Jump to content

Talk:Climate change/Archive 74

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76→Archive 80

Your chart

The temperature drop due to the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 is not reflected. Best guess is that the global temperature of that year dropped by about 1.5 C. That year was called "the year without a summer" as was another year in the early 1800's due to another volcanic eruption. Just making sure that when people look it up to confirm they get the right "year without a summer".

As the chart used in the article does not show a temperature drop of that magnitude, it is CRAP.

I have not checked but, if it does not show the impact of Krakatoa, it probably does not show the impact of other major volcanic eruptions since then.

My advise is that you get a better chart from competent sources.71.174.137.143 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Provide a source for that global average temperature fell by 1.5C. The figures in the article say that Summer average temperatures fell by up to> 1.2C in the Northern hemisphere. The eruptions of Krakatoa, Santa Maria, Agung, El Chicon and Pinatubo can all be seen in that record but the effects are more spread out in time over the world than you seem to think. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
If you are trying to imply that a "year without a summer" has the same average temperature as the years surrounding it, then I can only say that you need to stay away from this article as you have a bias. Besides which early temperature data has a wide plus or minus error of about 1 degree (which gets bigger the further back you go as instruments get more primitive). That CAN mean that the temperature of 100 plus years ago was on par or even higher then that of today based on instrument and recording errors. Additionally recent satellite data shows that the earth's temperature for the past 18 years has been stable to within a tenth of degree. That chart shows a spike at the end which does not exist. It is CRAP.
In short, that chart does not show the "year without a summer", it does not have error bars and it has a spike at the end that is not supported by ANY type of temperature data,
and repeating myself. The current chart is CRAP and you need to get rid of it or put in a disclaimer that it is CRAP. Find another from someone who can actually prepare a proper chart.71.174.137.143 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It is very obvious that Dmcq is not trying to imply that. You are applying the straw man fallacy.
Please consider that there is another hemisphere except the Northern one, and three other seasons except summer, making the Northern summer figure one of eight. Also, please consider that the Northern summer figure is probably the most extreme of the eight, otherwise another one would be used in its place. You fell for the availability heuristic and ignored that besides the figure you do know, there are other figures you do not know.
To make matters worse, you overlooked that the chart is labeled "Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index". According to 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, "average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C" (not 1.5). Are you sure that the scope is the same for both figures? Land and ocean?
Just provide a source for your claim of a global temperature change of 1.5°C for the whole year in land and ocean or stop bickering, OK? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering that there were no regular temperature records outside North America and Northern Europe at the time, do you want to really go and say that the rest of the world was unaffected by Krakatoa when there is minimal data either way? Europe and North America are the furthest areas of the planet from Krakatoa. Krakatoa was located in the SOUTHERN hemisphere and on the other side of the planet from both Europe and North America. It stands to reason that the closer you are to the eruption the greater the effects, at least on the short term. To even imply that the Southern hemisphere was not effected by Krakatoa, which is itself in the Southern hemisphere, is a dogshit argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.137.143 (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there are probably ZERO comparable mid-Ocean temperature readings from that time. To be comparable, they need to be done on the same spot, at the same time of day and on the same date of the year. I find it difficult to believe that a ship stopped at some location in the middle of the Pacific on the 13 of May, at 7 PM on multiple years to take a temperature reading. (take your pick of dates and times if you don't like mine). As a matter of fact even today that type of data is hard to get and usually involves either satellite data or buoys. Unfortunately buoys need to be ANCHORED in place to take that kind of ACCURATE data, otherwise they will drift because of ocean currents, prevailing winds, and storms. Are you aware of ANY buoys of this type that have an anchor line stretching 10-15,000 feet to the bottom of the ocean, in order to keep them in place, whose job is to take temperature readings? I'm not!71.174.137.143 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I have long wondered: does smugness derive from idiocy? Or is it the other way around? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a feedback loop leading to shrill meaningless noise. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"do you want to really go and say that the rest of the world was unaffected by Krakatoa" You just don't get it. You are misrepresenting what I said, and I will not read beyond your first sentence. Go away. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


I notice nobody has addressed the point that the chart does NOT show that drop in temperature in the "year without a summer" (whether that drop is 1.2 or 1.5 degrees). Since it miserably fails to show the temperature drop which has been admitted to above, it is CRAP.

I also notice that nobody has addressed the fact that temperature measurements 100 years ago had an error range of about 1 degree, which make all the squigles in the first half of the chart pretty much CRAP, making the chart itself CRAP.

Additionally I continue to notice that nobody had addressed the spike at the very end of the chart, when satellite data shows pretty much no change in the earths temperature for the past 18 years. Satellite date shows that for the past 18 years the earths temperature has stayed the same to within a tenth of a degree, again making the chart CRAP. Sorry! THERE IS NO SPIKE! IT IS CRAP!

Instead I get an argument about Krakatoa negligible effects in the Southern hemisphere, when Krakatoa itself is in the Southern hemisphere and by all odds had a greater effect on the Southern hemisphere then on the Northern one.71.174.137.143 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"nobody has addressed the point" You are lying - the point has been addressed. You have been lying from the start. You have misrepresented the sources, you have misrepresented the article, you have misrepresented the responses you got. You are not worth debating. Go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You certainly haven't. I asked where your Ocean temperature data for the late 1800's came from. Well! WHERE did mid Ocean temperature data, at the same TIME, on the same DAY of the YEAR COME FROM? because to my knowledge there is no such data even today excepting satellite date.
As for the objection "but that only summer in the Northern Hemisphere" that is dogshit as well. Krakatoa blew in in August 1883 and the NORTHERN hemisphere year without a summer would be May-August of 1984, up to a full year after that blowup. Have a nice day!71.174.137.143 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
"I asked where your Ocean temperature data" PROTIP: You should not blame people for stopping to read any further after your first lie.
"Krakatoa blew in in August 1883 and the NORTHERN hemisphere year" - I am aware of that. I would ask "so what?" but you have been blocked anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the infamous "Year Without a Summer" was in 1816 following a different eruption.

Resolved
 – --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Historic uses

Useful background: http://www.snopes.com/1912-article-global-warming/ Philafrenzy (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Graphs of cumulative vs current emssions

In the greenhouse gas section of this version, we are using two images

  • File:Percentage_share_of_global_cumulative_energy-related_carbon_dioxide_emissions_between_1751_and_2012_across_different_regions.svg
  • File:CO2_emission_pie_chart.svg

If I had time and graphics skill, I'd make a third image that shows this concept (cumulative vs current emissions) in side-by-side graphs, hopefully using the same dataset for each, and the same color of the countries.

Any into making graphics? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

So one set of lines is the year-over-year change of emissions for each country, and the other is the all-time emission level of each country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArniDagur (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you asked, but in general, we should clearly report the following concept - For year 2017 China (which is still much less developed than the US) will emit more than the US, but altogether the US has produced more than any other country. The reason I think such a graphic would help is because these competing statistics keep re-appearing as key principles in international agreements, and the various rhetoric for/against those agreements. Having them side-by-side, drawn from the same data, and identically color coded would facilitate our NPOV coverage of the various perspectives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Skepticism and Jesus

  • The existence of Jesus is also a debatable topic, yet there is a wide consensus among historians that he did, so his article is written from the point of view that the did. Nonetheless, it also discusses the scepticism of some historians towards his existence, as does this article in relation to climate change. And much like with jesus, there is also a scientific consensus that global warming exists. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Global atmospheric deoxygenation

Perhaps there should be some discussion of global atmospheric deoxygenation in the article.

"There has been a clear decline in the volume of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere over the past 20 years. Although the magnitude of this decrease appears small compared to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, it is difficult to predict how this process may evolve, due to the brevity of the collected records. A recently proposed model predicts a non-linear decay, which would result in an increasingly rapid fall-off in atmospheric oxygen concentration, with potentially devastating consequences for human health. We discuss the impact that global deoxygenation, over hundreds of generations, might have on human physiology. Exploring the changes between different native high-altitude populations provides a paradigm of how humans might tolerate worsening hypoxia over time. Using this model of atmospheric change, we predict that humans may continue to survive in an unprotected atmosphere for ~3600 years. Accordingly, without dramatic changes to the way in which we interact with our planet, humans may lose their dominance on Earth during the next few millennia." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12576-016-0501-0

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151201094120.htm https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/mathematics/extranet/staff-material/staff-profiles/sp237/conferences/bmb-2015-oxygen http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519317301820

198.13.177.43 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is just silly. Global O2 is indeed decreasing, but in exactly the way you'd expect from C burning to CO2. So the effect is well understood, and small William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The claim that 'this is just silly' is contradicted by the fact that the research has been published in several scholarly peer-reviewed journals:
The topic of atmospheric - and ocean deoxygenation, could indeed be extended, based on above cited Springer study (open access), for instance. Currently there is one sentence, mentioning OD, in the section Ecological systems. prokaryotes (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't confuse local with global William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It can be included in anoxic event, it already includes a bit about such effects: "In this way, an oceanic anoxic event can be viewed as the Earth’s response to the injection of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hydrosphere. One test of this notion is to look at the age of large igneous provinces (LIPs), the extrusion of which would presumably have been accompanied by rapid effusion of vast quantities of volcanogenic gases such as carbon dioxide. Intriguingly, the age of three LIPs (Karoo-Ferrar flood basalt, Caribbean large igneous province, Ontong Java Plateau) correlates uncannily well with that of the major Jurassic (early Toarcian) and Cretaceous (early Aptian and Cenomanian–Turonian) oceanic anoxic events, indicating that a causal link is feasible."

And we have the article on the Permian–Triassic extinction event, which also mentions this effect: "The sequence of events leading to anoxic oceans may have been triggered by carbon dioxide emissions from the eruption of the Siberian Traps.[136] In that scenario, warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect would reduce the solubility of oxygen in seawater, causing the concentration of oxygen to decline. Increased weathering of the continents due to warming and the acceleration of the water cycle would increase the riverine flux of phosphate to the ocean. The phosphate would have supported greater primary productivity in the surface oceans. The increase in organic matter production would have caused more organic matter to sink into the deep ocean, where its respiration would further decrease oxygen concentrations. Once anoxia became established, it would have been sustained by a positive feedback loop because deep water anoxia tends to increase the recycling efficiency of phosphate, leading to even higher productivity." Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to Section - Observed and expected effects on social systems

This is in reference to questions I have regarding this revert [1] by William M. Connolley to exclude dates added by Gaeanautes from the source material, with the edit summary..."there's no real reason to specify an exact time period. that may be in that ref, but that's not the real limit". What reason is there not to specify the dates from a widely accepted reliable source? William M. Connolley also claims "that's not the real limit" without stating a basis for their claim. I am tempted to side with Gaeanautes, as the dates provide a more accurate context for the material used in that section. If William M. Connolley would like to be more specific as to why this context (dates) is unacceptable, by all means...DN (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Giving exact dates is misleading. In fact, reading it again, it isn't even clear what the added text is supposed to mean. Are those the dates during which the effects were observed (which is what I originally thought, and objected to) or are they the even less useful dates of the studies? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Note the disputed sentence links to Effects of global warming on humans. Editorial attention there may shed light on best text here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Term

Should this be mentioned? Re reception/public opinion https://weather.com/science/environment/news/climate-change-global-warming-labels-study prokaryotes (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lindzen Spencer Et cetera

Excluding the thoughts and research of renowned climatologists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming (Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer et al) seems extremely biased to me. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.132.20 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this article doesn't seem to discuss "catastrophic global warming" your comment seems irrelevant to improving the article, Dickie and Woy are only renowned for being contrarians with a habit of getting things wrong . . . dave souza, talk 20:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Ooooh, I'll have to work on this and related articles in an effort to correct such bias. Once again you latch onto a word--in this case "catastrophic"--like a Philadelphia lawyer. So the word doesn't appear in the article, but Sections 5 and 6 and the articles they link to certainly describe catastrophic results of unmitigated climate change. That's why so many scientists are making so much noise about it!
Please strike your untrue insults directed at Lindzen and Spencer. YoPienso (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dave souza: When I came back to work on this I saw the IP's criticism isn't relevant to this article. Lindzen and Spencer are appropriately included in related articles. (Such a big family of climate-change articles!) Conclusion: No bias here against them.
I will again ask you to strike your insults. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Struck as exaggerated, both have had distinguished scientific careers, both are contrarians in relation to mainstream climate science, noted for persistent errors .. dave souza, talk 18:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Earlier in their careers they were highly regarded and known for their contributions to atmospheric science. Also, calling subjects of BLPs by pejorative nicknames is inappropriate. YoPienso (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI

There is a housekeeping thread touching on taxonomy in our article titles which may interest some of you. The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

early 50s reference

Shareride (talk · contribs), you removed properly referenced text, which I restored with an edit summary saying it was already referenced and I repeated the citation for you. It's already in the article. You just have to read the references. As you are new, see Help:DIFF. The DIFF to your revert is here, but I have zeroed it in to the specific reference number. In the citation you can see that "Footnote 27" is linked. Click that. It supports the text you deleted. Please self-revert. Sometimes we have too much text before the reference, which might be the case here, but the statement is already supported. You're just not reading the references with sufficient care. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue where an editor contests what appears to be a well sourced sentence repeatedly. Shareride: please explain here why the sentence should be modified. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 15:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: I wrote this at the same time NewsAndEventsGuy wrote the above, I'm merging it into the same section. —PaleoNeonate - 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The article says "A study from 2014 investigated the most common climate engineering methods and concluded they are either ineffective or have potentially severe side effects and cannot be stopped without causing rapid climate change.". Common climate engineering methods cannot be stopped without causing rapid climate change? Huh? AQFK (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup. You suppress something (here, climate change), then when you stop suppressing it (here, by using climate engineering), the built-up cause of the change rapidly acts. Think of suddenly taking the top off of a pressure cooker. But if the way it's presented is confusing to you then doubtless it will be confusing to others. How can we word it better? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a run on sentence with two instances of the word "and". How about three sentences? The following is intended to convey gist of the possible sentences, not exact sexy wording.... 1. They studies the most common ones e.g. X Y Z. 2. They concluded they are either (ineffective OR have severe side effects). 3. They also noted the impacts of failure to maintain them once they are started. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4757584/Study-reveals-environmental-impact-keeping-pets.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scibaby97 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What does The fabulous nerve of the woman! Diana would have LOVED her intimate tapes being aired, says JAN MOIR, as they show her in a golden light, heartbreakingly vivacious - and will haunt Charles have to do with the topic of this article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scibaby97 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's the headline of the DM right now. So if you want to say something relevant, be more specific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Domestic pets attribution of climate change

I removed this from the article (it has been contested before too). It seemed undue weight in that paragraph and appeared to be trivia (the rest of the paragraph deals with billion tons/year). I'm also unsure how notable or well researched that is, input welcome. This is also not about industrial cattle herding or the meat industry, just domestic cats and dogs... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with paleoNeonate, though I usually try to think of sub-articles where such details might fit. For example, Shareride, you might consider adding this to Carbon footprint or other subarticle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Studies on Earth's habitability

Earth's climate will remain stable for another 2 Gyr, though sustained global temperatures will be too high for human survival after 1.3 Gyr (Wolf & Toon 2015). In the following, we use this value for the future natural lifetime of the Earth's land-animal biosphere. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/implication-of-our-technological-species-being-first-and-early/EB38BDC09C0908578184835C8B072390/core-reader prokaryotes (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Studies on Earth's habitability

Earth's climate will remain stable for another 2 Gyr, though sustained global temperatures will be too high for human survival after 1.3 Gyr (Wolf & Toon 2015). In the following, we use this value for the future natural lifetime of the Earth's land-animal biosphere. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/implication-of-our-technological-species-being-first-and-early/EB38BDC09C0908578184835C8B072390/core-reader prokaryotes (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Update

This article is very informative , but needs more circle and bar updated graphs about the scientific and political aspects of global warming.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckenzi (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

SSTs

Article missing a good up-to-date global SST map. prokaryotes (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S.Precipitation graph

I think the index on U.S. precipitations by the National Climate Assessment (NCA) offers a good view on U.S. rainfall trends from the past decades. This graph has been added just recently. But there is now a content dispute, since an editor removed it with stating, "rm precip pic. It isn't very informative and we have far too many already" Well, I would rather remove another image, but actually the amount doesn't seem to be too much compared to the article length. Pinging William M. Connolley. Alternatively we could use a global precip graph, but I wasn't able to find one with a quick google image search. prokaryotes (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with William M. Connolley on this. It is not a well annotated graph and it is about the US rather than the world and there are quite a lot of diagrams there already. We should not put in pictures that have information that is not well described in the accompanying text and therefore if this is to be put in somewhere it should be into an article that describes something that the graph illustrates - one of the articles the section refers to might be suitable. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
US precip trends aren't very interesting, because they look very similar to T trends. If there was some kind of interesting point in the article this was trying to illustrate, this might make sense, but there isn't, so it doesn't. Instead it's just a "ooh here's I think I found I think I'll stuff it in". Resist such impulses William M. Connolley (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Climate Science Special Report

AP news; a comprehensive review by 13 US federal agencies concludes that evidence of global warming is stronger than ever and that more than 90% of it has been caused by humans. ....human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92% and 123%. "US report finds climate change 90% manmade, contradicting Trump officials". AP report in the Guardian. 3 November 2017. Retrieved 4 November 2017. Doesn't seem to have a link to the report. . . dave souza, talk 08:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

See .gov page; Climate Science Special Report Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I – This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. – U.S. Global Change Research Program . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC) (hat tip Thinkprogress for link) . . dave souza, talk 10:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Wunderground made what appears to be a summary. https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/blockbuster-assessment-humans-likely-responsible-virtually-all-global-warming-1950s prokaryotes (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Scott K. Johnson (5 November 2017). "US government climate report: Climate change is real and our fault". Ars Technica UK. Retrieved 5 November 2017. . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

According to NASA, there has been a global average sea level rise of nearly 7 inches over the past 100 years. They have also found there to be a continuously rising sea level of 3.4 millimetres per year. Worldwide, 2015 has been found to be the warmest year on record. Studentuser1234 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2017 (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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I would like to make a change:

"Although the popular press often reports the increase of the average near-surface atmospheric temperature as the measure of global warming, most of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has gone into the oceans. The rest has melted ice and warmed the continents and the atmosphere."
to
"Although the popular press often reports the increase of the average near-surface atmospheric temperature as the measure of global warming, most of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has been absorbed into the oceans. The rest has melted ice and warmed the continents and the atmosphere."
Since this a FA and I don't usually edit in this area I hesitate to change something that may not need to be fixed. I was just thniking about using more of the terminology of heat transfer, that's all. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 22:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe another variant could be "was transfered to the oceans" (heat transfer being common terminology). I also like "absorbed" as it implies buffering or accumulation too; if we want to make this part even clearer perhaps that "accumulated in the oceans" would also be good... —PaleoNeonate – 20:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
"...has accumulated in the oceans" is good. To my mind "transferred" implies that the heat was stored somewhere else and then sent into the oceans, which isn't the case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Updated to "has accumulated in the oceans". @Barbara (WVS): opinions? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
😊 - I feel like I have made a difference in the world... Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 00:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Terminology

An important incorrect point of this article is in the first sentence. It says that "climate change" and "global warming" are the same thing, as it says one can be referred to another. That is not the case. See for example: https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/ Global warming is the CAUSE, climate change is the EFFECT. Which also means that the answer to question Q4 about "Why is it so cold in such and such place etc." must be updated to include that, while the general trend is warmer and hotter weather, global warming causes climate change, and, in turn, climate change features, among other things, EXTREME WEATHER, BOTH HOT AND COLD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.96.121 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2017‎ (UTC)

that page appears confused to me. What is one supposed to make of "Worldwide since 1880, the average surface temperature has gone up by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), relative to the mid-20th-century baseline (of 1951-1980)"? Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It says that "climate change" and "global warming" are the same thing - no, it doesn't. And yet you did manage to read it, because as you say "one can be referred to another". GW and CC are just two phrases; they only have meaning because convention gives them meaning. Increasingly, "popular" expositions have come to refer to what we here call GW as CC; but since we need a page on CC too, that would be confusing. So it seems much better to keep the climate change page for the generic concept - because there certainly is a generic concept of CC, including for example the ice ages - and keep global warming for what we're currently experiencing, imperfect as that might be because there are effects other than warming William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
See-also Global_warming#Etymology William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Or that every time record cold temperatures hit somewhere people say "Global Warming" (as a Misnomer) is a joke / myth. But Global climate change over all is un-deniable. "Global Warming" largely gives media talking points to say it is fake. CaribDigita (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Lowess smoothing question on the graph annotation

I feel some kind of dumbed down explanation of what the point of lowess smoothing is may help.. 2A01:388:205:311:0:0:1:2 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added a wikilink, hoping that it helps. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandwiches Contributing to Global Warming

I would like to add this link, which indicates the sandwiches are contributing to global warming: http://www.newsweek.com/sandwiches-environment-bacon-egg-sausage-are-worst-790670

Which section should I add this to? Thanks. Neodinium (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

None, it's not appropriate to this article. While this article does mention impact of various carbon footprints, it doesn't go into detail on the relative footprint of various activities. As such, that link doesn't fit into any existing section. There may be another article that is relevant; but a quick glance at Carbon footprint#Food shows it already has better sourced content with specific emission breakdowns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

In the sentence: "On Earth, an atmosphere containing naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases causes air temperature near the surface to be about 33 °C (59 °F) warmer than it would be in their absence." the "33°C" is not correct, referring to the listed source it is "14°C". So the change would be replacing the "33" through "14". Schnawwel432 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I think it's correct. It's a comparison, saying that the gases make it 33C warmer than the -19C it would otherwise be. The source says:
"To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around −19 °C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth's surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14 °C)."
and the note explains:
The greenhouse effect produces an average worldwide temperature increase of about 33 °C (59 °F) compared to black body predictions without the greenhouse effect, not an average surface temperature of 33 °C (91 °F). The average worldwide surface temperature is about 14 °C (57 °F).
  • But I have changed the word order a little, to "On Earth, an atmosphere containing naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases causes air temperature near the surface to be warmer by about 33 °C (59 °F) than it would be in their absence", to make it a little clearer. -- Begoon 12:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Warming hole

Spatially Distinct Seasonal Patterns and Forcings of the U.S. Warming Hole (report published February 22, 2018); article based on report: Snow-covered beaches? Chilly iguanas? They are part of a mysterious ‘hole’ in global warming
Credible? Worthy of inclusion? Mapsax (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me and it would reinforce the message that global warming will not affect everywhere the same and there are other effects as well. You can get some strange effects from the greater waviness in the jet stream. Dmcq (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I broadly agree with User:Dmcq and think the main point to be brought out is that the central to southeastern United States is the only major land area in the world not to have experienced warming. As there are a number of different hypotheses about the cause of the warming hole it would be best for us not to point to a single paper's view on causality. (Disclosure, our group wrote the first research article on the "warming hole" and coined the term; thus I will refrain from direct editing of this topic.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I say we should be careful of both recentism and US-centrism in this overview article. I understand that the waviness of the jet stream is well established, that the fast warming of the arctic is well established, and that all that cold air that's meant to stay in the arctic is brought south by the waviness, to be replaced by warmer air up there from somewhere else. What I would imagine is less well established is which exact US states and crops get most of the longer lived southward meanders of the jet stream, or even that this is something that mostly affects the US. I understand that these meanders occur all the way around the northern hemisphere. --Nigelj (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I tried to write a neutral top level summary of the concept of "warming hole" in contrast to (A) global temp averages and (B) other effects of global warming. My changes are in this diff. No doubt your additional tweaks or overhaul will make it better. have at it! Notice the one CN tag too. Can you fill that in? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

For the general statement "Because it is not a uniform phenomena, effects can vary by region" a better link would be AR4 chapter 11 (Regional Climate Projections) or AR5 chapter 14 (Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change). I'm not sure that the latter part of the diff, regarding the warming hole region being susceptible to other effects of GW, is directly supportable. It's certainly true but would border on WP:SYN; that is, I can't immediately recall any papers that explicitly say the warming hole region is susceptible to greater extremes or other GW effects. I have other reasons to review the literature on the warming hole within the next few weeks and will report back if I find anything. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If I can put on my climate scientist hat for a moment, rather than my Wikipedian hat, I'd suggest being careful about giving this particular study too much emphasis. It is true that global warming is not uniform, and that is a perfectly reasonable point to make in this article. However, the way this particular study has been presented tends towards the misleading. Everyone's data (including there's) shows the Southeast US warming over the last 40 years (though at a somewhat lower rate than the Western US). The issue is that some datasets show enough of a decline in temperature between the early 20th century and the 1960s the reduce the hundred year trend to around zero or slightly negative. See, for example, the charts here [2] to see how there is both recent warming and a flatter long-term trend. Even then, the paper's conclusion is made more complicated by the study's use of non-homogenized data. The raw US weather data is believed by most researchers to have large long-term biases due to systematic changes in observing practices and methods that occurred during the 20th century (e.g. changes in thermometer type, thermometer enclosure type, and time(s) of day during which thermometers were read). The corrections to those biases produced by NOAA and others tend to increase the apparent long-term warming rate in the US. In other words, a substantial portion of the "warming hole" that they observe in the raw data may be due to instrumental bias rather than an actual physical process. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised this paper was published without doing a better job to address the bias issue. But anyway, that is my professional opinion. As a Wikipedia editor, I will gladly acknowledge that this is a published peer-reviewed paper and referencing it in this article is fair. However, I would encourage people to avoid putting too much weight on one recent paper, and to be careful to adequately contextualize the paper if you are going to use it. Dragons flight (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. After all, it has long been a denialist strategy to first talk about exceptions, then repeat what they said about exceptions as often as possible, then quote other denialists talking about the same exceptions. That "warming hole" falls in this category as much as the infamous "global warming hiatus" does. Handle with care. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Impact on developing countries?

It is often said that climate change / global warming will affect developing countries more than the wealthier countries, e.g. more droughts, floods (coupled with lower resiliance and infrastructure). I was surprised to see very little about that in the article, or maybe I missed it? Could someone please add some information about this? Either here or in impacts of global warming? Thanks.EMsmile (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Find some WP:Reliable sources and be WP:Bold. If you're reverted don't take it personal, just follow WP:BRD at the talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll ask some colleagues in the sanitation sector to see if anyone has a suitable reference at their fingertips. Will get back to this issue soon, I hope. EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Climate change article

Also the other problem I have with the article on climate change is that it says in the hatnote "For current and future climatological effects of human influences, see Global warming." but then it has a whole section on human influences (Climate change#Human influences). That section does then refer to global warming but it has still a fair bit of detail itself which I don't think should be there. EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not the right place to discuss improving other articles. There is an exception. Sometimes a single issue impacts multiple articles but that is not the case here. I did see you started a threat at Talk:Climate change, so this discussion here should be considered closed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I agree. I just thought the two articles are so closely interlinked that probably the same people are watching both talk pages and can therefore think about these two articles in the way they relate to each other. EMsmile (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Add this quote from United States National Research Council?

I've taken out this quote from the article on climate change and am proposing to include it here somewhere. If you agree, where should it go? I actually find it rather long and with a low readability score. The reason why I am proposed to take it out of climate change is because that article is not meant to focus on the recent human-made climate change:

"Science has made enormous inroads in understanding climate change and its causes, and is beginning to help develop a strong understanding of current and potential impacts that will affect people today and in coming decades. This understanding is crucial because it allows decision makers to place climate change in the context of other large challenges facing the nation and the world. There are still some uncertainties, and there always will be in understanding a complex system like Earth's climate. Nevertheless, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."

— United States National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change

EMsmile (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming Climate change in this way. As for adding this quote to this article, why? Where? Did you do a text search to see if it is already there? If its not there, did you read the text to see if its redundant with another RS? How would your idea improve the article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Well I searched for "United States National Research Council" and couldn't find it; I also searched for the first sentence of the quote and couldn't find it. So I am assuming it is not already in there. Personally, I am not a big fan of such long quotes but I assumed that if it was in the article on climate change in such a prominent spot then it must be super important and would add value to the article here. So rather than just deleting it from "climate change" I thought it was better to move it here. The people who have done all the good work on this article in the past (like yourself) are better able to judge if it adds any value or not. If it's not so special then let's just not include it. EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
OK... here we have some quotes as part of the reference itself (rather than in the body of the article). This one looks great but redundant with some of the others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Parts of the world that might get colder

Furthermore, if the article on global warming only deals with warming, then where would I have to go to read about those parts of the earth that might actually get colder, like the UK due to the change in water currents? EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Here, of course, since this article is neither UK warming nor UK cooling but as the first sentence says it is the article about "Global warming...and its related effects"... including any changes in Thermohaline circulation.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience with me. As a layperson, I didn't know that they key term here was Thermohaline_circulation. I've made a suggestion to include a couple more sentences about that (see if you agree). This way, if someone looks for "cooling" they would now be pointed to that part of the article. Also the "its related effects" is something that I had overlooked. Would it be an idea to follow this up with the next sentence saying something like "The related effects are not limited to an increase in average global temperature but include such diverse effects as sea level rise, possible cooling in parts of Europe, xx, xx," I know it comes later in the lead but I just wonder if it wouldn't be more helpful if the "and its related effects" is explained already in the first paragraph, or at the latest in the second one? EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of this article.

"Global warming, also referred to as climate change..." This is incorrect. Global Warming is a process that leads to Climate Change. They are NOT the same thing. By making this statement, especially in the first sentence of this article, sends an inaccurate message to readers. There already exists confusion in the public awareness, over the difference between the two terms. - Sources are commonplace and in general use/lexicon. Deebz270 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 21/03/18

True - but not what Wikipedia is about. We're supposed to summarize what is out there rather than fix mistakes people make. That the terms are generally confused is a good reason for Wikipedia to have both of those in the lead as a way of referring to the topic. There is a hat note just above the lead with climate change in the sense you mean but yes it probably would be worth emphasizing that climate change can refer to a different topic. I'm not sure where else that should go though. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Both true and false as explained in the many prior discussions of the same point. To persuade us to change, please review and reference the prior discussions (in the talk page archives) and then tell us something new that changes our minds. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I have a hard time seeing why This page is about the current warming of the Earth's climate system. "Climate change" can also refer to climate trends at any point in Earth's history. isn't clear enough William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I do think the link in the hatnote could be more explicit ("For climate trends in Earth's history, see Climate change"), but completely agree otherwise that the hatnote satisfies any concerns. Rhinopias (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Deebz270 that something must be done about that first sentence. Sorry if it has all been discussed before. Perhaps just changing it to this could work: "Global warming, also referred to in mainstream media as climate change" ? Just something to state that it is not the scientists who would equate the two terms but the laypersons... I come from the sanitation field and we often talk about climate change in the context of increasing droughts and floods. We usually talk about climate change, not about global warming. So I tended to wikilink to climate change whereas I should have linked to global warming but it seems that at least in some sectors, the term climate change is the "main" term these days. So it's tricky and we need to get it right. EMsmile (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This article is treating global warming as an instance of climate change. If this article were located at Climate change, then where would Wikipedia discuss trends in Earth's climate system? The first paragraph has been discussed extensively, but the latest discussions I could find are at Talk:Global warming/Archive 70#Proposed new paragraph 1 (NAEG Ver 6) and the current lead is quite different than what was last discussed. Perhaps this version can be improved, but the lead is already explicit: the "observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects" is global warming but it is also referred to as climate change, and the broader definition is linked to (Climate change) in the hatnote. That article's hatnote says "For current and future climatological effects of human influences, see Global warming."
Maybe you're attempting to say that "climate change" is a better title for this subject since the term is more commonly used than "global warming", but this article is specifically about the current rise in temperate. Can't locate definitions from the IPCC right now, but this article reflects the EPA's definitions for global warming ("The recent and ongoing global average increase in temperature near the Earth's surface.") and climate change (including "Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that occur over several decades or longer." and "… the term is more properly used to imply a significant change from one climatic condition to another. In some cases, 'climate change' has been used synonymously with the term, 'global warming'; scientists however, tend to use the term in the wider sense to also include natural changes in climate."). Rhinopias (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The proposal ""Global warming, also referred to in mainstream media as climate change" doesn't work, because misc sci dox do it, too. The point is that there are two concepts, lets call them A and B. A is the concept of the-current-warming; that's what wiki calls GW. But you can also use it for *any* instance of warming, if you want to, and some do. B is the concept of change-in-climate-in-general; wiki calls that CC. But plenty of sensible people label A as CC. So there is no possible re-labelling that is unambiguous. All you can do is what this article does and make sure that the meaning of your labels is clear William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't understand what "misc sci dox do it, too" means? If my proposal was not helpful, can we think of another option for the first sentence? The current first sentence is simply very confusing. As a reader I don't know what "also referred to" as means to me. Does that mean I am allowed to treat the two terms as synonymous or not? Who refers to it in that way?EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
"Allowed to"? It's ok with me if you call it "ooga booga", but I doubt folks will understand you. On the other hand, if you say "climate change" most lay people will understand you and if you say "global warming" pretty much the same people will understand you. You can swing both ways, it's not a sin. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Add a section on terminology?

Here's another suggestion which is related to the discussion above about the first sentence. How about we add a "terminology" section at the start of the article? The article on climate change has this which is helpful - perhaps something equivalent could be useful here as well:

Terminology
The most general definition of climate change is a change in the statistical properties (principally its mean and spread)[1] of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause.[2] Accordingly, fluctuations over periods shorter than a few decades, such as El Niño, do not represent climate change.
The term "climate change" is often used to refer specifically to anthropogenic climate change (also known as global warming). Anthropogenic climate change is caused by human activity, as opposed to changes in climate that may have resulted as part of Earth's natural processes.[3]
In this sense, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming. Within scientific journals, global warming refers to surface temperature increases while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas levels affect.[4]
"A related term, "climatic change", was proposed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1966 to encompass all forms of climatic variability on time-scales longer than 10 years, but regardless of cause. During the 1970s, the term climate change replaced climatic change to focus on anthropogenic causes, as it became clear that human activities had a potential to drastically alter the climate.[5] Climate change was incorporated in the title of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Climate change is now used as both a technical description of the process, as well as a noun used to describe the problem.[5]

EMsmile (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It might help if you were to read the full article before proposing high-level changes. If you were to do so, you would discover we already have such a section. See Global_warming#Etymology. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K. B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H. L., eds. (2007). "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
  2. ^ "Glossary – Climate Change". Education Center – Arctic Climatology and Meteorology. NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center.; Glossary, in IPCC TAR WG1 2001.
  3. ^ "The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change". 21 March 1994. Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
  4. ^ "What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change". NASA. Retrieved 23 July 2011.
  5. ^ a b Hulme, Mike (2016). Concept of Climate Change, in: The International Encyclopedia of Geography. Wiley-Blackwell/Association of American Geographers (AAG). Retrieved 16 May 2016.
Yes, I am sorry about that. I can imagine that it's frustrating to get these questions from a "newcomer" to this page, so I very much appreciate your patience. However, let's also see it as an opportunity to view the article through the eyes of a "fresh" person, and someone who has been editing Wikipedia for a little while and cares about it deeply. The term "etymology" at the very end of the article is not, in my opinion, as powerful as the section title "terminology" at the very start of the article, like it is on climate change. For a lay person, the term "terminology" is much clearer than "ethymology". Under "Ethymology" I usually expect to see some explanations of the origin of the word, e.g. if it was from Greek or Latin, see e.g. for feces: Feces#Etymology. You could say it's personal preference but if we want to reach laypersons I think we should try to use easy to understand terms whereever possible. Hence I would favor terminology over ethymology, and I would favour it at the start, not at the end. What do others think? EMsmile (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the etymology of "terminology"? Seriously, that's a good idea, I support the change of section heading to "terminology". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If you search the talk page archives on "etymology" you'll find prior discussions. Of note is one from just last year Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Proposed_deletion_of_"Etymology"_section_(or_complete_rewrite). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Great, that's helpful. Although your link took me to a discussion from 2014 not to last year? I have changed the section title now to "Terminology". Would you agree to also move it to the start of the article, like it is on climate change? However, the text needs reworking, too. Don't know if it has changed much since the person made that comment in 2014 but it still seems more like a history section rather than one on terminology? I am not sure. Would we want to have a history section? I guess we already have one but it's called "Discourse about global warming", right? EMsmile (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been so long since I studied the archives index I forgot about this Talk:Global warming/Terminology section old discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Graph

Shouldn't the graph at the top have a reference? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a graph we create with code. Instead, it's an image file just like any other image file. If you click on an image's thumbnail it opens the Help:File description page. In this case that takes you to File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg and there you can see the RS. Would it help to repeat the RS in the caption? Reasonable minds can differ and I don't care either way. Is it required to repeat the RS in the caption? A long time ago I dived into image use policies and if I remember correctly we had some rules back then that said it was required at the "File description page", but optional in a caption where a thumbnail like this is used. Admittedly I only spent 30 seconds trying to re-locate those image use rules, so maybe someone else knows where it is, or if it has changed (assuming I remember correctly). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it should be after the caption as we can't rely on our readers clicking through, and also because this is one of the more controversial topics. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we please reduce the frequency of archiving from the talk page?

I don't understand why you have set it to 21 days for archiving of threads on this talk page (User:NewsAndEventsGuy). I think that is too fast and reduces the amount of discussions that takes place. When I come to a new article, I often look at the talk page to see what is happening. If the talk page is really short it seems that not much has been going on. Remembering to go to the archive requires an extra click, and as it's archived it feels like one is no longer supposed to comment. Can we reduce the frequency to every 3 months or rather make it manual archiving? (or maybe it is manual already, I am not sure - it just seems very fast) EMsmile (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Anytime you ask me why I did something, please include a DIFF that shows where I did it so I can try to remember the reasoning. I've watched this page for years. We go through phases when there is a lot of action, and a lot of driveby posts with no followup. I probably set it to 21 days during such a period, but that's a guess. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I see. Where is that 21 day thing set? Is it easy to change? I can't find where this is done. EMsmile (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This article heats up and cools down. (I just realized that could be taken as a pun...) When things are very active the page has to be archived frequently but it's been quiet lately, so I've set the archive interval to 60 days. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Move content to "Effects of global warming"

There is a separate article on Effects of global warming but we have two sections here that deal with effects of global warming in detail. Would it be an idea to streamline things and condense what we have here about the effects of global warming and move content to the other sub-article? I can't judge yet how good the sub-article currently is. Perhaps it would be too much effort. But in an ideal world, if there is a sub-article on "effects on global warming" then this topic should not get as much detail here, in my opinion (to avoid dublication of content). EMsmile (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In general, I support summarizing the key points and making better use of sub articles. Several of the regulars here have also expressed interest from time to time. One editor who has done good work of this sort, and whose name I haven't seen for a long while is Enescot (talk · contribs). HelllLLllOoooOo? Are you still there, Enescot? One thing I liked about his approach was he would post proposed section re-writes on the talk page, and after it seemed like any comments were resolved, then go live by posting the result to the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to come back to this. So if there are no general objections, I would slowly go ahead with this. It's not really about re-writing anything, rather about culling stuff (the culled stuff would be moved to the other article if it's not already there). I would do it very gently bit by bit and people can follow my progress and object if needed. EMsmile (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Move content about "long term effects"

I would like to remove/move this text piece on long term effects. Normally I'd want to move it to the article on long-term effects of global warming, but does it really talk about these long term effects? Doesn't seem so to me:

Stabilizing the global average temperature would require large reductions in CO2 emissions, as well as reductions in emissions of other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Emissions of CO2would need to be reduced by more than 80% relative to their peak level. Even if this were achieved, global average temperatures would remain close to their highest level for many centuries. As of 2016, emissions of CO2from burning fossil fuels had stopped increasing, but The Guardian reports they need to be "reduced to have a real impact on climate change". Meanwhile, this greenhouse gas continues to accumulate in the atmosphere. In that context, the New York Times reported that scientific installations analyzing oceanic air detected the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere "rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016." It has been suggested that this rise in CO2 levels is the result of changing absorption patterns of the ocean and land surface in that they may have reached the limit of their ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Also, CO2 is not the only factor driving climate change. Concentrations of atmospheric methane, another greenhouse gas, rose dramatically between 2006–2016 for unknown reasons. This undermines efforts to combat global warming and there is a risk of an uncontrollable runaway greenhouse effect.

Do people agree with me moving this out of this article to the other one? EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made this move now and would like to hear reactions? If people agree then I would make more similar moves so that only a fairly short section on "Effects of global warming" remains and all the other content that is too detailed is moved to the article on effects of global warming. Would be great if people who are more into this topic, and who have worked on this suite of articles in the past, could help me with this endeavour. EMsmile (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I've done the same type of culling now within the section on sea level rise.EMsmile (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved content about extreme weather events

Continuing with this: I have moved a piece of text that was in the section on "extreme weather events" to the relevant sub-article. Was going to move it to effects of global warming but it has a sub-article in itself: So I moved it to physical impacts of climate change. There is actually so much overlap and repetition between the different sub-articles. E.g. effects of global warming and physical impacts of climate change repeat much of the same content, rather than one being the overview article for the other. EMsmile (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that with 2000 people who are watching this page, nobody is reacting to what I am putting on the talk page... So I hope no reaction equals you're fine with the changes I am making. If so, I will bit by bit continue along the same lines. EMsmile (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Condensed content about "social systems"

I've just completed a cull & condense on the section about "social systems". Again, I am trying to convert this into an overview only; introducing key terms and topics and ensuring people know where to click to find the relevant details in the sub-articles. In general I think a topic that has it's own sub-article does not require sub-headings in the main article. Hence I remove the sub-headings that were there under "social systems" and integrated it all into the text and the bullet point list with examples. EMsmile (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Condensed content about "Environmental effects"

I've just completed a cull & condense on the section about "Environmental effects". But I think further work is still required there. I wonder if I should restructure it in a similar way to "social systems", i.e. without any subheadings and perhaps rather with bullet points. I think the section on "effects" is super important but I want people to just get an overview here and then click through to the sub-articles if they want to know more. Otherwise we risk the situation where people think the section on "effects" is complete and there is not more to it (and they don't click on the sub-articles). The one article that they should at least know exists and has all the content is effects of global warming.EMsmile (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Have done more work on the condensing here. Now we no longer have sub-headings below the environmental facts which I think is better. I have also taken out some of the overly detailed sentences. In my opinion, people coming to this overview article are looking to understand the broad concepts and need to know where they can find details in the sub-articles. If we put too many nitty gritty details already here, they will get lost. EMsmile (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Information about developing countries

I would like to add more information about the particular vulnerability of many developing countries towards global warming. In this context, the terms "free rider" and "forced rider" need to be explained. I am going to be using this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20281#f1 A simpler version is here: https://theconversation.com/australia-the-us-and-europe-are-climate-free-riders-its-time-to-step-up-53953 . But those who are more deeply into this topic on Wikipedia: please let me know which sub-articles this would be most relevant to? In that case I could just have a couple of broad statements here and then perhaps add more details in the relevant sub-articles. Appreciate your guidance on this. I am also going to expand the information about global warming in the article on developing countries. EMsmile (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. there is this article Climate Vulnerability Monitor which might need to be linked in better. EMsmile (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I've worked on the global warming section within developing countries. Still needs further work and more up to date reference. Does anyone want to help me? See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country#Global_warming EMsmile (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm doubtful we want too much about "the particular vulnerability of many developing countries" here. Their major vulnerability factor is their poverty, and that belongs in an economics article William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Well we don't need much. I am thinking of just 2-3 sentences, introducing some key terms and concepts and links to sub-articles (e.g. the one on regional effects of global warming. And it's not true what you said about developing countries: think of small island states, they may be inundated and this has nothing to do with their poverty (OK if they had loads of money they could build higher dams, is that what you are saying?). EMsmile (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I have made this edit now, added some information about regional effects with reference to developing countries. I don't want to add more because there is a separate article for it but I think it is necessary to give people some of these "big picture" or "broad concept" ideas in this kind of overview article (and then leave the details to the sub-articles, and help people to find the sub-articles). People otherwise get lost in detail and don't have an overview. EMsmile (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to cull or delete the section on Further reading

I suggest to cull or delete the section on Further reading. I think it adds no value to the lay person reader who has come to read encyclopedic content, and who already has a huge number of publications to read as shown under citations and references (could we by the way merge this so that it's all under "references"?). The Further reading list is not really helpful, in any case it is far too long. If you think we need it, could we cull it down to the 5 most important or most recent or most influential publications? EMsmile (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm of mixed mind about this: there's already a huge number of references, but does it hurt to have even more included as "further reading"? Certainly, we'd be better off if the Further Reading items were linked to sections in the text and thus became actual references. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I've culled the further reading list by taking out very old or very detailed/specific publications. I am now left with this list below. I suggest that we add them as in-line citations if they are important (may need to double check if they haven't been cited already anyhow): EMsmile (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Further reading (remaining five)

EMsmile (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep McKibben because it's a compilation that includes some of the classics such as Arrhenius and Callendar. Santer et al. is short and timely but it may be a little too technical for a general audience. No opinion on the others. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Now that the Further Reading section is "gone", there haven't been many reactions, apart from User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. So maybe we can really live without it? I am not sure if we really need to put that book by McKibben back in. It is not freely available anyhow. The publication by Santer does sound very scientific, just going by the title. - Are there any other voices that think any of the five need to go back into a Further Reading section? EMsmile (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reconstructed temperature plot

Could someone update the "Reconstructed temperature" plot? Its last datapoint is apparently 2004, which is getting old given the change over the last 15 years, and there must be more recent plots around though I don't immediately find a reference. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.133.187 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

On it. I started the project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change/Figures_and_art and a colleague of mine will get the most up to date data set. We're also updating other figures related to this article. Femkemilene (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving the section about "Feedback"

I'm finding the section heading "feedback" a bit strange as it's not a generic heading (things like "background", "causes", "effects" are more standard/generic headings). Would it make sense to combine it with the section about "models" into "Scientific background" or something like that? EMsmile (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Better to change "Feedback" (an admittedly vague term) to match the glossary in the back of IPCC AR5 WG1, which has an entry for "Climate feedback". Climate feedback is one of the core ideas; if you don't "get" climate feedback you don't understand the article's topic. Better to leave it as its own heading/section but tweak the heading to reduce confusion.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I strongly think we shouldn't remove the climate feedback heading and agree with NewsAndEventsGuy. Femkemilene (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn discussion

As stated in Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As a matter of interest do you take what Piers Corbyn says seriously? If so what is it about what he says that tips a scale for you? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I just had a look with Google for "geological climate change" in quotes and the phrase does occur a small but reasonable number of times and seems to be used for what the climate change article covers. Titles do not have to be absolutely unambiguous so nobody can misinterpret them even though they try. They just have to be reasonably common names for the topic. Dmcq (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
To Dmcq:You would probably regard me as a climate change denier although I don't deny that climate change is happening and I don't deny that carbon dioxide contributes to it. However, I believe the contribution from man-made CO2 is negligible because it is only about 3% of the total so cutting out our 3% will make no measurable difference. I have several other objections to the CO2 theory but I am not writing an essay on this talk page. I accept that climate change is happening so, as I reject the CO2 theory, I have to look for an alternative explanation and the Piers Corbyn sunspot theory is the one I find most convincing. I do not claim to know what causes climate change - it is a combination of many factors. As a scientist, I don't know anything. I just look at the evidence and make a judgement. People who claim to know that CO2 is the main cause of climate change are taking a religious view, not a scientific one. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your 3% from or what it means. I know many people who claim to read the future in peoples hands actually believe they have some power rather than consciously being charlatans and I think Piers Corbyn may be like that. Dmcq (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This line of reasoning has always struck me as hilarious, but then I can compare the mass of the human body to the amount of sarin needed to kill and see that minute amounts can indeed have major effects. For a funner example, try tequila NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this discussion because you are not taking it seriously. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I think your view certainly does qualify as a rejection of science but I am interested in seeing how people came to views like yours, Piers Corbyn seems a pretty straightforward example of a snake oil salesman to me. I am sorry that NewsAndEventsGuy sees fit to just make fun of you. Dmcq (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I made fun of the line of reasoning at play, and in any case there is no article improvement suggestion in this thread so it should shut down per WP:FORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, we have Question 5 at the top of this article which addresses this, please scroll up: "Q5: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?". Dmcq: whilst I agree with you that it would be really interesting to understand how people form such views (same with "how can someone possible not believe that Neil Amrstrong landed on the moon!? See Moon landing conspiracy theories), I think your questions to User:Mock wurzel soup are not well placed on this talk page. Why don't you rather take this to a direct discussion with him or her? Perhaps on his or her talk page or even with Wikipedia e-mail? Then you kind find out directly from him or her but it wouldn't clog up this talk page which is not where it belongs. EMsmile (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree, general discussion should happen at user talk, per the WP:TPG this space is only for discussion tangible ideas of article improvement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to not show all levels in TOC

User:NewsAndEventsGuy you reverted my edit where I had limited the number of levels that are shown in the TOC. I think for lay persons a shorter TOC is better. I am following the Manual of Style that is used in the WikiProject Medicine which is one of the leading projects in Wikipedia. Have you got a specific reason why you think showing all levels is better? Let's hear from you and perhaps from other as well what they prefer. Wikipedia articles are not little textbooks that need all levels of the TOC shown in my opinion but should just show up to level 2. A very long TOC can be offputting in my opinion.EMsmile (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say, given the length of the article, that it's much easier to find sections with the full TOC. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the article, EMsmile. I rely on the full TOC to review edits, especially batch and structural edits such as you have been doing. If there is a setting that lets the reader expand it, I would support the default being set at lesser level. If that feature does not exist, it would be a good one to suggest at the Village pump for technical issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know if any other editor, other than NewsAndEventsGuy, has an opinion about this issue with the TOC? I asked the same question for the article of climate change where I would also prefer a limit to Level 3 for a better overview. The TOC is not there for us editors to help us with our editing but it is there for the layperson readers to get a good quick overview of the content of the article (if an editor needs to review the structure, he/she can briefly remove the limit, review the structure, then put the limit back on). I've looked at a random list of featured articles form Januar of this year and none of them have TOCs that go down to Level 3. They all have higher level TOCs, see these examples: Joe Warbrick, Lawrence Wetherby, Red-backed fairywren, Three Sisters (Oregon), Illinois Centennial half dollar, Oviri. - I know it's personal preference but surely there are more people than just you and me, and it would be interesting to hear opinions from others about the TOC level of detail as well. EMsmile (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, it is no longer relevant for global warming's TOC as we anyway don't have headings anymore that are "sub-heading 2". But it's still of relevance for climate change where we do have "sub-headings 2". Therefor, I would be include to move or copy this discussion to the climate change article talk page. EMsmile (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving the terminology section to the start of the article?

Given how important terminology is, I would like to move the terminology section to the start of the article (note it is also at the start of the climate change article). If there are no major objections within a week, I'd go ahead with it. EMsmile (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather see someone other than me remove most of the the global warming/climate change terminology discussion out of both articles and use it to create a new subarticle on that subtopic. Then put an identical sentence, at most two, (along with an RS or two) in both Climate change and global warming, with a wikilink for Main|(new article). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of the importance of the T section. But anyway, oppose this kind of fiddling until the fuss over the page moves has died down William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I am inclined to think terminology is important. But I would concur with William to throttle back on some of the fiddling. Let the dust settle a bit. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
what is your definition of "fiddling" here? There are all sorts of things that could be called "fiddling". I think many wikipedia articles start off with a terminology section so I don't think it's a big deal if this article also started with terminology. And yes, the terminology section under "climate change" and that under "global warming" should probably be fairly similar. In that case, I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy that a spin-off article could be created for it (however: wouldn't it be too short for a full article?). It could be that it might exist already in the myriad of sub-articles that we have on the topic of climate change already. EMsmile (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
To me "fiddling" is a genteel way of saying when a conceptual consensus is being debated its disrespectful to try to edit your side of the debate into the text. See WP:CONSENSUS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification which I understand. However, moving the terminology to the start is something that I would have proposed anyhow, whether we rename the article or not. It is common with Wikipedia articles that issues about terminology are dealt with at the start of the article. We from WikiProject Sanitation have this recommended in our Manual of Style, see here. I know that's only a small project but perhaps other more relevant WikiProjects are saying the same thing in their style guides? Does anyone know? EMsmile (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Trouble is, the Terminology section is a very long-winded and rather out-of-date history of the terminology, not a concise current definition. Not sure if it justifies a separate article, but the idea of one unified history with brief summary-style sections near the start of the articles is good – or we could have and expanded History of terminology section in one article, linked from the other, and a concise section either headed Definitions or Terminology about current usage, based of course on secondary sources. . . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. To move this in the right direction, I have now added a standard heading called "History". That existing section on "terminology" is currently really a history of the terminolog so it fits under history and can stay at the end of the article. But yes, having a Definitions or Terminology about current usage woud be good and that should then be at the start of the article in my opinion. For this history section that I have just created, a copied a few key sentence across from the lead of the sub-article (History of climate change science). Because I took the sentences from the lead there are no references included yet. The references must be in the main body of the article. Perhaps someone who is more deeply into the topic could quickly identify which of the sources used in History of climate change science should be copied across to this new history section (or perhaps some of the sources already cited in the article could equally well serve as sources for these statements about the historical development about global warming. Note that whilst the article is termed "History of climate change science" it is mostly about human-induced climate change, although I think it does a good job at pointing the light briefly also at the climate change prior to the 18th century. EMsmile (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It is apparent that there's a lack of consensus for any of the suggested titles. Cúchullain t/c 17:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Rename Proposal Alternative A

Global warming → Climate change – In current every day language and in the media the term "climate change" is nowadays used for the content that is currently under global warming. It is possible that ten years ago when this article was created it was different. A name change has been suggested on the talk page several times in the past but never in an offical format, I think, and never with a full discussion with many editors. When you look at the suite of sub-articles belonging to this article, many of them already use the term climate change, like Physical impacts of climate change, Climate change adaptation, Climate change mitigation, climate justice. Also there are the United Nations Climate Change conference, which are not called "conferences on global warming". They are held every year and generate a lot of media attention who again use the term climate change in their reporting. The existing Wikipedia article on climate change needs to be renamed to something like "climate change (overall)" or "Climate change (all causes)" or "Climate change (geological time frames)", of maybe a disambiguation page. The section on terminology in the existing climate change article already says: "In this sense, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming. Within scientific journals, global warming refers to surface temperature increases while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas levels affect". I would say most people when they turn to Wikipedia and put "climate change" in the search field they would expect to come to the page that deals with the human-made climate change but now they have to click through to "global warming" to find what they are looking for. Also many of the wikilinks in existing articles use the word "climate change" in the sentences but the wikilink has to go to "global warming" instead of to "climate change". EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Climate change article already exists and this article is referred to from there, Climate_change#Human_influences. Count Iblis (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.The situation isn't ideal. I'm not sure there is any 'correct' way of going around this," but giving articles longer titles with brackets isn't going to fix anything. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Climate change" in the global warming context is nothing more than a euphemism used by denialists. Wikipedia has it right - "climate change" means the changes in climate over time in totality, and "global warming" is the current human-caused warming phenomenon.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support "Climate change" per overwhelming use in the best references, specifically the lede references and the expansion of IPCC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Global warming is the ongoing human caused alteration of the global climate, whereas ideally "climate change" is or should be, focused on the change over geologic time. Some folks want to obscure things by emphasizing the naturally changing nature of climate ... to protect their favorite fossil fuel ... or whatever. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – global warming is a subset of climate change; the latter term is used for previous changes, for example glaciation. Human caused climate change equates to global warming, but "climate change" is broader, as discussed in the two articles. . . dave souza, talk 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
dave souza said "global warming is a subset of climate change". I agree but the current article on climate change does not reflect that sufficiently but only "in passing". Please see what I just just wrote on the talk page of climate change there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change#Aren't_we_missing_some_sections? (sorry if this might get messy but we have to discuss both articles in parallel; but I put what I found faulty with the current climate change article on that article's talk page now. Please also note that article is only rated as B class so far. This is actually pretty bad given the importance and high view rates of this topic (3000 views per day; global warming gets 7000 views per day). EMsmile (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename Proposal Alternative B

Instead, I suggest we move

Global warming >> Global warming (human-caused climate change) and leave Climate change alone.

Reasons are

(1) Most importantly, whoever closes this discussion please see WP:not counting heads; it is the reasoning presented, and not the number of yes/no that matters
(2) Regulars here frequently point to the major RSs to support their arguments, such as IPCC, Natl Science Academy and so on. In this tradition, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is not the "convention on global warming". In the text of the document (Article 1, Sec 2) the topic of this article is not defined as "global warming" but like this - “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."
(3) Similarly, IPCC Working Group 1 in the glossary for the Fifth (and most recent) Assessment Report has no entry for "global warming". Instead they provide the following defintion of climate change, which encompasses both natural and human causes

Climate change Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles , volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use . Note that the Frame - work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate change commitment , Detection and Attribution.

(4) In 2013 we discussed this. An ed recommended waiting to see how major media outlets handle the subject and another replied we should follow the academic literature. The google hit test is always dubious but FWIW, in Google Scholar, limited to 2018 articles, the ratio is roughly 3 climate change hits for every global warming hit.
(5) To comply with the sources in (2) and (3) above the title should include 'climate change' and on the other hand, there are plenty of sources that use global warming. What is the import of taking sides? The RSs are clear that to pick sides in this rhetorical debate really does impact the reader. For example, in [“Climate Change Versus Global Warming: Who Is Susceptible to the Framing of Climate Change?” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0013916516664382], Daniel Benjamin, Han-Hui Por, David Budescu, Environment and Behavior , September 22, 2016 write

The terms global warming (GW) and climate change (CC) invoke disparate interpretations and call attention to different aspects of the changing global climate. A GW label induces associations with temperature increases, severe weather, greater concern, human causes, and negative affect, whereas a CC label highlights changes in general weather patterns and the possibility of natural fluctuations, and boosts recollection of non-heat-related consequences like increased precipitation (Leiserowitz et al., 2014; Schuldt, Konrath, & Schwarz, 2011; Whitmarsh, 2009). Researchers have found differences in people’s beliefs, preferences, and perceptions of the phenomenon as a function of the term used. Typically, CC leads to higher reported beliefs that climate change is happening and will have serious consequences (Akerlof & Maibach, 2011; Leiserowitz et al., 2014; Schuldt et al., 2011; Villar & Krosnick, 2011; Whitmarsh, 2009).

We need both to comply with WP:NPOVTITLE.
(6)Technical note - our article already references the significant other title "climate change" in bold in the first sentence, per WP:TITLE and WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. Also the Policy on article titles says parentheses can be used for disambiguation. If I were proposing Climate change (human-caused global warming) that would be an example of disambiguation. But I'm not proposing that. Instead, I am proposing Global warming (human-caused climate change). This seems to be an exception to the parentheses rule in WP:TITLE, and the reason for doing this is to follow the sources above, follow the trend in the academic literature, following WP:NPOVTITLE and maintain the greatest possible clarity in destinguishing this article from climate change (which is climate change from any cause, at any geologic time period, and includes both cooling in addition to warming).

(7) leaving "global warming" as the first part minimizes disruption in our extensive tree of articles and long standing familiarity with this featured article

CONCLUSION - for above reasons, this article should have both phrases in its title. A bonus is it will help call attention to fact that when readers see either phrase used in other places they probably mean the same thing. Since the sources themselves distinguish between all-causes of climate change vs that from humans specifically, so should we. Hence, Global warming (human-caused climate change.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Errm, this is a joke, yes? I certainly hope so, since it makes no sense William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Ever since I arrived here in 2011 you have defended the title, but without much reasoning. I'm far too busy to spend that much time joking, or trying to whitewash a subjective opinion. Bottom line, I meant every word. If it made no sense whatsoever my guess you likely didn't try very hard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Well if it wasn't a joke were you making some point about my saying "... but giving articles longer titles with brackets isn't going to fix anything"? Dmcq (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Dmcq, that sounds like an empty rhetorical question. When you spend time with my reasoning you'll see that I believe something would indeed be fixed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. - Can we please have a proper friendly discussion about this. Comments such as "Please don't be so silly. No" and "Errm, this is a joke, yes? I certainly hope so, since it makes no sense" are the kinds of comments that can put someone right off being a Wikipedia editor. Just for the record: opinions may vary. The point here is to discuss them and to brainstorm. Accusing others of being silly or of joking is not at all helpful. The whole topic of climate change is heated enough (at least in the United States), so can we on Wikipedia please go about our discussion in a friendly non aggressive manner? Thanks. - I agree with many of the points made by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (although I still think the current article on "climate change" needs a different title, as most people nowadays would go there to find information about the human-induced climate change and then be surprised/lost/disappointed). I don't think it's problematic to have brackets in the title if that ends up being the best solution. The most important aspects are: where does a user land who types in "global warming" into the search field? Where does he/she end if they type "climate change" into the search field? We can use redirects if needed. Where does it link to when someone mentions climate change in another Wikipedia article and adds a wikilink (in 90% of the cases they probably mean the faster human-induced version of climate change not the general concept that may include the very long-term geological timefram options). - Another example: I put "climate change denial" into Google and get 16 million hits. I put "global warming denial" into Google search and get only 5 million hits. The ratio is 3:1. In both cases the Wikipedia article comes out on top, and how is it called? "Climate change denial"! Not "global warming denial". EMsmile (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You proposed a move to a title that's taken. That's called a malformed RM and ought to just be summarily closed. Rethink and try again, but read the comments first. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The alternative proposal on the table does not have this problem. Thus, closing would be premature. Do you have input on the alternative idea? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Article titles should only be as long as needed to identify the subject. Sometimes brackets are used for standards purposes or for disambiguation but that is the exception and the disambiguation should be short and straightforward. We should not be sticking things into the title that really belong in the lead once the title is a reasonable one for the topic. I have seen this again and again people trying to write articles in the title. That is not what a title is for. It is simply to distinguish it from other articles, iit does not have to clear all doubt. The article about the country Turkey does not have a title "Turkey (country in Asia Minor rather than a large bird)". Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dmcq:, compare
Turkey and
Turkey (bird)
Here we have the general idea of climate change of whatever time period and from whatever cause, and we have what UNFCC and IPCC call "Climate change", meaning specifically antropogenic climate change. Plus research shows a different response when reader hears the fading WP:COMMONNAME "global warming" versus the ascendant commonname "climate change". The way to handle these changing common names with minimum chaos while maintaining NPOV is
Climate change where the scope covers the general phenomena, just as we have been doing all along and
Global warming (human-caused climate change where the scope is this article just as it exists right now
This matches the top scientific sources, something you and WMC are regularly arguing in favor of doing.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for thinking you might be joking. I really couldn't tell. My objection was mostly: can you imagine having to type "Global warming (human-caused climate change)" instead of global warming? You'd never remember it. Also, think of the zillions of redirects to be fixedup. But I also dimly felt what Dmcq has said explicitly: the article names are labels, not things in themselves. People will always complain they don't exactly match what they are, but this doesn;t matter, as long as they aren't actually deceptive, and they do describe themselves clearly at the start William M. Connolley (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@William M. Connolley:
RE A, type "global warming" and seamlessly be redirected, problem solved
RE B, All links to global warming would seamlessly redirect through the global warming redirect, and they can be like that until a wikignome cares to change them
RE C, The sources have started a broad migration toward "climate change"... that phrase is steadily displacing "global warming" as the WP:COMMONNAME. I believe we have crossed the threshold to when it is time to change. This alternative proposal will do all that with a minumum of chaos, compared to the original proposal to rename this to climate change and rename that article to something else. Given the research on how people react differently to one label or the other, the only way to be NPOV in our title is to use both.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't joking but I do admit that my proposal is probably not yet perfect. I feel that I have identified an important problem though and have suggested one possible solution. If we do at least a few more days of brainstorming (rather than closing this in a haste as a "waste of time") with hopefully many different editors voicing their opinions then perhaps we'll come up with something smart. I wonder if people agree with me that we do have a problem? The main problem in my opinion is that the current article on climate change does not contain the content that most people would expect when they think of climate change nowadays. They expect to see the whole big topic of human-made climate change, not that information on "ever since the earth existed the climate has changed etc.". That, to me is the main problem. - Dicklyon you said that the proposed new title is already taken. Yes, sorry about that. I decided to have the discussion here first, but I could have equally started a discussion on the climate change article first as I feel that one needs changing as well. - Dmcq: I understand your concerns about brackets or long titles. It's not ideal. Maybe there is a better solution. The current setup is flawed though in my opinion. Like NewsAndEventsGuy pointed out from a summary of the same discussion in 2014: "An ed recommended waiting to see how major media outlets handle the subject and another replied we should follow the academic literature." I think it is abundantly clear by now that major media outlets and hence the general public call it climate change predominantly, not global warming. I don't have evidence but I have the feeling/suspiction that research grants are also more likely to use the words "climate change" in their titles than "global warming" and hence the peer-reviewed articles that come out of the grants are also using climate change more often in their titles (can anyone verify that?). Hence, I would redirect global warming to climate change. - I care deeply about this article, I am not a kind of "fly by commentator". I only came to this article fairly recently and I am not an expert on the topic. But I did a fair bit of work on the section on "effects of global warming" and people seem to have accepted my edits, generally speaking. If people think it is a waste of time to discuss this, then please don't feel forced to take part in the discussion. I really think a week or so of brainstorming would do no harm to anyone. It could well be that the consensus is to keep everything as it is, but I really do wonder if this is the optimal solution or if we couldn't do better, i.e. giving people the information exactly where they are looking for it. EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's another thought. Recently I did some work on the article on developing countries and I learned about so many terms that apply to climate change + developing countries which again use the term "climate change" and not "global warming". These are in particular climate justice, climate adaptation, Climate Vulnerability Monitor, climate refugee. Then there is also: Effects of climate change on humans, Climate change, industry and society, Climate change and agriculture, Climate change and gender, Economic impacts of climate change, Indigenous Peoples Climate Change Assessment Initiative. Please ask yourself: why do all these terms use the word "climate" in them, not "global warming", and yet they are all referring to the human-induced climate change? It's because climate change has become synonymous to the human-induced version of it and we should acknowledge that in Wikipedia. Our current use of "climate change" in the Wikipedia article title is outdated, I think, as it's focused on the geological scale content.EMsmile (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:: Why would there be chaos with the original proposal? And I think your suggestion only solves part of the problem but it wouldn't solve the disappointment for people who arrive at climate change and are expecting to find out information about humanity's current huge problem but instead find information about what happened to the earth millions of years ago. This is actually the disappointment I had when I first looked up this topic on Wikipedia some months ago... I went to climate change and thought "oh? why are they talking about this geological type stuff here? That's not what I want to know?". I found it startling. I agree fully with you where you said: "The sources have started a broad migration toward "climate change"... that phrase is steadily displacing "global warming" as the WP:COMMONNAME. I believe we have crossed the threshold to when it is time to change." EMsmile (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Both terms are in use. Yes climate change is more commonly used for the current global warming but both are very common. What you're asking for basically is that the title 'climate change' be transferred to this article - but there is no really alternate decent title for what's in the current climate change article so it would need a disambiguation title with brackets. And we would just use the title 'global warming' as a redirect. The current solution is we have a line at climate change under the title saying 'For current warming of the Earth's climate system due to human activities, see Global warming'. Readers are also directed to global warming in the first paragraph of the lead. Personally I feel no great need to start messing around. As to the origin of the names they have both been there for ages but there is a funny thing in that Frank Luntz advocated Republicans use climate change instead of global warming to play it down, but Trump tweeted that people advocating action on the problem had changed the name from global warming to climate change because they found global warming wasn't working for them! Another Trumpism to support the idea there is some conspiracy I guess. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@EMsmile: Chaos! Times Two! If we moved climate change so this article could have that title, then each move would usually get its own redirect, so people using the old title (and the countless wikilinks in other aticles) would go to the right place. But "climate change" can not be a redirect and an article at the same time. Just doing the move without the redirect would require mass update of all the wikilinks everywhere. Chaos... maybe times three. Just changing this articles name won't solve the common problem, as you experienced, when readers looking for "global warming" arrive at "climate change" and either don't read the hatnote or don't understand it. But it would align the title here with the dominant scientific name, ascending common name, and improve neutral impact on the reader while giving reader greater understanding of the topic (highlighting that these terms mean the same thing). Neutral reader comprehension is the overall purpose here. So although it wouldn't solve the problem that inspired you to propose change, it would improve the encyclopedia. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Climate Change makes the most sense to me. It's "ascending" as others have pointed out. But there are even better reasons. A neutral information source should be moving away from risky terms that invoke bias, or perception of bias. The term "Global Warming" does just that: its has evolved such that it now suggest bias. The climate deniers of the world think "Global Warming" is dirty word. Climate Change is more neutral: temperatures going both up and down, and causes being both natural and caused by humans. The argument that the change proposed would require a lot of work isn't persuasive. We are making an adjustment based on knowing the term "global warming" has been hi-jacked. It is no longer a neutral term. Climate Change is a neutral term. I say put in the time required now, knowing that even more time is going to be required later if we don't act decisively. PlanetCare (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Pleaes re-read the comment immediately above yours... we can not move this to an existing article, for the technical reasons associate with redirects I already described. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure the "technical" problems of the name change could be solved somehow if we wanted to. Technlogy regarding redirects and wikilinks shouldn't block us. There's got to be a clever solution. Maybe it would require the use of a bot, I don't know. First we'd have to come up with a suitable new name for the current "cimate change" article. Or ponder over whether a disambiguation page for climate change would be helpful. - Interesting what Trump said (Dmcq). I wasn't aware of that. It's actually supporting my assertion and also that of PlanetCare that a shift has taken place. He's got the reason wrong: it's not because "it's not working for us", it's because that's just how the media and the public refers to the issue now. - Nobody has yet commented on my argument that all those composite terms use "climate", not "global warming", e.g. climate justice, climate vulnerability etc. I thought that's a fairly strong argument for the change? EMsmile (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Is the proposed name change a preparation for the time when the globe stops warming? If the Piers Corbyn theory is correct, this may happen quite soon. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. It's proposed for the reasons described above. Nothing "hidden" about my reasoning. - Here is another option for the new title of the current article called climate change. It could become Geological climate change. This has the advantage of brevity and no need for brackets, unlike previous proposals. EMsmile (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. Change Climate change to Geological climate change and change Global warming to Anthropogenic climate change. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@EMsmile, (A) Suggest you read this and (B) as explained at Climate change#Causes there are many different ways climate can change. Saying "geological climate change" might mean one thing to you but to a newbie it will probably suggest causes due to geological processes and they won't realize there are other ways also.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Who is baiting whom? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Moving on to point (B), are you seriously suggesting that there are some people who have never heard of man-made climate change? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Why were two articles created in the first place? I assume that one is about man-made climate change and the other is about non-man-made climate change. Have I misunderstood this? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Two articles were created because there are two distinct topics. Dmcq (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Faulty premise: what's quoted at the top misses out an important qualifier: the 1992 articles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Article 1) gives DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this convention [bold added] In Sec 2 " 'Climate change' means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."
    Not for all time and all purposes, but for the specific purposes of the convention, they use "climate variability" for any other forcing – but that's just a redirect to climate change, and hasn't come into general usage. As the UNFCCC explains under Definitions of climate change, their usage differs from the usage in the IPCC.
    In fact the UNFCCC seem content to adopt the term global warming: in Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries they say "The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) dispelled many uncertainties about climate change. Warming of the climate system is now unequivocal. It is now clear that global warming is mostly due to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases (mostly CO2)." . . . dave souza, talk 14:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • IPCC definition from AR5 glossary " Global warming
    Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions. {WGIII}"
    – the phrase also appears elsewhere in the various reports; for example, in the SPM there are couple of references to global warming, above or with respect to pre-industrial temperatures. . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Dave, I had not inventoried all docs from AR5 and was not aware that some of them did define "global warming" in the glossary. That was my biggest bullet in this argument, so we're back to the subjective attitude "has the balance shifted in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. Being mostly subjective I have little expectation there will be consensus to change the names of these articles. Double gold star for being one of the few (only?) commenter to base their answer on WP:Reliable sources! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename Proposal Alternative C

How about we do it like this: We don't only rename the article "global warming" to "climate change" but we rework it so that it does include a small section on the "geological time frame cliamte change". This could be at the start or at the end. We very briefly describe it in a paragraph but then we send people to the right sub-article to find out more. That means anyone who wants to know more about the geological time frame climate change has a brief information here (at "climate change") but for more they click through. The click to the sub-article then leads them to an article called Climate change in geological time frames - or in fact maybe it could simply lead to this existing one?: Paleoclimatology. To make it really clear there could even be a hatnote which says: "This article is mainly about current warming of the Earth's climate system due to human activities. For the study of past climate change, see Paleoclimatology." It would not be very hard to rework the existing climate change article by keeping a fair bit of what's there (like the section on physical evidence) and merging it with the content that would come across from global warming. - Here is another idea: could the existing climate change article be renamed to Climate change science as it is providing us with some of the basics that could apply to any type of climate change, e.g. take a look at the section on physical evidence and you'll see what I mean. Or Climate change fundamentals? Both these proposed new titles would free up the "climate change" title and the modified content coming from "global warming" could take its place. EMsmile (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose the current structure is coherent and doesn't need changing William M. Connolley (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately Paleoclimatology covers a much longer period than the climate change article, and the climate change article icovers the Quaternary which is much more relevant to global warming. I don't believe the two articles can be properly stuck together. It would be a bit like sticking human anatomy into veterinary science. Yeah we're mammals but... Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (A) The existing hatnote at Global warming seems perfectly adequate; (B) Many RSs distinguish human from non-human climate change, but I have yet to see any call the latter "geological time frame climate change"; (C) "Geological time frames" are vastly longer than some of the natural climate change mechnanisms already in the current CC article, e.g., see the examples listed under Climate_change#Ocean-atmosphere_variability; (D) the current scope of climate change is independent of time. It uses examples from the past sure, but its talking about the principle in general. So the scope of the current climate change, by use of examples, does overlap with paleoclimatology but they aren't the same thing at all; (E) "climate change science" sounds like an article about how people go about doing the reserach; (F) "climate change fundamentals" implies that's the basic article and this is the detailed article, but that's not true at all. One is the general principle independent of time, and the other is the current episode of human-caused global warming/climate change. It's also not true that "Climate change" is the "For dummies" article. Its a full article at the top of an article tree on a complex subject.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
William M. Connolley: The current structure is not coherent. When you look at the many sub-articles, it's a complete mixture of terms used, and more likely climate change is used than global warming. See my arguments raised above. Nobody has yet come back with a decent counter argument on the numours examples I have given above that climate change is replacing global warming as the main term used for anything in relationship to the human induced climate change. I repeat one of my main points: Why do we speak of climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation and not global warming adaptation and global warming mitigation? - It seems that any proposal I make is opposed (by some) because it would change the status quo or because it would be too messy/complicated to implement. I know some of you don't think this needs changing. But could others who can see the problem that I am seeing please assist in coming up with workable solutions instead of just opposing any option that I float? NewsAndEventsGuy also made some suggestions but they were objected to because of his use of brackets and longer article title. - The article has nearly 2000 people watching it. How can it be that only about half a dozen people care to state their opinion on this? EMsmile (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
We only need one article. Climate change is climate change. It has been happening since the earth was formed and it has many causes. The human contribution is miniscule so why single it out for special treatment? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This is nonsense. The current climate change is different and therefore a different subject. Only market fundamentalist crackpots disagree, and they do not count since the few among them who are climatologists are a tiny minority in the field. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather than inventory participants to make sure we all meet the technical requirements of "DS awareness", I'd just like to mention that WP:ARBCC does apply here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you threatening me with a topic ban? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try and look at WP:5P. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The contents of the articles are based on notable topics and should be written with a neutral point of view. There is an enormous amount of scientific research now on climate change. That you believe it is nonsense is your opinion and doesn't count. And as to the idea about the sun's influence is has been investigated and it is simply nowhere near large enough, see Solar activity and climate. Wikipedia is not a forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. Dmcq (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Goodbye. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – global warming covers the topic of this article, "climate change" is broader, and is in common use for preceding changes. These are both common terms, in use for the respective aspects of this topic. . . . dave souza, talk 12:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename Proposal Alternative D

There is a template called "Global warming and climate change" - This might be a wild idea: But could this be a suitable new article name Global warming and climate change? If we look at the template we can see what such an article would cover if it was a really high level overview article:

I see so much overlap in the two articles (global warming, climate change), e.g. with respect to causes and physical evicence, or effects. EMsmile (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The template topics look a lot like this articles' TOC already, and since you clearly want to move [{Climate change]] but said nothing about that article, I infer this section has a partial thought, to which I am unprepared to give much a reply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, User:NewsAndEventsGuy? What is a "partial thought"? It occured to me that the topic "global warming" could benefit from being renamed to Global warming and climate change or to climate change and global warming, which is not so dissimilar to your suggestion above as Option B where you had proposed Global warming (human-caused climate change). My proposal is shorter and has no need for brackets. EMsmile (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Since your Proposal A (above) is still open, maybe you could elaborate on how this new Proposal D would interact with Proposal A? Would "Climate change" article still be called "Climate Change" under Proposal D? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
My Proposal D would mean that "global warming" is changed to Climate change and global warming (or: Global warming and climate change) and the article Climate change would not be changed in title, at least not for now. You never know in which directions the discourse will develop. Perhaps in a few years the term "global warming" really is completely out, and the term climate change is 100% meant to mean our current climate change problems. That's actually my prediction but of course I could be wrong. So for now renaming to climate change and global warming (or: Global warming and climate change, and leavingt the existing climate change article title unchanged might be a good solution which others might support?
  • Opposed EMsmile says they got started on this by arriving at climate change and expecting this article. The hatnote at that article either was not noticed or not understood, but however it transpired, the experience was enough to launch us on this discussion. I'm thinking the better solution is work on the lead of the other article. I may do some of that later in the year when I will have some more time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: does that mean you are no longer supporting your Proposal B? I would have thought you'd like my Proposal D because it is nearly identical with your Proposal B. EMsmile (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Also I am still awaiting a response from anyone on my argument: There are all those composite terms use "climate", not "global warming", e.g. climate justice, climate vulnerability etc. I thought that's a fairly strong argument for the change? As I said above (but nobody has reacted to that so I am repeating it here): There are so many terms that apply to climate change + developing countries which again use the term "climate change" and not "global warming". These are in particular climate justice, climate adaptation, Climate Vulnerability Monitor, climate refugee. Then there is also: Effects of climate change on humans, Climate change, industry and society, Climate change and agriculture, Climate change and gender, Economic impacts of climate change, Indigenous Peoples Climate Change Assessment Initiative. Please ask yourself: why do all these terms use the word "climate" in them, not "global warming", and yet they are all referring to the human-induced climate change? It's because climate change has become synonymous to the human-induced version of it and we should acknowledge that in Wikipedia. Our current use of "climate change" in the Wikipedia article title is outdated, I think, as it's focused on the geological scale content. - It would be great if we could also hear from other editors who haven't commented yet. After all, there are 2000 people watching the page, surely some of them would have some opinions to put forward? EMsmile (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
And I agree with User:NewsAndEventsGuy that the lead of the other article needs work, but not only the lead, even the article itself (it only has a B level quality so that tells us something, too!). I think that kind of work ought to be discussed on that article's talk page though, not here. That's why I started the discussion here. EMsmile (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Import of first paragraph with no citations from History of Climate Change Science article

In this series of edits EMsmile imported, more or less, the first paragraph of the lead from the History of climate change science. The main edit summary in the series says in part " The aim is not to expand on the history here but to give the reader a very quick "taste" and then point them to the other article." That's fine, however, see WP:LEADCITE. In the other article, the lead has to summarize the body of the article and may do so without citations though citations are recommended for anything likely to be challenged. In this case, the other article's lead lacks citations and that's OK..... in the lead of the other article. The instant you import that text to the body of some other article, WP:Verification through citation to RSs is required. At present this text you imported lacks references. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this problem. That's exactly what I had written just above where I said this still needs to be done, and those who are more deeply into the topic could probably easily select the right references from the other article. I actually started by copying the reference by Spencer (Spencer Weart (2011). "Changing Sun, Changing Climate". The Discovery of Global Warming.) but then I realised this reference is already included but with a different year and it looks just like a website so I was wondering if it's actually a reliable source, but it's cited a few times. EMsmile (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Spencer R. Weart is a recognised historian of science with a background as a physicist, and his Harvard University Press book The Discovery of Global Warming is online in an updated and expanded version, on the Website of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics. Yes, it's a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 16:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Great, that's good to know. Could you help with deciding which part of that book to cite where exactly? I noticed that in History of climate change science and in global warming his book is cited in different ways, e.g. with different publishing years. Perhaps there are several editions available? Let's pick the latest edition and then cite exactly the page (?) or at least the correct chapter? I could have a stab at it but would take me ages to figure this out precisely - therefore, I am hoping that someone who is more into the topic knows exactly which part of his book to cite where (I could do the same if it was a sanitation topic but I am not from the climate change field; just an interested member of the public, really). EMsmile (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Definition clarified in lead

As discussed at length above, I've now clarified the definition in line with the AR5 glossary definition and the more recent NASA article on the alternative terms, with technical meanings which differ. Have also noted earlier periods of global warming in interglacials and the PETM, per AR5. Some tidying of references may be needed, but it's time for tea. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted so we can discuss proposed alternative text on talk. We did that through multiple version during a blizzard of discussion June-July 2014. The chronology of archived threads is listed at the beginning of the last installment in the edits series. On the substance of this change, I strongly believe we should continue to use the common lay meaning of the words, so as to make an engaging and accessible article to people with next to zero science education. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the lead is not the right place to put something with relatively complex technical wording. If anything I'd like to see more information about the "common use" of the term (which references to go with that? Would it be OK to e.g. cite some BBC news articles that use "climate change" for "global warming"?). But how about we put what dave souza had proposed into the new "terminology" or "definitions" section that should go at the start of the article? The existing terminology section is now under "history" which is where it belongs because it is mostly about the historical development of the terms. If there is anything there that talks about the current terminology then that can be moved to the new terminology section as well. EMsmile (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Will come back to this with proposed alternatives, accept the point that it's good to make the article accessible to lay people – the IPCC is trying to do just that. Trouble with the current intro is that it's flatly misleading: Global warming isn't "also referred to as climate change", it is one specific form of climate change – see the NASA articles I cited at Talk:Climate change#“Climate change” and “global warming” have distinct meanings. Conflating the meanings or confining both to the current anthropogenic warming confuses rather than informs. Will aim to come back to this in about a week to think about the bast way forward, agree that a section on current definitions could help. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for the future effort.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Another approach, after review of the sources and drafting a couple of options. Discussion of the current context commonly equates climate change to warming of the climate system, but we should be clearer that climate change also includes earlier changes. I think it works to keep the start of the lead the same, but amend the end of the first paragraph to explain "proxy records covering" as "proxy records of climate change over...":
    Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, which extends back to the mid-19th century, and in paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands of years.
    [source: SPM page=4 "evidence of climate change based on many independent scientific analyses from observations of the climate system, paleoclimate archives .... Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.]
    @ NAEG, this keeps the June-July 2014 much discussed consensus to base the opening paragraph on common usage of the terms rather than tech usage, while concisely referring and linking to the wider usage of climate change at the end of the paragraph. I've no problem with this change being reverted if further discussion is needed. . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Work in progress...

still needs work. Back in March 2017 the sentence was changed to say the "unprecedented changes" are "in" the instrumental or proxy temp records. I missed this at the time, but that's not true strictly speaking. The Instrumental Temperature Record has no data for permafrost extent, for example. I'll try to think about this when I have more time.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggest:

Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming. In the instrumental temperature record at Earth's surface, recent decades are the warmest since these records began in the mid-19th century. Historical records and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change show that many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over thousands of years.

Possible additional sentence:
In the Northern Hemisphere, recent warming has has reversed long-term cooling trends of the past 5000 years which persisted until the 19th century.
Source: AR5 Chapter 5 p. 386. Maybe a comma needed; "past 5,000 years". . dave souza, talk 08:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"could" threaten?

Hi, first off thanks a million to all who have worked on this article. It is a wonderful and essential resource!

"Ocean acidification could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society." Shouldn't this read "Ocean acidification *threatens* coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society." or at least separate the potential threats from the confirmed threats (coral reefs...)? -- Phenylalanine (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! It's a good point, so I've made it "threatens damage to" which is more explicit. . dave souza, talk 16:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To my ear "threatens" implies the potential for damage, not necessarily that damage is occurring. More accurate would be "is damaging" or similar wording. Details here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
How about both? The RS Boris posted contains plenty of material to support both "is damaging" as well as future threats NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not a fan of long external links lists as you might end up with so many links to people's favourite youtube videos or lectures that newcomers/laypersons get completely overwhelmed. I think we really ought to just link to the main, most authorative places. To this end, I wonder if we really need this external link?: "Climate change tutorial by Prof. Myles Allen (Oxford), March 2018: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (45 min. total); background & slide deck" I would be inclined to remove it. By the way, he doesn't talk about global warming at all but human-induced climate change. This might have been the best new title when we had the renaming discussion for this article which I "lost". EMsmile (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

AP 2018 style book terms global warming and climate change

FYI 2018 AP stylebook is out and behind a paywall. There are are various non-RS comments circulating (example) that report this version of the playbook says "global warming" and "climate change" may be used interchangeably. Does anyone have access to the real McCoy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

81.131.46.114 (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2018 (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. Kpgjhpjm 13:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

New name for article

I propose that the name of the article "Global warming" which has political inferences, should be renamed "Anthropogenic climate change" because it is more scientifically accurate and less politically charged. "Global warming" doesn't emphasise that it is anthropogenic, i.e. caused by humans, which is the underlying cause. And "warming" discounts the extreme cold that is also experienced. In other words, the current name of the title "Global warming" is just scientifically inaccurate and sounds more like a political gimmick, distinct from any serious academic literature. I thus propose a name change! 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:4FE:8627:D23F:86B2 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To just prove my point, if you look at the FAQ at the top of this article, observe a simple e.g. of a Q. "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]" What do you observe? Any time literature is being quoted, there is no reference to "global warming". It is always to "anthropogenic climate change". Wikipedia is not the Daily Mail - it is serious academic literature and as such should use the proper scientific terms 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:4FE:8627:D23F:86B2 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:TITLE. The name of an article is preferably the common name, not some name to exactly specify the topic. It is the purpose of the start of the lead to identify the topic. We try not to write the article in the title. Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Please read the WP:Talk page guidelines which advise that before you start a new thread you should read the talk page to see if there already is one. In this case, we just had this debate (see thread titled Talk:Global_warming#Requested_move_3_June_2018) and you have not added any new reasoning, just a rehash of what was said before. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
mate instead of being rude and spitting out rules, if you read what OP said it was not change of name to Climate change but to Anthropogenic climate change which was not discussed in the thread that you listed 49.197.188.176 (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but your looking at the wrapper instead of the substance . The substance is this - like the prior thread, this one is almost entirely based on an editor's opinion as to what is "scientifically accurate and less politically charged". When there are sufficient citations to reliable sources to support a name change, or compelling new logical analysis of existing ones, then we will be having a new conversation instead of an opinion-based rehash. As it happens, I don't like the title either. But I haven't been able to marshal the sources and logic to win consensus on that point. You can be rude at me (by assuming I'm commenting in bad faith) or you can try to help build consensus with logical analysis of reliable sources. I'd prefer the latter. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's technically a more accurate title but I'm on the fence about a name change. My thought is that the lay reader is not going to know what Anthropogenic climate change means without an explanation. As such I am opposed to the proposed change. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
While I also like "anthropogenic climate change", I have the same impression. Opposition to title change per WP:COMMONNAME is a policy-based argument, it would be difficult to convince a "discussion closer" (who assesses consensus) with other preference or technical arguments. The precedents demonstrate that starting another title change debate would be a waste of everyone's time. —PaleoNeonate – 12:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
How about we add, "or more technically as anthropogenic climate change"? That seems like a resonable middle ground to me. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
This thread is proposing a change of title, but your idea Rap Chart Mike, sounds like you might be looking at the first line of text instead of the title. Please clarify. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I was replying to this diff which seems to have been moved. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh right. I moved a newbie's problematic post to user talk. Sorry about breaking the context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I added it to the lead, we'll see if it sticks... —PaleoNeonate – 14:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

constraints on climate feedback likelihood

This part in the climate feedback section makes no sense to me, "The IPCC projections previously mentioned span the "likely" range (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[121] for the selected emissions scenarios. However, the IPCC's projections do not reflect the full range of uncertainty.[122] The lower end of the "likely" range appears to be better constrained than the upper end." -- can we remove this, or does it belong in the model section? prokaryotes (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It could be better explained I suppose. Did you spend any time with the main RS that supports the statement? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
That's funny, it's the Synthesis report with hundreds of pages, what you cite is not really about cf. prokaryotes (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I cited the RS in our article for that bit of text. Yes, it appears in the AR4 WG1 SYR. No, its not a cite to the entire thing which you say is hundreds of pages. It's a cite to a specific sub sub sub section. Did you read this bit all the way through? I thought it explained things just fine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Clathrate gun

If you know the RSs for this subject, please take a gander at the mega changes underway at Clathrate_gun_hypothesis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

RSs? Femkemilene (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, try this link RSs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Suicide research

There seems to be a bit of a discussion in the edit summaries as whether to include the recent research that suggests that global warming might cause more suicide. Let us streamline that discussion here. In my opinion, there are a couple of criteria to be met before research should be added to a general and well-read article as this one:

  • It should be confirmed by multiple sources; it should not be scientifically controversial.
  • It should be a general study; applicable to all affected regions.
  • If those two are true, it should not get undue weight by devoting multiple lines to it.

I'm not yet convinced that this research should be included. There is still substantial doubt about this study, see for instance the Scientific American review of the research (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-linked-to-higher-suicide-rates-across-north-america/). An other article linking global warming to suicides found that the link global warming-suicide is not general, but only happens during growth season in India: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/25/1701354114.

If it is included, I strongly believe it should be summarized in one sentence, and not only mention two specific countries and one research article. Other effects are also summarized in one sentence in this bullet point. Why do people think it should be included/not included? Femkemilene (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to Effects of global warming on humans This is a featured article sitting at the top of the topical tree, with the most traffic of all articles on the tree. So this article should be as short, punchy, and well-cited as possible. Adding the latest topical soundbite int he media stream works against this and weakens this article. In addition, we need to be wary of WP:RECENTISM when dealing with kinda new ideas of this sort. This article can certainly include in summary form reference to physical and psychological health impacts.... actually strike "can" and say "should". This article should include a few words about possible physical and psychological health impacts. That's important. But we don't need every paper on that topic as they come off the press to be added here. Instead, shuttle people off to the appropriate sub-articles. When including this material at the subarticles be on the lookout for WP:WIKIVOICE when dealing with new stuff before the global scientific community has had ample time to comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Notice that this 2011 study cites (Fritze et al., 2008, Anderson, 2001; Basu & Samet, 2002; Qi, Tong, & Hu, 2009) in regards to increased suicide rates. The study is also cited at the section for psychological impacts at Effects of global warming on humans. prokaryotes (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh right, I did move this to that article, and you only reverted the part of the move at this page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
? I've added the section on psychology in 2013. My point is, that there are more studies in the general literature. I think a mention here and more extensive over at the effects page. prokaryotes (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
For clarification, I cannot see any move to the effects page by you. Here is a recent more extensive article by wired on this subject. Looking at above cited SA article, it appears to only look at North America and recent publication. prokaryotes (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oops. I confused Effects of global warming on humans with Effects of global warming on human health. I had moved this text to the latter and its still there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but don't you think it requires a mention at the main article here (there is lots of research on this, don't just look at recent coverage, I could extend a ref with above cited PDF study from 2011)? I'm perfectly comfortable with a one-liner. prokaryotes (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
In summary form, sure. E.g., Many human mental health issues have also been linked to global warming, e.g., blah (cite), blahblah (Cite), and suicide (Cite). At The main sub article Effects of global warming maybe expand the blah to a full sentence. At the specific sub-sub-article Effects of global warming on human health we can expand still more. Cramming the recommended soundbite from each paper as they come along into the top article makes for a crummy top article that will have a very hard time whenever it comes up at WP:FAR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Tibi adsentior. prokaryotes (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
English please. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries

Re this edit, which added article Planetary boundaries as one of the main articles under our section climate change feedback, the reason give was that the concept is supposedly a framework to prevent feedbacks, per new PNAS study, only the cited paper does not mention the planetary feedback concept. Additionally, the concept is still being debated and so far as I know has yet to be embraced by the UN or UNFCC. So I reverted that particular edit here.
It's certainly an interesting paradigm, and touches on many topics including mitigation, adaptation, politics, but it isn't clear what RSs would allow us to work it in here, or how that could best be done in context with the article as a whole. But if anyone wants to start with doing research in the RSs, I certainly have an open mind about it. Just needs to pass muster with our various guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Rockström, co-author of the PNAS study is the utmost expert on planetary boundaries (The PNAS study acknowledges members of the Planetary Boundary team). In his 2009 study Rockström, postulated a planetary boundary framework, which is based on feedback processes in the climate system. The PNAS study which identified ten tipping points, and related thresholds, basically uses the planetary boundary concept. A bit unclear why they not refer to it directly. However, the page should be linked there, then with See also, because climate tipping points are modulated within the planetary climate system constraints. If someone could take a peak into this study, many of the same authors, and think it mentions feedbacks and boundaries http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/01/14/science.1259855/tab-pdf prokaryotes (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This study connects both terms Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity prokaryotes (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
You know these sources better than me. Go for it. Just make sure whatever you do is based on what others will read in the sources rather than applying the rest of your knowledge to your reading of the sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay will add something, also the PB article seems like it needs an update. prokaryotes (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Studies on indoor Co2 emissions

Recently, I've added two study results on CO2 concentrations assessing indoor Co2 concentrations, and it has been removed, however, the projected CO2 amount in Earth's atmosphere by the end of the century (outdoors) is in this ballpark, thus while not aiming at these trajectories, these studies appear relevant. I acknowledge a certain OR attribution in these findings, when posting it here, but it appears still, relevant, since it matches this topic. It is sad that we have to wait for studies to point this out directly. @Gorthian: prokaryotes (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would say that is definitely OR. We have no idea how the concentrations of CO2 in the general atmosphere would affect humans. Until specific studies have been done on just that, extrapolating from indoor effects to atmospheric effects is pure speculation. There are just too many unknown factors.
Those studies would be good citations in the carbon dioxide article, though. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gorthian. If the extrapolation to global warming is made in the articles themselves, you could post it on health effects of global warming as well. Definitely important for CO2 article, but not sufficiently relevant for global warming. Femkemilene (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Same here. The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that about the time the Steffen "Hothouse" paper made scary headlines it seems like you've really been shoehorning in disjointed bits of cursory language from primary sources. It's illegal to litter, you know. Makes a ton of work for others cleaning up. If you want to look into this, with due time and labor, I just did some cursory searching on Carbon dioxide oognition in google and google scholar. Search the last two years only. There's a ton of material you could master before figuring out how to best improve our articles based on secondary sources. But most eds don't do that, because it means work and time and care. Here's three to get you started. These may not all be secondary RS but can get you started, and their bibliographies are further resources
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gorthian:, I wrote about this after reading [this new Forbes article]. Why would be the CO2 effect indoors differently to outdoors, it is the same toxicity. Forbes: How Does Climate Change Affect The Air We Breathe Indoors? Money Quote, "At 600 ppm we start to see the first hints of reduced cognitive function as CO2 is increasing in our blood stream. At 1000 ppm we see distinct impairment. At 2500 ppm we are effectively incompetent." prokaryotes (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the indoor emphasis is due to the fact that we do not experience these CO2 levels outdoors, yet. prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy:, thank you for looking into this in more detail, and providing more spot on studies, will follow this topic and may add something more on point per WP guides at a later time (unless someone else does). prokaryotes (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Even if this topic was relevant to the article (
This is going off into the weeds. Direct health effects of CO2 are covered in other articles (e.g., Carbon_dioxide#Human_physiology) but aren't on-point for an article about global warming. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I do think that if good research (as in multiple studies, clear consensus) is available, we should include it in a subarticle about global warming as well (health effects). We have done the same for ocean acidification, which is included in this article. It is not a direct effect of the warming, but definitely very closely related. @Prokaryotes:, before you spend a lot of energy looking for RS, maybe it would be wise to first find consensus on the relevance. I do not support inclusion, but might change mind if the sources are a) about global warming (not indoors) b) there is a clear consensus c) the magnitude of the effect is similar to other health effects. Femkemilene (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether cognition studies with CO2 are relevant to global warming isn't up to us. It's up to what we find in RSs. And so....
Opining = bad.
Finding Reading Collating Comprehending RSs = good
Let's close this thread as  Done for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Arctic amplification

William M. Connolley please elaborate on this edit, in particular the removal of the Nature study featuring your old colleagues at RC - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&type=revision&diff=852657378&oldid=852657235 If you do not object of mentioning the study, please re-add that part, thanks! @William M. Connolley: prokaryotes (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What William objected to was that the edit got cause and effect all mixed up. Arctic warming isn't called "arctic amplification"; rather, arctic amplification causes warming to proceed at a faster pace than at lower latitudes (see the article on arctic amplification that you linked). Likewise, extreme weather in mid-latitudes doesn't cause arctic warming; rather, arctic warming causes changes to planetary wave patterns that could be associated with extreme weather (as explained in the abstract of the article that you cited). William M. Connolley may of course correct my interpretation as necessary. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No need for correction you're exactly right William M. Connolley (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that mix-up, but why not just correct that next time? prokaryotes (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

AA own section?

NewsAndEventsGuy, the regional section also refers to short term fluctuations, which AA is not. This topic could also be expanded a little more, and have more updates, for instance AA is much more than twice the global mean already, and more elaborating on the weather patterns, and long term scenarios (temperature gradient vanishing due to lack of ice in the Arctic). I suggest we either have a AA sub section, or a sub section for short term trends (ie. cold blob) prokaryotes (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Instead of the frustrating experience of live tweaking, I agree the whole section could stand a refresher. Suggest you draft a comprehensive suggestion in your sandbox then post the draft to talk, and we'll all work together much more smoothly. For examples of that approach, search contribs by user @Enescot: NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
We really only need to decide sections order. prokaryotes (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm opposed to a section "arctic amplification" and "regional observations" side by side, as you already know. The reason is that arctic amplification is an example of regional observations. I'm also opposed to just putting "arctic amplification" as a subheading under regional observations until there is consensus on adding additional subheadings under that section. So it seems your perception of what we "really need to decide" differs from mine, and I have already described what I believe is the most effective way to proceed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I like regional too, lets eject the short term stuff into a new section then? prokaryotes (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Or Regional and then another sub section here for AA. prokaryotes (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't thinks so. Whatever the title, the text in this section seems to emphasize that the vagaries of place and time are interesting (so we can talk about them a bit) but more importantly they all miss the point because the issue is global long term averages, not vagaries in either time or region. Also, all the stuff you added about extreme weather belongs in another section entirely, because the section is not discussing extreme weather, its discussing observed temperature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and this emphasis that we need a dedicated section, because AA is observed temperature + extreme weather. prokaryotes (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you're following the sources accurately. AA is hypothesized - subject to ongoing debate - to contribute to extreme weather in the northern hemisphere but AA itself is independent of the existence of extreme weather. Then of course there is the ANT-arctic regions, and so at wikipedia "arctic amplification" redirects to polar amplification where sentence one defines the phenomena for both poles in terms of warming (not extreme weather) saying, "Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the net radiation balance (for example greenhouse intensification) tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average." In addition, elsewhere I have pointed out you arer adding the connection to extreme weather in WIKIVOICE, even though Dr Francis herself in December wrote an essay summarizing the continuing debate and open research questions. There is a lot to be said for inline attribution in these cases. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
AA causes more EW, "The stalling of the northern hemisphere jet stream is being increasingly firmly linked to global warming, in particular to the rapid heating of the Arctic and resulting loss of sea ice." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/extreme-global-weather-climate-change-michael-mann The content I've added is reliable sourced. If you want to add to it, go for it. prokaryotes (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This quote does not provide a different definition of AA so changes nothing. (A) The faster warming compared to other places is a regional temperature observation that could reasonably be in the section for regional temperature observations. (B) Re neutral presentation of AA's hypothesized impact on EW by tweaking the jetstream it's an oxymoron to say "increasingly firmly linked". That's like saying 110%, or "definitely (maybe)". (C) Neutral word choice aside, the hypothesized link to extreme weather belongs in a section covering effects, not temperature observations. A likely candidate is the existing subsection Global_warming#Environmental which already has a bullet point for extreme weather. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've moved the AA stuff to the feedback section, since AA is considered a Planetary scale feedback https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~jnoble/papers/ArcticAmplification.pdf prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Aspects of it probably belong in more than one place, as this thread attests, There are regional temp observations to be explained, the feedback aspect, and the hypothesized link to extreme weather. Maybe shoehorning it all into one section isn't the best way to help readers understand how the big topic of this article has many pieces that interact in a systemic way? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The mention on temps warming twice is still at the regional temps section. The AA section is not really about EW per se, it's just about attribution and the mechanism. This could be extended ofc, with for instance going into more details about the jet stream patterns, and the subsequent record events (extreme heat, rain, drought, fire etc). prokaryotes (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, on Aug 20 a new literature review from Potsdam Instit was published. Story at scidaily NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Similar to last yrs Uni of Kansas report 'Weather whiplash' triggered by changing climate will degrade Midwest's drinking water A few more active editors for this article here would help to keep up with the science. prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep up in the detail articles, sure. Rare is the time any one new paper should find its way into this article, since this article should be a grand summary similar to the WG1 WG2 WG3 SPMs. Said another rway this page should be a fast read from 30,000.... no make that 50,000 feet with the big picture points. Each one new paper fills in details under those points and can be fleshed out in child articles further down the tree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Point of no return study

@NewsAndEventsGuy, can you explain why you reverted this edit, what do you mean with, "misconstrued primary technical paper", in your summary edit? prokaryotes (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Your text (which I reverted)
A 2018 study concluded that too little climate actions by 2035 could result in crossing a point of no return to limit global warming below 2°C.[1]
The key misrepresentation here is that you assumed that post 2035 renewable energy growth would only be 2%, whereas the study also contemplates a scenario with growth rate of 5% after 2045 yielding the same odds. Your user page says you blog at climatestate.com, a policy advocacy site. Often your take on WP:PRIMARY sources seems to combine with confirmation bias and your admitted alarm. In this case, you reported the worst scenario in this study, simply ignoring the paper does contemplate a more aggressive climate mitigation effort at a later point in time. Besides those key criticisms, I also think this text is so generalized that it adds nothing. We have already said elsewhere that scientists recommend policy action. Your text says "too little climate action"... what action? Adaptation? The paper is about mitigation specifically. And "too little" begs for a [clarification needed] tag, and the paper does elaborate on this. Finally you say "Could result", which is wishy washy mambly pambly... is that 1% odds? 99%? The study quantifies the likelihood at 67% I think. To be honest, this particular PRIMARY source is a bit to dense for me to pretend to understand the nuances. But to go back to the beginning, I think you misrepresented the source in support of a POV that we should act immediately. Whether I agree with that sentiment or not is besides the point here at Wikipedia. Our beliefs either way are not a reason to misconstrue a PRIMARY source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The point of no return for climate action: effects of climate uncertainty and risk tolerance". Earth System Dynamics. 2018. doi:10.5194/esd-9-1085-2018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
The press release from the European Geological Union, If governments don’t act decisively by 2035 to fight climate change, humanity could cross a point of no return after which limiting global warming below 2°C in 2100 will be unlikely.. The press release (and the study btw), say pretty much what I tried to add to article space. I kept it brief because the article is so large. Climate action is a synonym for climate mitigation, hence why that part was added to the mitigation section. prokaryotes (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
On the main point, the press release you cite doesn't only say what you say it says. You're misrepresenting it the same way you misrepresented the PRIMARY source. The press release explains the likelihood (67%), and talks about two scenarios, not one.... 2% growth in renewables post-2035 and 5% post-2045, just as I explained above. From the press release If we were to reduce emissions at a faster rate, by increasing the share of renewable energy by 5% each year, we would buy another 10 years. I'm not opposed to making appropriate use of this work, but your edit is not appropriate use. On the small quibble, where is "climate action" defined specifically as a synonym of climate mitigation and excluding climate adaptation or geoengineering? From the lead of this article (which is our top one in the topic) Possible societal responses to global warming include mitigation by emissions reduction, adaptation to its effects, building systems resilient to its effects, and possible future climate engineering. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Carbon budget

The other more fundamental problem is this one-liner inserted the scary phrase "point of no return", but the study's true value (and related works) is to develop the concept of Carbon budget across our climate articles. Currently "carbon budget" is a redir to Carbon cycle but (A) there used to be text at 'carbon budget' and (b) the target article carbon cycle does not appear talk about carbon budget. Neither does the main article Global warming nor climate mitigation, at least on a rapid skim reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it is scary, that is why the inventor of the Carbon Budget, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, wrote in the foreword of the report we discussed in above conservative section, "Climate change is now reaching the end-game ... the issue is the very survival of our civilization". prokaryotes (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Methane FYI

FYI methane article seems based on old sources and may need big update. GWP and half lifes are a bit too deep for me to do more than check sources and attempt to do verification. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Scientific discussion about existential threat to civilisation

More recent discourse goes beyond, we have a consensus, and the IPCC is too conservative in some aspects, or potentially catastrophic climate change, more like we have an emergency. For instance: As policy continues to stagnate, news.com.au contacted nearly 30 scientists across the country to get their views on the contentious issue. Overwhelmingly they agreed Australia wasn’t doing enough about our “existential threat to civilisation”., or If governments don’t act decisively by 2035 to fight climate change, humanity could cross a point of no return after which limiting global warming below 2°C in 2100 will be unlikely, or ..the issue is the very survival of our civilization Shouldn't this be also covered in the scientific discussion section, with extending to Scientific opinion on climate change? The citations above establish notability via experts in their fields, peer-reviewed journal, and/or through reliable secondary sources. prokaryotes (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

We have one sentence in the scientific discussion section addressing exactly that: In November 2017, a second warning to humanity signed by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries stated that "the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural production – particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption" is "especially troubling".
The first source you're mentioning only has nearly 30 Australian scientist, so the current source is better. The second source does not mention emergencies or things in that directions (tbf, I haven't read the paper since its first draft). Alarm among climate scientists is definitely present, but I think that the current text clearly demonstrates that and that the two sources you are quoting do not provide a better basis than the current source. Femkemilene (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference between, potentially catastrophic climate change, and existential threat to civilisation.prokaryotes (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand that. There is also a difference between nearly 30 scientists and 15,364 scientists. Because this is a very broad article, small questionnaires don't fit in here. Femkemilene (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
existential threat to civilisation doesn't belong anywhere near the scientific discussion section William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"...news.com.au contacted nearly 30 scientists across the country to get their views on the contentious issue". Statements made in such interviews are not reliable from a scientific point of view. What you need are peer reviewed articles where the threat to civilization is seriously investigated, and review articles based on such articles. There may well exist such scientific studies on how climate change could lead to a collapse of our civilization. If sthat's the case, we should discuss the issue based on such articles. Count Iblis (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes there are, and this emerging scientific opinion isn't really debated as far as I know. See, Michael E Mann, or here (UN, which I think is based on this study), here (Effective Thesis, looks like a review of some sorts), here (Scripps, peer reviewed study discussion). There is also lots of secondary sources on this recent PNAS study, for instance briefly discussed here (Science Media Centre), here (World Economic Forum discusses it). prokaryotes (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

conservative

As P is trying to add "underestimate" (in Wikivoice) in the lead, using what looks like an advocacy publishing house, I thought I'd just remind us about this section of another article - Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Conservative_nature_of_IPCC_reports NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The source meets, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", anyhow, the part in question is a cite of Naomi Oreskes study on this subject. Thus, a reliable secondary source for this claim. The report itself is more technical. prokaryotes (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
In any event it is inappropriate for the lead, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The Climate feedback, and Climate Model section both mention it. The page is founded on the IPCC results, and when experts (the report is co-authored by Kevin Anderson, James Hansen, Michael E. Mann, Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Rignot, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Kevin Trenberth, and others), dedicate an entire report on this, publish study on this specific circumstance, then this should be mentioned. prokaryotes (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The precise cite for the study is Brysse, K, Oreskes, N, O’Reilly, J & Oppenheimer, M 2013, ‘Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 327-337 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215 prokaryotes (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with NewsAndEventGuy and Shock Brigade Harvester Boris that this should not be in the lede. First of all, there are enough reliable sources that we don't really have to rely on self-published experts. For me more importantly is that the article should be about global warming mostly and not focus on the sources. Especially the lede is not the place to discuss some meta-analysis of climate science. When there is expert consensus that the IPCC is outdated/too conservative (sea level rise as far as I can tell), we might simply want to use a different source. (In terms of sea level rise, IPCC will have a special report september next year about this, I expect it too have slightly higher estimates). Femkemilene (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I have removed it from it lead. Same sort of reasons. Wikipedia is not in the business of saving the world, it is an encyclopaedia and should say what is in reliable sources with due weight. When they submit it to peer review and there's been some discussion about it then it could qualify to go into the lead. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Arguments not mentioning underestimation, conservatism of projections in lede space:
.."the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body"
The article already states "Not all effects of global warming are accurately predicted by the climate models used by the IPCC. Observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted.[156] Precipitation increased proportionally to atmospheric humidity, and hence significantly faster than global climate models predict.[157][158] Since 1990, sea level has also risen considerably faster than models predicted it would."
"..should say what is in reliable sources ... submit it to peer review" and "don't really have to rely on self-published experts"
The study has been published in peer review, has a cite count of 99, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215 If you do not like the BT link, or the direct link, there is lots of coverage in reliable secondary sources, ie. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html or take this study which highlights the key finding, and references the study "Moreover, the systematic tendency of climate models to underestimate temperature change during warm paleoclimates suggests that climate models are more likely to underestimate than to overestimate the amount of long-term future change." and "suggest that climate models may still be underestimating or missing relevant feedback https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/ prokaryotes (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The article from 2013 looks okay but I am extremely leery of sticking in publications from think tanks into the lead, and that's what I removed. Have we a more recent study as well, that would be good but I'd go for the 2013 one if anything. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
.. "no meta-analysis of sources in lede?" Femkemilene (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
See also: Systematic review
The IPCC report itself is a meta analysis. Maybe it is time to re-think how much we want to stress these findings, and instead try to focus on the best and latest available science (the reports are usually outdated too). prokaryotes (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Two different ways of using meta-analysis here. What I meant is that you don't want to focus on the reliability of sources in the lede. If the IPCC is not the best source (which it quite often still is, even though slightly outdated), than we should mention a better source instead of making the lede even bigger. We should not waste space on talking about reliability of sources instead of global warming.
I agree with you that we should focus on the latest research, and that the IPCC reports become less valuable after 5 years have passed. However, a popular but still controversial paper is not better than an slightly outdated consensus statement and we should not use those too much. Femkemilene (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The peculiarity is that the scope of this article is global warming, yet the major source we use to cite foremost has weaknesses, based on statistical definitions, model shortcomings, and ignoring some research results But this is not considered controversial, as in being wrong - the reliability is not really questioned, it is more how we frame it, or present it here. So we should inform the reader that these consensus results emphasis on assessing the average risks, but informed decision making needs to account also of the greater risks, since they outweigh the medium risks, even if they are statistically less likely. My failure was that the study was just released, I should have used the 2013 direct link instead. But this discussion, is a discussion we have to have. I am not suggesting for major reworking the article, but add these brief pointers. prokaryotes (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Your real failure is POV pushing as evidenced by your comment that we should inform the reader that these consensus results emphasis on assessing the average risks, but informed decision making needs to account also of the greater risks, since they outweigh the medium risks, even if they are statistically less likely. What we should actually do is neutrally report what is found in the RSs while giving appropriate consideration to due weight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
What we actually do is discussing the addition of a lede edit in which we actually use RSs. If we do not point out the shortcomings, identified by RSs, the reader is not fully informed about the topic. The question is if this belongs in the lede. Given the magnitude, implications, associated existential risk to human civilisation - pointed out by RSs, in my opinion a brief mention belongs in the lede. prokaryotes (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2018 (UTCwith weight i)
The magnitude, implications, associated existential risk and suchlike to human civilization of things is irrelevant on Wikipedia except in so far as that is commented on with weight in relevant and reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Summary

To wrap this up for now, Boris suggested only article summary into lede, which appears to be the case here. Femkemilene appears to agree to use the 2013 citation (unless there is a better source, NCA report 2017?), but only occasionally. Dmcq, also mentioned support for the 2013 study. The opinion of the other two participating editor remains unclear. Maybe we just wait for more input from other editors, and look what the mainstream media is reporting on this subject. prokaryotes (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Now there's an idea. Look for mainstream secondary sources. Why didn't we think of that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
From today, "But more than a dozen Arctic climate scientists contacted by National Geographic agree that this year's active-layer data highlights the limitations of global climate models. The sophisticated computer programs that forecast future climate scenarios often used by government decision-makers simply can't capture major changes in permafrost." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-arctic-permafrost-may-thaw-faster-than-expected/ prokaryotes (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That's news okay but doesn't qualify in comparison to the other sources in this article. As he article itself says "The discovery has not been peer-reviewed or published and represents limited data from one spot in one year". Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
OMG. After all our drama about OR/POV. Now you're suggesting an RS that doesn't even mention the IPCC provides WP:VERIFICATION for "IPCC conservative". I should start keeping track when you do this, so I have diffs next time you accuse me of harassment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Nobody stated that this is only about the IPCC, again we talk about this edit, and this study, quote "the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments" prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Upon careful review, I think the text added to the lead about the climate models needs to be reworked to avoid stealth OR. Here is the history

We should not imply OR via the backdoor when we can not do OR in a straightforward way. So the text needs some more work. Maybe the more recent refs P posted offer a way forward. (Thanks at cursory read those seem useful). But rather than bog down in that, I will ignore this because I will - eventually - dig out the lead text at time this article was granted FA status, and will propose that we basically restore that text with updated references and no new crap from the current lead unless its been discussed and approved blow by blow. Lean Mean. Accessible. Readable. Enticing. The current lead is ........ not. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that IPCC uses studies and models which other researchers also use, thus this subject is interconnected. The latest most extensive read on this subject is this report (which you should read since it is based on RSs). The study you cited today from PIK, also mentions models. prokaryotes (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
But we can't have article text making or strongly implying that connection based on your belief even if I share that belief because that's original research. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Citing a peer reviewed study is not OR. Your cites for OR above, you may want to reassess your conclusions, if a governmental report finding constitutes what you claim. In any case I made my point now several times, and any further discussions belongs on the OR noticeboard. Please focus. prokaryotes (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Strengthen the lead?

I would like to strengthen the lead with a stronger statement about scientific consensus, possibly following "Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming" with something like "This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists" from FAQ Q1 and possibly "and by national and international scientific organizations"? Regarding relevant citations, would people accept NASA as a source? I see there are citation numbers in the FAQ; do those relate to the main article's reference numbers? My browser doesn't display anything for them. My concern with the "multiple lines" statement alone is that a non-scientific reader may well think "Oh, they're still arguing." Thank you, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There's been enough talk around showing that it isn't still controversial as far as scientists are concerned. If you want to convince like that about it your best bet is to just put the various facts about global warming in a fairly straightforward manner rather than emphasizing the scientific consensus too much which they tend to just see as some conspiracy. That is what this article is about after all Dmcq (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
FAQ refs work fine for me, though the heading for that section is formatted differently than for articles so I didn't notice it at first. But clicking a ref hyperlink still takes me to the ref section. As for the proposal, if a reader thinks "multiple lines of scientific evidence" means "some scientists but not all" then god help them with the rest of the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I am in hearty agreement for a stronger statement. Mine would be that "The assertion that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases (GHG) is not a new one. It is simply that a body which receives more radiation energy than it emits gets warmer. Nearly all climate scientists agree that gases which capture infrared radiation interfere with the biosphere's emissions of infrared radiation."
DaveyHume (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Error in first sentence of Summary?

Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects.

The term climate system includes the lithosphere which is 5-100km deep. As far as I know, temperature measurements are limited to the atmosphere and water bodies. Correct? 81.131.171.255 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The forces of the climate system modulate the lithosphere through geomorphology. prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
That's one of many ways the lithosphere interacts with the other four parts of the climate system and vice versa.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@81.131.171.255 First, we don't report on what any of us think we know. We only report on what the reliable sources say, and in this case they say "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." That said, sure we measure the temp of the lithosphere. I've helped my wife take such measurements many times. But no on here should care about my personal experience. All we really care about is how hard you've searched for reliable sources and whether you found any. Did you try a google search and google scholar search on _EARTHS CRUST TEMPERATURE_ or _TEMPERATURE LITHOSPHERE_ ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest, NewsAndEventGuy, that the article replace "climate system" with "biosphere"?
I criticize the FACT that "global warming" is also referred to as "climate change", and I hold Wikipedia in high enough esteem that I reckon the difference should be noted here.
It could say "Global warming, which is believed likely to cause (inconvenient/drastic/dangerous) climate change."
-- pick one of those in parentheses.
Global warming is quite well defined in the article, but "Climate Change" is a timid phrase, and in fact drastic climate change is a predicted consequence of global biosphere warming.
It is far easier to demonstrate that there is a thermodynamic radiation imbalance affecting the biosphere, than to model the consequent climate changes. The people and industries with an interest in denying the reality of human caused GW take delight in the absurdly irrelevant assertion that "for billions of years the climate has been changing"
DaveyHume (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You've been here since 2015, please learn to use indentation to WP:THREAD your comments. In reply though to your criticism viz-a-viz terminology, this has been a recurring topic and the archives are full of discussions. If you can make a new RS-based argument why we should do something different, by all means propose the new argument, but please see what others have already said first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Warming in what time period?

This concerns the second line of the article: "Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming." Warming is a relative term. I suggest we add "over the last century" to the end to clarify that the warming has occurred relative to what it was a 100 years ago. As the IPCC source cited for this statement also notes the time period over which the warming has occurred (recent decades). -Obsidi (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Opposed it may be a good faith suggestion but per WP:LEAD this is supposed to summarize the main body of the article and we cover this pretty thoroughly in the main body. The lead is already excessively bloated with descriptors and a hint of tech speak that reduces the friendliness of the lead's read. If we add every nuance that can be supported by similar reasoning the lead will become an article instead of a summary! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Opposed as use of the word "is" clearly mens it's now, a continuing process. . . . dave souza, talk 14:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Reply The rate of warming is proportional to the GHG content of the atmosphere. It is not merely a continuing process, it is an accelerating process, for as long as fossil carbon continues to become atmospheric CO2.DaveyHume (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@DaveyHume: Please refrain from declaring it is this or it is that unless you provide citations to WP:Reliable sources, preferably WP:SECONDARY ones. After all, the sole purpose of this page is improve the article and we can't do that without such sources. If you do add citations, you can use Template:Reflist-talk to display the footnotes in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Opposed There's also evidence it has happened since Neolitic times with the start of agriculture. I'd prefer not to pin a down a specific range in the lead, the reason the article is here is that is it is happening now rather than when it started. Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Which is the best country level article?

I am trying to improve Climate change in Turkey. In your opinion which country level article is the best please so I can use it as a model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

New video

Global Temperature Anomaly

There is a new NASA video showing how the temperature has changed so far available on Commons. I'm not sure the article can hold one more pic, so perhaps one should be exchanged. I'll leave it here for those active on this article to decide. cart-Talk 10:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of Climate models

These sentences need updating: Observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted.[156] Precipitation increased proportionally to atmospheric humidity, and hence significantly faster than global climate models predict.[157][158] Since 1990, sea level has also risen considerably faster than models predicted it would.[159]

I couldn't find a recent source supporting the first claim and all other claims were made around 2007. Don't know whether I've got time to further delve into this, hence putting it here. Femkemilene (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps predictions since 2007 have been adjusted downward? What would be needed in that case is a reliable source discussing how predictions have changed since then. My first quick search didn't find one, but there are certainly scary enough recent news items: [3], [4], [5]. - Donald Albury
The notion that the models are "wrong" is a favorite denial line. For example, see this discussion . We should certainly cover climate modeling work but with sufficient depth to educate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Trend in fluctuations of local temperatures, rainfall amounts etc.

Except for sea level rise, the problems caused by global warming are due to the fluctuations in the weather induced by higher average global temperatures such as massive amounts of rainfall causing flooding or prolonged periods of drought, heatwaves etc. So, it's interesting to also consider the trend in certain correlations e.g. the variance of the global temperature , where the outer average is a spatial average over the Earth's surface and the inner averages are temporal average over some fixed period, say, one year at fixed locations. We should include some examples of such trends of correlations that have been published in the literature alongside the graphs of the trend in the global average temperature. Also climate models make predictions about such correlations and we should include some examples of such results in this article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be right, but we'd need RSs that not only show these numbers but also do the analysis and then we can report on that rather than doing our own. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment about Trump's policy

I have hidden a newly added comment in the "Political discussion" section because it lacked context, and felt out of place.

In 2018 during the Trump administration, resistance to his continued support of fossil fuel energy grew in the United States and abroad.[1]

The section covers various international conferences on climate change and global warming up to 2010. While adding coverage of more recent events in the political response to global warming would be appropriate, the new comment does not address how US policies to global warming currently stand in the Trump administration, nor does it discuss how Trump's support for fossil fuel production affects US commitments on climate change. If this section includes coverage of the response of the current US administration to global warming, it should be part of a broader discussion of the political reaction of (at least) the larger economic powers to global warming. - Donald Albury 16:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "That was awkward — at world's biggest climate conference, U.S. promotes fossil fuels". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 December 2018.

Probably all references to ipcc.ch web page are dead now as they made new web pages - do you think there can be used some bot - this is problem of most of climatology pages. Jirka Dl (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the old web is under http://arichive.ipcc.ch so it can be done search and replace.Jirka Dl (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Done on this page, but must be done also on many other pages. Jirka Dl (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! The new https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ interface seems horrible (on a slow connection), for information here are the links for the AR5 SPM, old and new:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Still ipcc.ch but now https, and naming scheme radically changed so the https://archive.ipcc.ch/ approach works better. . dave souza, talk 11:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Biosphere

Is there some reason to have extra subheading "Biosphere"?Jirka Dl (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It was added a few months ago here. In general, seems like the "effects" section should reflect the high points as shown by TOC at sub-article Effects of global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. I just try to improve Czech version of the page and the "Effects" section on enwiki is not very clear. Jirka Dl (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change/Archive_74&oldid=1115143452"