up!

I'm thinking we (me?!) should go through each section and see that all of of the {cite} templates have a suitable 'ref=' parameter. It looks like a lot of them do already (your work?); I've grabbed the raw text to go through (tonight or tomorrow, hopefully) and see what else needs to be done. At that point (or even now) we can adding short-cites (Harv doesn't care where it finds the full citation), and see that they work. Once a source's short-cite links properly we can move that source to Sources. Initially I would not be too concerned if they are in proper order or not; I would be more interested in cleaning them up and seeing that they are correct.

Does that sound good to you? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Never feel guilty for being busy!
Sounds good to me. Wasn't me who added ref= parameters for citations within the section. So far, I've tried to immediately move to sources. Your strategy sounds good me to as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I haven't been much busy here.
I am thinking somewhat in terms of process. I think it's easier to move the full citations (a somewhat complicated process) if they don't have to be modified and tested at the same time. And it is handier to modify them, add the short-cites, and test, if that is all done (mostly) in a single section. This might result in transitional states where a short-cite in one footnote links to a full citation in the next footnote, but that doesn't bother me. I think we need a "Pardon our dust" template. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ohmigosh. Last night I looked closely at the first two batches of citations extracted from the text, and I am quite dismayed. Out of 27 and 16 instances, only five and three (resp.) were in good enough shape to use with {harv} without significant editing and/or verification. Most typically they lacked any attribution of authorship, or misused |author=, or lacked a date. To even see what was missing or screwed-up was difficult because of the obfuscation from the haphazard way parameters are thrown together. It's such a tangled swamp that I am wondering how much work I should put into this.

Some of the problems have been present for nine years or more. Others are more recent, showing a definite failure to uphold any kind of standard. And as I mentioned above, it is extremely to see this stuff in it is crushed into the wikitext in an unstructured manner. I am therefore convinced that we must require a structured citation format.

I am also wondering if we should call a moratorium on adding new content for a month or so, so we don't have people adding crappy citations while I am trying clean them up. (Like: some editorial responsibility is required?)

I am further concerned that approximately half of the citations need some research just to verify the citation. Can we draft some editors? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not that surprised by the swamp state. Have fixed a few already. The text was/is is such a deplorable state, with many citation not checking out as well.
In terms of a moratorium: I think the best strategy instead is to 'release' a beta version of our citation model into the wild. I'm quite convinced it's very very close to being finished. If you agree, I propose we add it in a prominent location in the top banners, maybe before the FAQs? I myself would lose motivation to work on this article if I can't edit the text as well as doing some proper wikignome activity (dunno wether wikignome is still the proper terms with how much of a mess it is).
Your concern that citations need verification is justified, too many of them are just not checking out. Not sure if it's the smartest thing to do simultaneously?
Drafting in more editors would be lovely! @Jonesey95: offered us help with the citations before. Does that offer still stand? Two other editors that have been very helpful in the recent past are @Efbrazil: and @Enescot:? Would either of you be willing to help us with the tidying up and verifications of the citations? Do you have more editors in mind, J. Johnson? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. I'll make a quick pass through the citations to clean up some of the minor inconsistencies. Then let me know what your specific needs are, and I'll contribute. The ref info template can be useful to check consistency.
Question: Should all authors/editors in citations be listed using |first=, |last=, |editor-first= and |editor-last=? Some have their full names listed under |author= and |editor=, which is inconsistent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the work so far :). In terms of the specific needs, I think it is now safe to refer to our citation model, don't you think so J. Johnson? So completing citations, making sure the parameters are filled in consistently, putting them in harvnb format and moving the full citations to the sources section is what needs to be done. I think J. Johnson is doing some work 'offline'. Johnson, could you confirm that, so that we don't do any double work?
Yes, authors/editors should ideally be listed using the |first=, |last=, |editor-first= and |editor-last=. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I see Jonesey is already chopping at the underbrush (thanks!). Though what I had in mind was more on the lines dragging in some of those editors (generally not GW regulars) who have added trash citations and get them to do some clean-up. Yeah, a moratorium is likely too drastic; perhaps we can do this in more nuanced increments. I think we should start by putting the full citations into an ordered, generally vertical format, just so we can see what's there. By ordered: the |url= should not come first! It's too "noisey", it distracts and distances the start of template from the key information of a source's authorship, date, and title. A full citation can be moved to "Sources" when it has enough information the short-cite works. Incomplete or questionable citations are probably best left in context.
As to "first" and "last": yes. I see you have already added that to the draft. Except: |author= should be used for attributing group or institutional authorship. Most of the current "author" mis-usage seems to have been one past editor (I havent' identified whom).
Yes, I have been doing some work off-line, which means I may be chasing a moving targeet if other edits are done. I'll stick to single sections at a time, may leave the {{in use}} template in over-night. +Probably better to use {{under construction}} for periods of a day or so.
I may take a whack at this in a few minutes. In order to avoid edit conflicts (especially where large, complicated edits are involved!) I remind everyone of the {{In use}} template. Perhaps we should avoid doing whole-article edits, in case something is being done in a section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
And I have reformatted the first half-dozen citations in the lead. Everyone take a look at the wikitext to see how much easier it is to see – and therefore to work with! – what needs to be done when there is some structure to the text. Style matters! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
NB: If you're going to change to vertical citations, please move the citations to the Sources section first, without changing the format or the content. In a subsequent edit, you can change the citation content. If you change the citation content and the format at the same time, the content changes are very difficult to detect in a diff. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I grant the difficulty with the diffs, which is why I generally prefer to not change actual data when I'm changing format. But the full citations must not be moved out until a link (short-cite) is in place, and as they are most of these citations are so obfuscated that it is hard to see what is needed to make the links; re-formatting is thus a pre-requisite for moving. Alternately, the full citations could be echoed in "Sources", fixed, and a working link built prior to removing the original. The difficulty with that approach is that the link can't be tested in Preview (unless one edits the whole article, which is a significant processing drag, and increases the risk edit collisions). Despite the difficulty you mention, I think that the reformatting/fixing/testing is nonetheless best done in place, section by section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Got the first batch of linkable full citations in the lead moved to Sources (~7kb), and replaced with short-cites. (The rest need some work.) And I will re-iterate what I have been saying about the importance of "pretty printing" (clear formatting): it is a lot easier to locate (for copying, deleting, whatever) a templated citation when they begin and end in the first column. And missing an editor (for filling the harv template) is less likely when all the last names line up. Etc.

I've been retaining any "quote=" text, as that might be needed to find the location, but in the long-run I expect such stuff will likely be cut-back.

I'm seeing a lot of stuff that needs cleaning up, but for now I think it's best to just get the full citations out of the text. Same for sorting Sources: later! Right now we're shoveling muck. When the level is lower we'll come back with brooms. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've started working from the other side: first tidying up citation, and removing them to the sources section later. I don't think it's a problem if we have a slightly different strategy, right? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Nah. Main thing is to avoid edit conflicts, so use, watch for, and heed {{in use}} warnings. Personally, I would prefer to pull the citations out of text first so they can be worked on without the encumbrance of all the text, but (as I said before) we need a working short-cite first, and the citation may need some work to get that. I find that just putting the closing double-braces in columns 1 & 2 really helps to sort out what's "citation" and what's not. I am also finding that putting the |ref= immediately following the "{{cite xxx" makes it clearer which citations may be ready to move.
By the way, a huge thanks to Jonesey for his latest work. I was psyching up to fix all the |author= problems, and .. what? he's already fixed them! As it looks like he's got them all, I guess I'll have to find something else to fix. :-) It is, indeed, mind-numbing work. (I think vertical-formating really helps.) Hopefully this immense slug of work is just a one-off, and once things are in better shape it should be lot easier to maintain. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I got all of the human names in author/editor parameters. There is more out there to fix; I found some bogus |issue= values, and there are a few un-linked short refs, some of which I probably caused by separating names properly. I will let others do the citation moving and organizing, and then I'll make sure the short refs are working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
If any instance of "bad author=" turns up it will undoubtedly be some new contribution.
I see that the {{cnf}} template (shortcut to {{citation not found}}; does not take a date) is intended for where a short-cite can't find the full citation; that's a good one for us. Not to be confused with {{fcn}}, a.k.a. {{full citation needed}} (wants a date). I don't know that we need to apply {fcn} right now, but at some point we should start tagging all the incomplete full citations.
I see a lot of bolluxed IPCC citations. While you guys hack away here I'm going to revisit and update the IPCC model full citations, then I'll see to fixing them here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


Recently, @Cosmicseeds: added the sentence: Terms such as the climate crisis and global heating are increasingly beeing (sic) used. At first, I wanted to remove the sentence, as I feel these terms are typically used by activists and might therefore not be neutral. According to the cited Guardian article however, the UN and the Met Office are increasingly using these terms as well. This would maybe make them valid synonyms. I've not checked whether increasingly means going from 0.00001% to 0.01% or from 1% to 20%. In the first case, we should not include these synonyms I think.

I have not found much guidance in the relevant manual of style section. I'm trying to look at different articles about controversial topics to see what they've done with loaded terminology. In Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the term used by activists (climategate) is used with straight quotation marks (also known as "Climategate"), and similarly Volkswagen emissions scandal has "Dieselgate". As Climategate and dieselgate are weird words, this might not be completely applicable.

The MoS did mention that if there are more than 3 terms, there might be need for a names (terminology) section. So we could place a single-sentence description of this discussion in that section maybe? What do you think? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the people they quote, being in a reliable source and quoting them is enough on its own practically. The only real decision is were they saying what they though it was or were they using those as names to reference it. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point: are they used as synonyms for climate change/global warming or are they used as description. For climate crisis, I'd say it is used as a descriptive term, and not as a synonym. For global heating, the source literally states: global heating is a more accurate term than global warming, so this would count as a synonym. A quick Google of the latter shows in really in use (yet?). It's this one professor that proposed it, and the Guardian. Many of the hits for global heating are for technological heating systems for houses..
As such, I strongly believe that the term global heating should not feature in the lede. I'm more divided on climate crisis. As it is not a synonym, it should not be mentioned in the first paragraph. It could (I'm slightly against this for POV reasons) be mentioned in the fourth paragraph, after Globally, a majority of people consider global warming a serious or very serious issue'.
If we include it in the lede, we should also dedicate a couple of lines on this in the article itself. I think public opinion and disputes is the best section for this. We have a terminology section now as well that is a complete mess, so maybe it can be woven into that section? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
And I have just reverted the wikilinking of those terms, which went to redirects that sent them right back "Global warming". There is no sense in that. Especially as there is no discussion of those terms here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Some comments on reworks Chidgk1[edit]

@Chidgk1:, many thanks for your hard work today. A lot of sentences that I've been staring at frequently because I didn't like them, have now been improved (some of which I introduced myself)! I'm a bit envious of your skill to simplify language. I'll be building on your works over the next couple of weeks probably, maybe reverting some. I'll always include an edit summary and I'm always available for extra information if you want to.

A couple of remarks already + answers to questions you seemed to pose in your edit summaries.

1. You may be aware that we've developed a citation model, to make sure the article has a consistent citation style. Could you start implementing this as well? Saves us a lot of work

2. I was the one adding the request for extra sources about internal variability. (normally, I'd refer you to edit summaries, but I know I've edited too much lately for people to trace everything back). Here are two sources stating that multi-decadal, and even multicentennial internal variability is a probably a thing:

So the citation needed tag was correct at the end of the sentence. I'm not entirely sure what introductory sentence we should put that, that is actually correct.

3. Extratropics = mid-latitudes and the polar regions. So changing extratropics to midlatitudes deviates from the source. I would like to fact-check that entire sentence, because I've always learned that aerosols are dominant over industrial areas, which are mainly situated over mid-latitudes.

4. You stated that you don't understand attribution maybe. I think you do, your sentence is fine.

5. About changes being random. I'm okay with removing it. The word random has a slightly different meaning for scientist as for normal people. We understand the driving mechanisms of ENSO, but because it's not very periodic and we can't predict it upfront, we sometimes use the term random.

6. You've changed the last sentence of the lede completely, and it now means something else. It now says that some scientist doubt the 2-degree target (doubt what about it?) if emissions are high. Hereby you imply that some or even many scientists believe we can actually get to two degrees with a high emission scenario. This is not true, and not reflected in the cited sources.

Could you fix the points I made in 1, 2, 3 and 6? Thanks! And thanks again for the hard work! Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You've fixed 2, I've fixed 3 and 6, so these comments are now done I think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes to greenhouse gas section[edit]

User:Chidgk1 has just made over 40 edits, some of which are passable, many are rather idiosyncratic, but some are definitely questionable. E.g.: Why is mention of ExxonMobil removed? Why are three citations removed from the first sentence under "Global_warming#Physical_drivers_of_climate_change" diff), and that sentence tagged with {cn}? All with little or no explanation. I am thinking a rollback is warranted, then perhaps Chidgk1 might be coaxed into discussing these edits. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC) (I just noticed that FN's new section about this got in while I was still editing mine.)

The changes continue. I have just reverted two of his edits (to catch his attention) with a suugestion to come to the Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ) Hello. Re catching my attention feel free to write on my talk page as that sends me an email, whereas this page is not on my watchlist. Although the number of edits is large they are mostly very minor tweaks. So I thought I had marked those as "minor" and put enough explanation in the comments of the others but sorry if I did not. Perhaps ExxonMobil was temporarily removed part way through my edits and put back later on - it is there now.
Re the first sentence of Global_warming#Physical_drivers_of_climate_change I removed the citations because apparently they did not support the sentence. I then removed "only" rewrote the sentence and asked for a citation because I did not fully understand Climate oscillation and it was not obvious how to contact whoever recently wrote "We have quite a few indications that century scale internal variability is a thing. Some CMIP5 models and some interpretations of proxies show that." Presumably they are a professional researcher so perhaps one of the people Femkemilene asked for comments.Chidgk1 (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh I just saw above comment by her - maybe I need to put something in my user page to get email notifications when someone mentions me - I'll try that.
J. Johnson (JJ) I'll come back to your and her comments hopefully a lot later today - it will take me a while to read up on how to follow the citation style so please be patient. Meanwhile you have some opinion about the greenhouse gas section where you undid a change I made? Or any of the other changes I made which Femkemilene has not already said above?Chidgk1 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have mentioned elsewhere, the notifications you get are set in your "Preferences". Also, when you do a lot of edits to an article it is usually a good idea to 1) start with a discussion on the article's Talk page so any potential problems can be addressed before the fact rather than after (which can be extremely messy), and 2) put the article on your watchlist so you are notified of any changes and discussions. Not knowing what notifications you had set I did a reversion as I know that is an automatic notice, regardless of how you are set.
The main thing about citation: we are in period of flux, so most of the existing citations are not really good examples, and we are not quite done formulating the preferred model of practice. See the #Second draft (above) for general guidance, and ask if you have any questions.
As to your edits: I think you are proceeding rather too quickly for good consideration. (E.g.: why did you remove ExxonMobil? It is a key player, and your impulse to remove that mention should have been tempered with the realization that no one else has felt it was necessary or good to remove it.) Similarly with your removal of those citations: that you (as you have just stated) "did not fully understand" some part of the content, or whether a source supports it, is a good reason for NOT deleting either content or citations. In such cases you should ask about it, either on the Talk page, or (implicitly) by tagging with a suitable template. Many of your other edits are subject to similar criticism, but I don't wish to get involved in long discussions on each point.
I see that your edits are predominately about about coal. I would point out that if you are employed (directly or indirectly) in the coal industry there is a possible conflict of interest, which you would need to declare. If so, please see WP:COI. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead - about adaptation[edit]

About the sentence which I changed and is now reverted to "Some scientists call into question climate adaptation feasibility, with higher emissions scenarios,[29] or the two degree temperature target.[30]"

I didn't mean to change the meaning of the sentence just clarify it.

I know the meaning is not the same but how about replacing the sentence in the lead with a direct quote from [1] saying "Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C"

Then in the "adaptation section" Steffen; et al. (2018) could be cited. Or maybe a new "tipping points" section created transcluding the lead of Tipping points in the climate system. Is Hansen et al (2013) now out of date?

I'm not that big of a fan of replacing the sentence with "Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C". I think there is little information in that sentence. I think that the sentence that adaptation becomes increasingly unfeasible for higher temperatures might be more important. I very much don't like the term some scientists of the current sentence. I will continue to think about this more.
You're proposing to include tipping points in the adaptation section. Currently, tipping points are being described in the physical impact section. One could argue that they also have an impact on humans, and in the summary for policymakers in AR5 WG2, they are described in this context (vulnerability, which corresponds to our effects on humans section). Importantly, they are not described in the context of adaptation, and I think we should not do that, based on a single PRIMARY source (Scheffen). For decisions on structure, there are no reasons to use primary sources.
I think tranclusion is out of the question for this article for two reasons. One: there is not enough place in this article. We need to be very careful in giving everything due weight, and not overly stressing one aspect of climate change over other aspects. The second one is quality control. This is a featured article, transcluding information from lower-quality pages endangers our quality control. I do not think that a separate tipping points section is warranted. It should (and is mostly already) be described under various of our current sections. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Structure Society and culture[edit]

One of the changes in the edits of @Chidgk1: is a change in the structure of the section of Society and Culture. I think this is one of the most difficult sections to write, as I've not found a proper secondary source that described this. However, I'm not entirely satisfied with the changes that were made. What is the reasoning from splitting the position of oil and gas companies from the public opinion and debate section? They are clearly part of this section. If we want to make them stand out, the better thing would be to make a subsubsection for them. Why are we singeling out oil and gas, and ignoring coal? To me, it also doesn't make sense that think tanks, often secretly funded by these fossil fuel companies, are separated from their public stances on global warming.

I think that making changes in the structure of this article should be done in one of the two following ways:

1. You follow a very reliable secondary source in their structure

2. You first seek consensus on the talk page.

Could you answer these questions and propose improvements? Thanks! Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the structure of the "society and culture" section or its general content so if anyone wants to change my changes, move them around or revert them feel free. However having read both The Economist and The Guardian for many years I am sure they are both very good secondary sources on the position of fossil fuel companies. Also I would be happy to add a sentence or two on coal. For example "Coal can be a political hot topic in some countries or regions, such as Poland and Australia." with cites for those countries. "Coal rents are a significant proportion of the economy in Mongolia" citing the report from (which requires registration but is free) "and have been alleged to be linked to corruption (the charges are denied and the trial ongoing)" citing (don't know how reliable that source is).Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm against mentioning individual countries, there's simply too many of them. While the Guardian and Economist and generally good primary or secondary sources (they both do investigative journalism, making them occasional primary sources), they do typically not offer the type of source we need to determine the structure and relative importance of different sections. The Guardian, while a very reliable source, it also quite a biased source (the facts are almost always true, but their selection of facts and framing is typically quite left-wing and activist), so I would like us not to overly rely on that source. Unfortunately, more centrists newspapers have often ignored climate news altogether in the past. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes on reconsidering the above you are right, mentioning individual countries in the text is too detailed for this article. I see a few of the existing cites are for particular countries but I think that is fine if it illustrates a general point in the text. And yes probably very few people would accuse The Economist of left-wing bias. However sometimes the drawback with citing The Economist is that it only shows the first couple of paragraphs without registration. So how about the below:

Position of fossil fuel companies[edit]

How about changing the section title from "Position of oil and gas companies" to "Position of fossil fuel companies" and adding as a first sentence something like: "In places where fossil fuel extraction is a significant part of the economy it is sometimes politically controversial, and lobbying by fossil fuel companies may be regarded with suspicion.(footnote here with an example country or region for each of the 3 main fossil fuels)"Chidgk1 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Regional effects of aerosols[edit]

There does not seem to be much on this in the executive summary of so if the last sentence of the "aerosols and soot" section is in doubt maybe it should be completely removed for now.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I've done some extra research and tweaked the sentence. It is now correct. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Natural variability and attribution[edit]

According Knutson (2017) "natural variability can obscure forced climate signals for decades, particularly for smaller (less than continental) space scales." so perhaps that is worth adding.

Again, I think we shouldn't delve too much into very small-scale processes. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Re "Sources"[edit]

In the "Sources" section: I'm not real clear on how we should partition technical/non-technical sources. I'd like to change "Technical sources" to "Scientific sources" or "Expert sources". I think "technical" is ambiguous here, suggesting a certain characterization of the content or topic, whereas "scientific" and "expert" lean more towards the basis of the content and the rigor of analysis. Perhaps "Peer-reviewed sources" would work.

I'm fine with "Non-technical sources", as that seems (to me, at least) to suggest "no hard concepts or hard thinking involved". Which sources might be from an expert, or be scientifically based, but lack the rigor of a scientific report. (And while "Sources of relaxed rigor" might be accurate, I don't think that will fly.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think that is also good in British English. I would lean towards "Scientific sources" rather than "Expert sources" unless perhaps other types of expert sources are likely to be added, for example economics papers which might be tough for non-experts. Even then they could always be put in a new section of "Economics sources".Chidgk1 (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you're right and technical sources can imply certain subset of scientific sources. I prefer peer-reviewed sources as the alternative. As Chidgk already mentioned, some peer-reviewed sources might not be considered scientific. Economics is considered a (social) science, but some humanities that we cited, for instant about protest, is not considered scientific. I think expert sources is not completely accurate either. I assume that the public websites by NOAA and NASA are written by experts, but not peer-reviewed. I'd put these websites under non-technical sources. You could even argue that some journalists are experts too. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Aside from there has been some debate as to whether economics is a science or not, that's a good point. If an economics paper is peer-reviewed in a reputable source, I'd say it is in. Of course, just because a paper is peer-reviewed doesn't mean the results represent scientific consensus, only that the reviewers and editors don't see any fatal flaws in what is presented. (Or they are a cabal of POV pushers? NIPCC comes to mind.) While many experts do journalism, the standards there are not scientifically based. (How such sources should be presented in the text is something for much later on.)
I'm going to change the first header to "Peer-reviewed sources". Perhaps a couple of weeks staring at the second header will inspire something better, but good enough for now. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I think we can safely assume that anything from the IPCC is peer-reviewed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. IPCC sometimes use non-peer reviewed sources (e.g. governmental reports), but the reports are peer-reviewed themselves. The Summary for Policymakers is not only peer-reviewed, but also reviewed by governments. More info: Both the SPM and the synthesis report are written in a non-technical manner. I initially wanted to put them under the non-technical sources heading, but that doesn't make any sense anymore with our renaming of the section to peer-reviewed... Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

After pondering a bit about how to handle newspapers(&c) I'm coming around to your idea of listing the IPCC AR chapters in chapter order under each AR/WG. What moved me in this direction was the consideration that the IPCC works are effectively "super peer-reviewed", and super authoritive, and warrant their own section. (The existing "Peer-review sources" would become "Other peer-reviewed sources".) We would still cite them by author-date. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Or we could put the IPCC reports in their own section, labeled "IPCC report chapters" (with the IPCC abbreviation spelled out). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice you're coming round to the idea of listing IPCC AR chapters under each AR/WG. In terms of your suggestions to list the IPCC separately, I think we should take two things into consideration:
  1. That this 'super peer-reviewing' happens in all types of review articles, not only in the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports stand out for their comprehensiveness. The National Climate Assessment (national being USA here) are quite similar in their structure and set-up. They have separate chapters with separate authors, and there is also external peer review (from their site: "An expert external peer review of the whole report was performed by an ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)").
  2. This might not be a valid argument for Wikipedia, but in my editing the Dutch featured article on this topic, where climate 'skeptisms' is rife, I noticed that people believed the IPCC to be the 'only' scientific source stating climate change is 'real and bad'. (The article was full of facts stated as IPCC opinions (WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view)). I fear that if we give extra status to the IPCC over other 'super-peer reviewed' sources by putting them in their own section, we might slightly enable this type of reasoning..
My proposal therefore is to subdivide peer-reviewed sections into articles and scientific reports. We still have many of the advantages your proposal (grouping together the chapters and emphasizing that it's a different type of source), without the two disadvantages I sketched above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey: isn't that what I said ("in their own section")? :-)
Femke: I don't see "articles" and "scientific reports" as useful distinctions ("peer-reviewed" or not). The only trace of a difference I discern is that while scientific articles (typically in a journal) are typically peer-reviewed (though articles in magazines, newspapers, etc., are not), a "report" can be issued by anyone, and even scientific reports are not necessarily peer-reviewed.
The IPCC is certainly not "the 'only' scientific source" re GW/CC. But (e.g.) the ad hoc committee that reviewed the NCA is hardly of the same stature and weight as the IPCC, not what I call a "super peer-review". The IPCC has a broader base of experts and more comprehensive scope, and more levels of review (including the governmental, for better or worse); it is the ultimate distillation of expert knowledge on the topic. It is because the IPCC reports are so extensive (and their citation more complex) that I am inclined to have them in their own section. And there it would be sensible to arrange the chapters under each AR/WG. But to do that in a general section interferes with the alphabetic ordering of the non-IPCC sources, and there I would object.
Sorting out the IPCC reports is daunting enough as things are now, but I would prefer to do that before we move in lot more sources. Are you all okay with having an "IPCC" (only) sources subsection? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear before. I'd like to see a distinction made under the peer-reviewed section of peer-reviewed scientific articles and peer-reviewed scientific reports. This latter possibly only has the IPCC and NCA reports. I'm not aware yet of what the PBL does and some of the other USA governmental reports.
While I agree that the IPCC is more comprehensive than the NCA, I don't think there is a large difference between the expertise of those who write the NCA or PBL reports, compared to those who write the IPCC reports. (There is however some difference in favour of the IPCC) Both NCA and IPCC have normally one round of external peer review, and only the IPCC Summary for Policymakers has an additional review by governments. The NCA report is closer to the IPCC reports than to other scientific articles, so for me it's only nature we group them together. Also considering their citations are similar, with chapters having different authors as the overall report. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, I don't see a clear distinction between "scientific articles" and "scientific reports". I have always seen them as pretty much synonymous. Event if "article" is restricted to what's published in a journal, with a presumption of editorial review and standards (as well as several peers) that is generally not found in non-articles, it seems quite common to call them reports.
The expertise of who write (or edit or review ) these reports is not useful distinction; we can presume they are all top-level experts. What might be different is that the IPCC has so many more experts, as well as not being limited to the U.S.
The difference in citation is not in having multiple authors (that is quite common), but in having the doubled levels of inclusion: "Chapter X in WG report in AR Z report". (And conventional citation would have us include the editors for each "in".) That requires special handling, and because there are so many such IPCC reports it is much more convenient to have them segregated. (And the rest of the peer-reviewed sources are easier to collate and find in not having the IPCC reports.)
I feel fairly adamant in not having IPCC and NAS sources mixed. But if you feel NAS sources should be pulled out of the rest of peer-reviewed, well, they could have their own subsection, right? (How many distinct NAS sources do we have?) I am more inclined to grouping them as we are doing for newspapers, but I am okay with a subsection. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I was just looking at the NAS sources. At this point I see six that are fairly well cited (yours?) except for the little detail of lacking a year, two that need work, and an incidental mention that is cited to another source. (Presumably more could added.) A rough count of IPCC sources (not allowing for duplication, which is not readily determined in the current state of affairs) is over fifty. That in itself justifies a dedicated subsection. But the real need for a dedicated subsection is so they can be coherently organized and managed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

While the three-layeredness is the same in the NCA reports (Chapter X in Volume X in NCA X report, I do admit it's used way less. Because Volume II is almost exclusively focused on the US, we barely use it. So in that sense, the IPCC reports might well be unique and I concede to giving them their own subsection.

I'm btw almost done completing, properly formatting and adding ref=harvs or similar to all citation in the text. I'm not that meticulous, so I imagine I haven't caught everything. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Relative to some other work I'm doing I am rather looking forward to do the IPCC stuff. And sometime this side of next winter I might take a look at the NAS citationing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Head up: asked for external help for mitigation section[edit]

I've asked an academic at my university to check and rewrite a part of the mitigation section. He is an expert in mitigation economics. I think the structure is currently not that good, hence the request for external help. Not each paragraph has a coherent topic, for instance.

  1. The general introductory paragraph ends with one line on a specific report from a specific company about economics. (Preferable, we'd find other sources to support that statement and not attribute it to a single entity, but that's not my point)
  2. Cobenefits and clean energy upscaling dont naturally belong together, I don't think
  3. The last paragraph is a mess: it contains too many details about one aspect of mitigation (individual). I've once deleted the sentence about the category mistake because I feel it's not an important detail at all. It's been put back (by User:Chidgk1) and extended. The next sentence suffers from being out of place (going from policy, to individual, to economics again, where economics was mentioned waaay before.. ).

I'm not going to edit till I've won in some expertise, but just a heads up that I'll probably edit this section a bit more later. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes the section certainly needs improvement e.g. the discount rate controversy should be mentioned. But please could you ask your fellow academic his opinion about the category mistake point (or I can ask directly if you prefer) as I feel that is important enough to be in. But I did not extend it and that point is too long now - I suggest a very few words and a cite would be plenty in this article and the detail could be moved to the main article.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that the discussion about discount rates should be considered a controversy. It's a normal scientific discussion. Might be a good one to add though, but I'm awaiting the response from my colleague (I've not asked permission for a name to be put online). I do worry that the whole section on mitigation is getting too big, so not sure what we should condense or remove. I've asked my colleague for his opinion on that as well.
I think there must be a different way to express the category mistake, without explicitly using that term. The term itself is jargon, and I'd like this article to be very easily accessible. Maybe the jargon can be put in a note (of which we have too many as it is?)? Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Archiving/removing banners[edit]

There are three banners that, imo, have lost all relevance, and are in the way on the top of this page:

1. The denver post review

2. The Wiki Foundation exercises.

Can I delete those? If I do, how do I properly archive them? Should a new page be made for that? Putting in in a random archive would render it unfindable, as I wouldn't expect to find it there even if I'm looking for it.... Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Those banners result from templates inserted at the top of page. I suspect the Denver Post review is expected to be kept as part of the history of the article. I would expect the notices about class exercises to come down after some point, but I have no idea when. You might ask the editors that put them in. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The editors that put them in seem not to have stayed after their university module ended, in end 2017 and begin 2018. What I would like (and this might be completely unfeasible) is to have two tabs at the top of the talk page. One with the actual talk page and the other with historical milestones & these group assignments. Would that be entirely crazy? Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, entirely crazy. As far as I know it would require some deep configuration changes (good luck with that), possibly even s/w changes. As far as merely collapsing that stuff... that's not the standard format here. Do note that there is a little thingy at the top that will fly you over all the header stuff. For the school assignments: you might ask the editors who inserted those templates if they might be removed. Or, if you're feeling Bold, delete them yourself. If anyone objects, they can go back in. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Re "unnecessary bare reference(s)"[edit]

I have just reverted this edit by D Eaketts, with the summary "Removed unnecessary bare reference(s) with reFill()", that merged some short-cites in named-refs.

As a matter of general edification I point out that short-cites – the in-line abbreviated links to a full citation – are not "bare" in the sense of WP:Bare URLs (that is, lacking information about a source), nor are they in anyway "unnecessary". They contain the minimum information necessary to link to a full citation in the article that contains full details of the source. (Well, ideally. We working on that.) And the purpose of having distinct and separate instances of these short-cites, rather than having a single instance made to appear in more than one location, is so they can be associated with specific content, and can be augmented (such as with page numbers, more information, or other short-cites) as appropriate for that specific location. While full citations should not be duplicated, 1) this does not apply to short-cites (or shortened citations), and 2) the proper response for a "duplicate" full citation is not a named-ref, but replacing one instance with a short-cite. Which is part of what we are doing here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation of newspapers and weekly magazines[edit]

Congratulations to Chidgk1 for figuring out (here) how to set |ref= for newspaper and magazine articles that do not identify an author. (It is a bit of an advanced lesson.) It is pretty simple: just append the different arguments of the {harv} template to "CITEREF". E.g.: |ref=CITEREFThe_Economist2019. There was one little hitch in not removing the |ref=harv parameter. Which illustrates why I have become convinced that (despite long-established personal practice) the ref parameter should be on the same line as the template name (e.g.: {{cite news |ref= harv), as they modify how the template works. (Same for |.)

Another point: newspapers (and weekly magazines) are typically cited by the name of the paper/magazine and the full date. Which can done in {Harv} using just a single parameter (e.g.: {{Harvnb|The Washington Post, 14 August 2018))) and the appropriate CITEREF. A possible problem is that in some cases it may be preferable to cite by the author when he or she is well known. Any suggestions on how that might be handled? Something like "Chris Mooney, in {&#12Harv|The Washington Post, ..."? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good and I like the idea of making the distinction between scientific and non-technical sources clear in the short-cites! Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Global heating[edit]

More and more media outlets have adopted the term "global heating" instead of "global warming". For example, The Guardian has just switched to this term in their articles. I have tried to integrate this alternative term, which has become widespread in the public debates across Europe, in our introduction, but it was quickly reverted afterwards. It is by no means my intention to make Wikipedia follow The Guardian's style guide (why should we?), but what would be necessary for a good overview that represents the full spectrum of terminology is that we should also show that at least some authors have already adopted other terms that represent the topic maybe even better than global warming. That this is not the term used most often yet should already have been clear enough from my suggested text ("also [not: mainly!] referred to"), but there might of course be formulations that could make this even clearer. I therefore suggest that we add this term in the introduction and would like to hear what you think about this suggestion. Flugscham (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The "Terminology" section is a good place for content about terminology. A search within the article for the word "heating" would have found it for you. You will see that the Terminology section refers to "global heating", with a reference that includes a link to the Guardian's page about their terminology. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I was more thinking of a representation of this term in the introduction, as it is increasingly in use. Flugscham (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A good way to show that it is increasingly in use is to add references showing that usage to the Terminology section. The lead is a summary of the most significant parts of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and yes. Also: Flugscham, your "reference" was a naked URL, without any other information, and not an acceptable in-line citation. That source has a name, an author, and a date, which should be specified, preferably in a suitable template. You might also note that we are in the process of moving all the full citations to the Sources section, using a short-cite (that links to the full citation) as the in-line citation. If you don't know how to do a short-cite, that's okay, we can do that, but you should provide the full citation with the details of authorship ("who"), when, as well as where. But in this case, perhaps not in the lead. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
When I reverted your addition I was not commenting on whether it should be added elsewhere in the article, it just seemed out of place in the lead section, particularly the first sentence. As ever on Wikipedia we follow the usage in sources and currently this appears to be relatively rare when compared to "global warming". this 2014 blog makes interesting reading on the usage of the term. Mikenorton (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Short cites for undated websites[edit]

@J.Johnson: There are a few websites around, for instance NASA, with a lot of information about the climate that is undated. How do we short-cite these pages? For instance, two full citations we now have point to: and Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Good question. (I've run into the same issue on some USGS stuff.) Short answer: I don't know!
Chicago Manual of Style suggests using "n.d." (for "no date"), but I don't find that satisfactory. In some cases it might make sense to use the "updated" date — provided, of course, one is supplied. For purposes of short-cites, note that a date isn't really required. We could probably do something like "{{harvnb|NASA Climate website (undated)}}}. Or we could leave it be with all the other cruft until we get the major work done. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's leave it until all of the straightforward work is done. When the dust settles, it will become clear what sorts of oddball citations are left for us to deal with. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay with leaving odd-ball citations till later. One idea that popped up specifically for this NASA website: we might want to have one full citation and distinguish between the different sections/webpages using the |loc= parameter in the short-cites. Short-cites can have their own links to sections, so I think that might work..
There is only one "updated" date for all subpages, so we can't distinguish them by date. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"Yes" on all the above. As to using Harv's |loc= for specific pages on a website: that can get a little dicey. It works best if the website has built-in anchors. URLs (as for specific pages) don't work so well in the template, but an equivalent link can be appended. But we can deal with that later. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of work I've done[edit]

For all citations, except the IPCC ones, I've tried to

  1. Complete them
  2. Check accuracy information when in doubt
  3. Format them properly
  4. Make it easy to make shortcites for them by sorting the paras (url not first)
  5. Check whether the urls still work
  6. Add a proper ref=harv for journal articles and ref={{harvid|The New York Times, 2 September|2010}} for newspaper articles

The next step is to move the easy ones (newspapers and journal articles) ones to the sources section. I'm not really keen on doing that. I'd like to get cracking with updating the figures, which shouldn't disturb this process too much. Who's willing to do the next step(s) here? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion Welsh video[edit]

A general overall look at global warming on film, created by Natural Resources Wales for 16-18 year olds.

@Llywelyn2000: I just removed the video you put on the page, for a couple of reasons:

1. It is not entirely clear. It starts for instance with a lot of scenes implying (intentionally or not) that global warming might be natural due to orbital forcing

2. It deals not only with climate change, but also with biodiversity loss and other things. With people mixing up different environmental treats, we should keep that distinction very clear.

3. Some of the examples are very Wales-specific.

4. It feel amateuristic to me: It has this weird timer at the bottom, had weird transitions between scenes..

Before putting it back (this is the second time I deleted it), could you please discuss it? Thanks :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your comments. It's a general introduction to global warming, with discussion by a group of people, pupils. The points in your order:
1. The first 40 seconds only suggests natural possible causes of warming. The rest, 240 seconds is that it is man made. I would say that is very fair.
2. 'Biodiversity loss and other things' (deforestation) contributes towards global warming.
3. No! The video was made in a specific country, and that's it. It also had a 2 second shot of a the level of the sea and its rise against a castle wall. So would it be politically correct if it showed the Thames, and made in London? Or have I missed any other 'examples (which) are very Wales-specific'?
4. I agree that its not hd, but all the footage is professional, and open licenced! The purpose of the 'weird' timer is for discussion groups to note different scenes within the video. I have a second video without the timer, if you prefer. The subtitles can also be changed or deleted.
If others agree with you, for the correct reasons, then by all means let it go. However, I think it's it's a good general visual introduction to the subject, until a better video is offered. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply :).
1. I'll mostly reply to this point, because I think it's the most problematic. Suggesting possible causes of warming that have been shown not to be the cause of global warming can be quite confusing to the lay public. The video is unclear about the current state of knowledge of climate change. Not only is it (implicitly, and I don't think on purpose) 'questioning' the causes of global warming, the subtitles later even question the existence of global warming by stating: "If our climate is changing, can we make a difference". I'm assuming the video was made in good faith, but such unclear communication can be quite damaging to people's understanding of global warming.
2. That's true, but the video names the disappearance of forests in the context of biodiversity loss, and not in the name of global warming.
3. The first 20 seconds, arguably the most important ones, are about Wales and not specifically about global warming.
4. Let's first agree on the first three points, before we discuss modifications that might make this video suitable for the page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Femkemilene! I think I'll take up your points with NRW and discuss a second draft, hd, new script, and as you say it has aged in only a few years, just like me! Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Tipping points clouds[edit]

I've just removed the 2019 study that predicted a tipping point in cloud cover because:

  1. It's not a secondary source, so we should be critical to start with
  2. After speaking to an expert on cloud physics today, it became clear to me that the study has assumptions that might make it not that valid to the real world. From the cited source: Some of the large-scale interactions, including how oceans exchange heat and energy with the atmosphere, were simplified or neglected, he says. This makes it hard to know the precise carbon dioxide levels at which stratocumulus clouds become unstable.
  3. The study extrapolates from one spot to a global estimate. This extrapolation is done in a simplified way and quite some experts believe that this artificially introduces a tipping point, while reality is more smooth: Discussion in Science. Femke Nijsse (talk) 7 June 2019 (UTC)

IPCC urls[edit]

Just some handy IPCC urls. At some point it may be useful to replace any older urls in the citations. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

\* TAR

\* AR4: WG1 WG2 WG3 SYR

\* AR5: WG1 WG2 WG3 SYR

\* Special Report (GW @ 1.5°)

And I will note that some of the "" links are 404. The preferred url for archived reports is at

Another reason we need to have the citations better organized: Some of the AR5 WG3 reports cited here are linked to, a site apparently set up by the WG3 group outside of the domain. That site now redirects to, a company that went bankrupt in 2013. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Current citation work (June, 2019)[edit]

A small nit, but I have been wondering: Should each IPCC AR list the sections in order of WG1, WG2, WG3, SYR ("Synthesis Report"), as the IPCC does, or should we put the SYR first on the basis that might be of more interest to any readers that stroll by? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's just follow the IPCC's listing and put SYR last. I find it convenient if it's listed in order of publication date. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Izno: what's with the "should not have" |display-authors=4 when authors is three or less? (Again, a small nit, but let's sort 'em out.) As Femke says, there is no problem leaving it in. And if by chance we should want change the number it would be easier the parameter is already in. Right? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Having a display author value which is greater than or equal to the number of authors present causes a maintenance message; see Category:CS1 maint: display-authors. At best, it is misleading, and at worst, an actual error. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I thought the code was smart enough to not be troubled by that, but there it is. A bug, but not one I have time to chase. Thank you for the explanation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The category is deliberate--your intent is not obviously communicated when display-authors >= author count. --Izno (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Or was the thinking that addition of display-authors in such cases is indication of inattention by the editor? My thinking here is that, given that we want to display up to four authors (when available), neither more nor less, that including this in all citations makes it less likely that someone copying an existing citation to modify for a new source will be less likely to omit the parameter when it should be included. It essentially defines a default, and I don't see that a default should be left out even when it is not applicable. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Inattention also, possibly. I personally wouldn't weight strongly this desire about default numbers of authors for the "copy" use case, seeing as this is an FA and the random passerby probably isn't going to get any added citation exactly right relative to the interest of the stewards of this page, anyway. :) --Izno (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
As one of the most visited articles on WP I think we should strive for FA quality. As to "random passerby" — we're talking about editors, right? — that's part of the problem: lots of inventive but ill-formed citations, and even outright shoddiness. Part of the reason for this re-organization is to make citation easier, particularly for the IPCC reports. Another purpose is to make problems more visible, and easier to fix. (E.g.: the IPCC's archive structure has varied over time, and one of my tasks today is to determine a consistent and stable scheme of accessing the reports.) Consistency in the number of displayed authors is one of a number small details that contribute to this effort. Editors only slightly acquainted with this article will randomly grab an existing citation as a model, and if it lacks display-authors then they won't know about it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Previous comment reminded me: we display up to four authors (at least for the IPCC chapters) because there are some near collisions with only three. In regards of editors: should we display up to three, or four? I think three would suffice. Four would be consistent with authors, but then perhaps a "different consistency" would be a subtle indication of editors vs. authors.

Another question: how should we do the "In: <enclosing work>"? There is a certain logic in using |title= for this, but I'm not liking the "In: <title>" with "In:" italicized as part of the title. (And possibly a metadata problem.) I'm leaning towards doing it the way I have before, appending it to the template, with or without italicization. You all have undoubtedly noticed that for the AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (here) I did it all three ways. Which should we prefer? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

As the gnome who happened to visit this page, regarding your second question, can you provide the refs of interest directly on this talk page? I am happy to give an opinion from usage perspective of the citations. --Izno (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
You mean regarding the "In:" test? Here's a partial citation with added superscripts:
Or click on the link. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
You are right that it's weird to have In italicized. I think having the IPCC report italized is the best one. So number c). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, went back to using |title= (but without "In:") as one of the changes since I first set these up is that title is now required. "In:" will be automatically supplied if an editor is specified; I hope we don't have any problems with that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)