Talk:Climate change/Archive 80

This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

What can be done today to avoid a situation in which global warming gets irreversible and out of control? With my current edit I have tried to put some more emphasis on possible responses, adding many references. The inevitable substitution of fossil fuel by low-carbon technologies should more in focus, including the latest developments. Photovoltaics and wind energy are about to outcompete fossil fuels but require storage and power links. I am aware that the article already has a significant length. But a fast response to global warming is the challenge of our times. Only technologies which are already available can contribute to the solution in the important next decade. The main article should reflect on that because not too many users reach the mitigation article. Global warming statistics has about 12.000 views per day in average, Climate change mitigation only 427. Feedback is welcome. Hedgehoque (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your politics. Also In the short term, global warming can only be mitigated is dubious or ambiguous or wrong; adaption exists William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: Please be more constructive than just reverting. Global warming is always politics, including everything what the IPCC says. I have listed the most discussed approaches for solutions with references. Any suggestion for a better wording? Btw adaption does not mitigate global warming, only the impacts of it. The adaption paragraph was left unchanged. Hedgehoque (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

'Global warming is always politics: no, of course it isn't. You are just revealing your biases William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I can ensure you that I am not part of any interest group. The price drop for RE is a fact. Ignoring it in the article would be some sort of bias, too. We can discuss about the grouping in the mitigation section (immediate steps, controversial approaches) if you like. Have I left anything out? Of course it is politics talking about GHG reductions. But what is wrong to list options like RE, grids, storage and some more with a few more aspects than before? Hedgehoque (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hedgehoque, Thanks for your contributions and another welcome to Wikipedia :). I've been a bit busy, but hope to find time to reply to this and previous suggestions soon. When editing an important article on Wikipedia, it's always smart to do it in small increments. I think that naming these things is indeed important and should be mentioned. I'd say the article has about 2 sentences of space for this, as we are really quite long for an article already. Could you make a proposal for the talk page?

@ William Connelley: thanks for helping with the discussion, but please don't bite newcomers. Even if they were to have a political opinion, they can still learn to edit neutrally. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hedgehoque: Likely you have noticed that "Global warming/Climate change" is a VERY BIG topic, right? This top-level article simply cannot span all of that in any kind of detail; subordinate topics necessarily must be delegated to separate articles. The main problem with your edits is too much detail (and detail at too deep of a level) for this article, where this article has (as Femke says) space for about two sentences. For a fuller treatment Global warming mitigation would be a more appropriate article.

Your statement that the main article should emphasize this subtopic (because the mitigation article gets only a fraction of the pageviews) reflects your belief, as an activist. While I would agree with you that much more activism is needed, not only is it not our role here to push that view, that is expressly against policy (see WP:NOT). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all the comments. The remarks I added in the list are already brief: one line about renewables (even with the image on the right), 3 lines about grids, 5 about 5 ways of storage (I could leave out the study if you like), two for nuclear. Many of the points were already there - I just put them into the list. @J. Johnson: Activist like bias imply an intention to manipulate discussions. What I do is just to stress the importance of the mitigation section, without favouring one specific path. I regularly experience that politicians as well as activists (!) seem to lack knowledge about the most basic issues: it is often implied that wind and PV would work all by themselves, the low loss of long-distance HVDC is a surprise to many, as well as low cost of RE and the high losses in hydrogen conversion. All options must be considered but readers should get a little background. If length is a problem: Should we shorten other parts of the article? History and terminology seem to me less significant. The paragraphs about adaptation and climate engineering part could be straightened, too. But one thing at a time. I would appreciate if you could reconsider my proposal which is now in my sandbox - go ahead and edit if you like but please leave more than two sentences. Hedgehoque (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears you do not understand. Your proposed edits (~8 kb) are not brief, and your stated intent to "stress the importance" of one subtopic while shortening other parts is, in fact, to favor that subtopic. Arguments can be made for having all of the other parts, and though no one would claim the current coverage and balance of the various parts is perfect, yet it has evolved out of years of editing and discussion. Expansion of any little part needs to be considered in the context of all the rest, which you seem to not understand. As I said previously, the material you want to add would better suited for another article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

J. Johnson, I think Hedgehoque proposes a completely overhaul of the mitigation section. Is that right? So that the overall text doesn't increase too much?

@Hedgehoque: there are still way too many details. One small example: a price tag of oil/gas in dollars won't be that clear towards people from outside the US, so you might only want to keep the percentage. Like I've said on multiple occasions before, I completely agree that the history section is too long. I would like to reduce that to half the size if that's okay. Note also that we should only use lists if we really can't prose. In this case, we can use prose. Also, single line paragraphs are baaad. (which is something that can be improved on current article. A better strategy for you is to propose smaller changes to the current article, and propose them here not on your talk page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the mitigation section is completely overhauled, or not, Hedgehoque's intent is plainly stated as wanting to boost – to put "more emphasis on", and "stress the importance of" – one subtopic. The level of detail which s/he wants is not appropriate for this top-level article, and, if included here, amounts to favoring that subtopic over others.

Femke: I suspect that what you would trim from the "History of the science" section is the more GW oriented content, which is contrary to the title of this article. The trimming of such content would also demonstrate less GW/CC overlap than claimed in your #Scoping chart in the discussion above. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail Hedgehoque proposed isn't appropriate, but let's help them improve this article in small steps.

About your 'suspecion' of my editing: I simply plan to leave out details of which individual did what. Apart from the really famous names, they are really not significant. I don't want to favour CC over GW (whatever that means), and the edit I've made so far is contrary to your 'suspicion' in the sense that I deleted general climatic difference/change info and therefore left more GHG effect/GW in there.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Overhauling the mitigation section would be a good idea. More prose with a few details left away could be a compromise. I would be glad to prepare that. I do agree that history takes too much space. This is really one of the topics where separate articles make sense.

@ JJ, I know that I am just entering the party and already rearranging the furniture (at least give it a try). Sure - the article is a result of more than 15 years of editing and it probably was a struggle to reach a state where there is no surface for attacks or misleading edits by GW sceptics. So I understand the do-not-touch reflex. But 3k (rest is reference) or even less won't hurt if the content is significant. And it is: You all know that the time horizon to come down to net zero emissions is about 10 to 20 years, referring to 1.5 °C. Even with progress in efficiency, conservation and lifestyle, energy demand will still remain high. It all comes down to the question how a fast substitution of fossil fuel by low-carbon technologies can be managed. Stating this is not opinion nor activism, it is a sober conclusion. My intention is to briefly introduce the most important aspects of the possible approaches for an energy transition, not just by name-dropping but by adding some very condensed context. I am sure readers will look for it because they are interested in solutions. Wouldn't you agree? Hedgehoque (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree to what? The GW tipping point? (I think we've missed that bus.) That "something should be done"? Oh, definitely, and I am strongly in favor of activism in that regard. Just not here. (See the WP:Socially desirable purposes essay for a fuller explanation.) If you feel this material REALLY, REALLY ought to be in WP, fine, but put it into an appropriate article. As you just said: "I am sure readers will look for it because they are interested in solutions." If you think more motivation or greater visibility is needed, start a blog. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

JJ, you still imply that I would not edit neutrally. At no point the proposed text demands that anything specific ‘’must be done’’. Readers can draw conclusions from the given facts, though. You claim: Providing these facts would be activism. I say: Not providing them would be another sort of bias.

Being a little analytic: There are two options: Do something and do nothing. Within the do-something part, the different approaches to fossil fuel substitution are already among the hottest discussed topics in the world - even without being that visible in this top-level article. Hedgehoque (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not implying that you would not neutrally edit (in the sense of "proposed text"); I am saying (explicitly, no less) that your desire to raise the visibility ("stress the importance") of this subtopic is a favoring. Please note the following "nutshell" summary from WP:Advocacy: "Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda." Is that clear enough? Note also that my objection to what you want do is not to your edits (text) per se, but to doing them in this top-level article. I have suggested a more appropriate location, but if you are going to insist that there are only two options (which is b.s.), of either adding your prefered content here, or not adding it at all, then I suggest you conform to "do nothing". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid we're moving into debates about priciples here. However, Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. is a relative statement. Any independent scientific or journalistic research follows the agenda to improve basic understanding of things and thus to make this a better world. Results must be set into context and - if significant - made visible. The mere existence of the global warming article follows this agenda. Should we suggest a speedy deletion then? Sure not. And yes, I do favour that subtopic because - as I tried to explain - the question of responses is extremely significant and urgent. Do something / nothing was meant in the sense of do something/ / nothing against GW, not in the sense of whether to edit or not. I want to restructure the options within the do-something-part. Hedgehoque (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hedgehoque, Back to content. You proposed a large overhaul in the mitigation section. The three of indicated we thought that to be too detailed. The mitigation section has been rewritten quite a bit since the last time I looked at it. Things I don't like about it:

1. To keep warming below 2 °C, more stringent emission reductions in the near-term would allow for less rapid reductions after 2030.[205] To keep warming under 1.5 °C, a far-reaching system change on an unprecedented scale is necessary in energy, land, cities, transport, buildings, and industry. After this statement there is space for a few sentences (two long ones?) delving a bit deeper into the options.
2. A report, published just before the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, says that the full implementation of all pledges taken by international coalitions, countries, cities, regions and businesses (not only in the Paris Agreement) would be sufficient to limit temperature rise to 2 °C but not to 1.5 °C --> I'm not familiar with the publisher of this report and doubt the conclusions. Should be checked and possibly removed
3. All the information about the pledges is added to the UNFCCC Global Climate Action portal. The scientific community is checking their fulfilment.[208] This sentence about a portal is definitely too detailed. Removed.
4. Last two sentences form one sentence paragraphs, which goes straight against our Manual of Style. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A new version is online, restructured with only +0.8k in length and set into prose. Constructive edits are welcome. Hedgehoque (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hedgehoque, Please please edit in small steps instead of a big overhaul. There were quite a few things that needed improving, and we can't help you much if you do a big overhaul.

1. You put geo-engineering as a subsection of adaptation. Various sources either put it under mitigation (rare, questionable), or as a separate heading.
2. Many of your sentences were unsourced
3. You used some jargon. Linking jargon isn't typically enough, it needs explanation. Often to save on words, the jargon itself is avoided or only visible in the wikilink

And some smaller issues:

1. You used WP:EGGs: internal links that lead to surprising pages. For instance: [[Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere|reached in 2028]] people don't expect to be led to an article about CO2 when linked from the year of possibly reaching that threshold
2. You shouldn't use sentence case in section titles (so Greenhouse gas reduction and not Greeenhouse Gas Reduction)
3. You linked to an disambiguation page: nuclear energy. Make sure to link to an article.
4. You needlessly introduced some abbreviations: PHES, CAES. These made the text less readable.
5. For sentences that are true regardless of source, don't mention the source. In 2019, oil and gas companies were listed by Forbes with sales of about 5 % of the global GDP. Would any other RS come to a different conclusion than Forbes? If yes, choose the most reliable one. If no, Forbes is needless information that should be removed.
6. rare-earth metals not capitalized.

I think I like where you're going, but please take it slow so that we can help. WC: you indicate that there is too much activism. Is that only the line about reaching 2028, or do you see more problems? I agree that sentence is somewhat misleading, as it is about committed warming, not actual warming. So there is in theory some hope/time to upscale negative emission scenarios.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

2028 was the first thing I ran across, and putting that dubious stuff so high up smells of activism. I think you're right about the too big changes. H: just start with one small thing that you feel certain of William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Femke, thank you very much for taking the time and checking it through. I just tried to keep it short and removed some sources and aspects. At this point, I would appreciate if you could perform the overhaul - revert the reversion and perform some edits or find another way. You got my suggestions. I would be happy if I had left some ideas here. Hedgehoque (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The bias is heavily tilted to the anthropogenic view.

Why relegate other possible causes to the minor heading? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Minor_forcings:_the_Sun_and_short-lived_greenhouse_gases

Janosabel (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am thinking of making a number of edits to the Effects topic in this article (as well as to the Effects of global warming article, and wanted to get people‘s feedback on the approach I am considering and the reasoning for that approach. I am posting this here, although I know some of you are actively editing both articles.

As the GW article points out in the Society and Culture subtopic, the British Commonwealth, the EU Parliament, the UN Secretary-General, and several national and international government organizations have made statements on this crisis in the past few months. These have described the GW/CC problem in such terms as “climate catastrophe”, “existential threat”, and “clear and present danger”.[1][2][3][4] However when I look at the Effects topic in the Global warming article, as well written as it is, I don’t end up with that impression. I think there are several sections that may inadvertently downplay the severity of the current situation/projections and the full extent of the future risks involved (the Effects of Global Warming article is closer to the mark in this regard).

A couple of quick examples of this “downplaying” notion (recognizing that there are also areas where the article does a good job of describe impacts in detail):

• The Models and Projections sub topic provides an interesting overview of the science of climate modeling, but doesn’t provide any picture as to specific temperature increases expected over the next century, such as what you can see from the Climate Action Tracker. Incidentally the Effects of Global Warming article does include information from CAT, which I think helps improve the clarity of this sub topic within that article.
• The Health and Security portion of the Effects>Humans subtopic starts with: “Generally, impacts on public health will be more negative than positive.” The descriptions in the paragraph that follows are also fairly general. Other reliable sources describe significant human health impacts in more specific terms, as the Effects of Global Warming article demonstrates.

In several areas such as the ones above, I think the article could benefit by describing current/projected impacts and future risks in more detail. I would use the analogy of a National Weather Service “severe weather” warning. To save space here I have given my reasoning on the talk page of user:Dtetta/sandbox as to why that would be an appropriate consideration when editing this article (and not an NPOV issue).

As a preliminary step, I created a table of current and future impacts at user:Dtetta/sandbox that compares the statements from GW, Effects of GW, and adds statements that further depict reasonable upper end risks (that last part is only partially complete, but I think there’s enough there that you can get the idea).

I am planning on the following approach for editing the two articles, with the idea of providing clarification regarding both time frames and magnitude of impacts/upper end risks. Starting with the Effects of global warming article:

1. Break out current impacts vs projected impacts, and add additional information from the statements in bold at user:Dtetta/sandbox. Add a paragraph or two on progress in attribution science toward the beginning of the article.
2. Describe 2050 projections, using both existing statements in the article as well as statements in bold from that column in the sandbox table. This is what readers need to know from an adaptation standpoint, since it seems unlikely we will have a significant impact in reducing global warming by then.
3. Describe 2100 scenarios at 3C and/or 4C/RCP8.5. Breaking these out specifically, or perhaps including some discussion of optimistic, 2C scenario impacts, would help the reader understand the impact that various mitigation efforts might have.
4. Summarize this information in the Global Warming article itself, using the same categories. This step might entail editing out some of the current text there.

I’d be interested in feedback on three points:

1. Is the notion that, to some extent, the GW article downplays climate change impacts a reasonable assessment?
2. Is the approach outlined above workable, or are there other ways of accomplishing the goal I am describing that would be more effective/efficient? and
3. Are there are other issues (like cherry-picking inappropriate worst case predictions) that should be considered when making changes of the nature I am proposing?

Thanks in advance for any feedback you can provide.Dtetta (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dtetta: It's good to have your experience and expertise on board.

• Because the present article (especially) is considered by many to be bloated, my first three bits of advice are: (1) Be brief. (2) Be concise. (3) Be brief and concise.
• Because of WP:NEUTRAL—one of the pillars of Wikipedia—we must be careful how we express claims. As a simple example, it's OK to claim "11,000 scientists published an open letter saying we're in a climate emergency" and of course, cite a reliable secondary source. It's not OK to write "We're in a climate emergency" because the term emergency is value-laden and not conventionally used to describe the subject matter. Notice how the Climate crisis article, which is about the term 'climate crisis', is handled as neutrally and objectively as possible, without arguing that it is a crisis.
• Be cognizant that this high level article, Global warming, should have only the highest-level summaries of the most notable facts. Lower-level articles, such as (presumably) Effects of global warming, can contain a greater level of detail.
• I say these things out of a premonition I have, that your hard work may be "too much" for this article. I'd suggest adding one or two sentences and see how the community responds, before you invest too much time. Patience, and openness to mid-course corrections, are advisable! —RCraig09 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not so much that anything is "downplayed", but, as RCraig says, a top-level article can only summarize the sub-topics. Which is not to say that any of your work is wasted, only that when coverage of a sub-topic starts getting beyond a summary (has more detailed coverage) it is usually more appropriately placed in a subordinate article. See WP:Summary style for details. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RCraig09 for the feedback, and for the suggestions about brevity, conciseness, and patience. I’ll be working on the edits to the Effects of global warming page first, so you’ll have a chance to see what I am proposing there before I make any edits to the Effects topic of this article. And thanks JJ for the summary style link, that’s helpful.Dtetta (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A very belated response, sorry. I agree with the comments by RCraig09 and J. Johnson of keeping summary style very firmly in mind. I'm very interested to see you add things to the effects of global warming page and then later to this page. I think you might be right that this article has a small bias downplaying the issue, and we can use somewhat stronger language. I think “climate catastrophe”, “existential threat” are too strong to be prominently added, and if added later should always be attributed. "Clear and present danger" on the other hand could be added to the lede, again if attributed.

Keep in mind that the article is already somewhat biased towards the US and that many of the sources you provide have a similar problem. A specific response to your bullet points:

1. I've undone some of the splitting between current and future impacts in these top articles. It was the case that we often had two subsections that were virtually identical (A is observed, and more A is predicted). If numbers were mentioned, the splitting of current observations and future impacts were so far apart that is was difficult for the reader to compare. In GW I think there is no room to break those out. In EoGW it is more of an editorial decision, which I am weakly against.
2. Yes, as long as you make sure you don't mention (subsections) of the US disproportionaly
3. Difficult. This can get boring soon. If this can be summarized in a nice table of figure, it might work.
4. Yes, and I believe it's a good strategy to begin with the EoGW article to get more familiar with editing. After you've done your bit, we might want to nominate it for Good Article Status, also allowing you to learn even more about Wikipedia's best editing practises.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful response Femke.Dtetta (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

1) Although the section does discuss burning less fossil fuel I feel it should be more emphasized, possibly even described as the most important.

2) If nobody objects I would like to remove ", subsidies for renewable energy" from the sentence "Alternative effective policies include a moratorium on burning coal, subsidies for renewable energy and a phase-out of energy subsidies which promote fossil fuel use." Although subsidies for renewable energy were no doubt an effective policy in the 2010s and there is still some subsidy in 2020, it is debatable whether much money is still required and whether it is still an effective policy (compared to for example subsidizing zero carbon buildings). Chidgk1 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

1) I agree that more emphasize is warranted. Describing it as the most important is probably correct, but let's follow top RSs for this.

2) About subsidies: if you have a better source with more updated information, please be my guest. Otherwise, I do think it's still valid as long as fossil fuels are subsidized to the extent they are. Some renewable energy types such as tidal, wave, geothermal, offshore wind, can definitely be employed way faster with subsidies. The study was about policy from 2015-2030, so I'd say it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume it's still valid and might need replacing in a few years. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

1) Just as I suggested 2) Agree with Femke. Another aspect: Though wind and PV are competitive while producing, storage and distribution require further investments. This could be accellerated, too. Hedgehoque (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Under question 5 in the FAQ, it is correctly stated that the oceans are becoming more acidic, however immediately after that, in parentheses it says "or more accurately, less basic". It's very possible that I am misunderstanding this, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that in this context, "more acidic" and "less basic" are essentially identical in meaning, as the cause of the lowering of the pH of the oceans is the increase in the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide, rather than a change in the dissociation. Since both processes are happening simultaneously by the same amount for the same reason, how can one description be more accurate than the other? And isn't it more common to describe changes in pH as it relates to acidity, rather than basicity? Trainer Alex (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

According to our article seawater, the pH is in the range 7.5–8.4, which means that it is on the "basic" side of neutral i.e. pH>7, so initial changes to the pH will move it towards 7, while remaining "basic" but less so. I presume that is the origin of the wording. Mikenorton (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware that the oceans are basic, however a lowering of the pH of the oceans in this way is in fact acidifying the oceans. Water doesn't suddenly become 0% basic when the pH rises above 7, it simply indicated that the basicity of the water is dominant rather than the acidity. The reason I think this is important is because I have seen multiple climate contrarians "correcting" people who correctly state that the oceans are also becoming more acidic due to rising CO2 concentrations, in a sort of "gotcha" style argument, and I don't think we should be giving the impression that it's less accurate to say the oceans are becoming more acidic when that isn't actually the case. Trainer Alex (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I've changed 'more accurately' to 'in other words'. More accurately sounded prescriptive, which we shoudn't be. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to move the IPCC projections from the lede to the section on models and projections. The sentence under consideration: Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in a moderate scenario, or as much as 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in an extreme scenario, depending on the rate of future greenhouse gas emissions and on climate feedback effects. Three reasons to have decreased prominency:

1. It may be too detailed.
2. The words 'a further' doesn't make that sense anymore as the numbers are 7 years old. Replacing it with compared to 2013 is awkward English.
3. Most importantly, the upper range here is from the RCP8.5 scenario, a scenario which has turned out to be almost incompatible with current developments in energy technology.^[1]

I think that it makes more sense to have a headline figure in the lede about what current policy amounts to, as for instance reported by the Carbon Action Tracker.^[2]

Any objections before I start drafting a nice sentence? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

- I agree that the existing sentence is too detailed and somewhat outdated. I certainly trust your knowledge and judgment underlying any sentence you would draft. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

- By "headline figure" do you mean a number, or an image/drawing/chart? (If you mean image: I think the ClimateActionTracker "thermometer" image merely shows temperature ranges, which can just as easily be communicated in text.) An image should have a strong visual impact. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I meant a number, as we're already full of figures in the lede. I need to find another source at least as reliable as CAT before I start drafting. Bed time now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Readers could get confused with those values relative to the "current" level. I think we should use values relative to the pre-industrial level 1850-1900 wherever this is possible. Hedgehoque (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the lede and moved the other numbers down. Any comments? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, small steps... Currently, the lead does not reflect on the IPCC special report on 1.5°C GW. This update would be essential - just as a brief mention of the carbon budget. The 2028 mark which I already proposed refers to the IPCC SR15 statement about the remaining budget of 420 GtCO₂ with a 2/3 chance. It is important to set this value into context. The Mercator Institute projects the current emissions of 42 Gt, resulting in 10 years left from 2018. If I got it right, the temperature rise to 1.5°C would happen with a some delay in 2030-2052 (SR15 p.66). So my initial wording was not quite correct.

I suggest to add after international standing:

According to the IPCC, the risk of an irreversible impact increases beyond a level of 1.5 °C (SR15 SP p.7). The remaining carbon budget of 420 GtCO₂ for staying below 1.5°C with a 2/3 chance would be exhausted in 2028 if emissions remain on the current level of 42 Gt per year. (SR15 Ch2 p.96, Mercator Institute)

Hedgehoque (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've editing the citations and text slightly, but I do think you're right that the carbon budget should be mentioned. Do mind that anything in the lede also has to be mentioned in the body of the article, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. Can you add the carbon budget concept, maybe with an additional line of text, somewhere in the body? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to models and projections and extended the caption. But you can take it back if that is too much. Hedgehoque (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hedgehoque-I like the 1.5° C addition you’ve proposed. On the project review page I proposed some additional revisions to the second paragraph. I’d be interested on your thoughts when you have a chance.Dtetta (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I imagine this topic has been discussed regularly over the years (and I bring this up as yet another backwards American), but it seems like the convention of using °C/°F is applied inconsistently in the article. I counted about 50 instances where °C was cited (a few of these in the footnotes), with six instances where both units are used (with Fahrenheit in parenthesis). Except for one instance in the Physical Drivers > Greenhouse Gases section, where an actual temperature measurement is referenced, these appear to be all referring to small, 0-6 °C global warming increments. Some options for dealing with this would seem to be: 1) use both units whenever a unique °C value is used for the first time, with subsequent instances using only the °C unit, or 2) include a brief reference to the 1/1.8 conversion formula (and avoid the addition +32 reference), and use just °C, except for those instances where actual temperature measurements are referenced, in which case using both might make sense. There are certainly other options as well, but those are the first that occur to me. We could also just make sure that both are used whenever temperature is referenced, but that seems repetitive.Dtetta (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion on this topic. Can't find anything in the MoS saying what we should do. Feel free to improve how you see fit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Sierra Club has a short opinion piece on this, but it’s clearly written from an American perspective [5]. Dtetta (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm definitely okay with giving Fahrenheit a more prominent position. About 40% of the readers of the English wikipedia are from the US, so we should definitely cater towards this minority as well. Be bold! Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

In the peer review a comment was made about duplicity of figures about emissions. We now have a time series figure under the 'drivers' with different countries on it and a simple pie chart with comparable information under the mitigation subsection. I think both types of information are quite valuable, but should be shown together. Couple of problems with the current graphs:

A) The first graph has:

• a lot of white space
• the fonts are way too small,
• Quite a bit of fluff (who made it, data source, the sources of uncertainty)

B) The second graph has

• Old-fashioned colour scheme (bright red, blue)

I propose we make one new graph with cumulative emissions (who is historically responsible for GW) and newest emission data (who has the keys in hand to solve problem now) we can find. The easiest to interpret is that both graphs are of the same type. A pie chart is typically not suitable if you have more than 5-7 categories^[1], so it would be pushing it for us if we do this. Pie charts, per being round, also leave quite a bit of white space. A possible alternative is the "100% Stacked Horizontal Bar Graph"^[2] If we limit the amount of countries, and are conservative in choosing not too many colours (f.i. US/Europe nearly the same), this option might become quite insightful. What do you think?

If we stick with a donut-like graph, we'd better change it into a donut chart, ^[3] as it presents data a bit more cleanly. Anybody willing to give it a shot? I won't have time for this in quite some time I think with the peer review attracting so much valuable input. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Issues: (1) The first (time-series) chart has much more information than the second (pie) chart. (2) The categories in the two charts are not identical.

Observations:

- To retain as much information as possible from the time-series chart would require making plural charts at discrete times—maybe (a) a set of horizontal bar charts or (b) a set of concentric donut charts (called a "sun-burst diagram" in the Dataviz video). Either way, the continuity of the time-series data would be compromised... but I don't see that as an essential problem since I view historical CO2-contributions-by-region to be less important than current CO2 contributions.

- As a simple, purely space-saving idea: simply superimpose the existing pie chart atop the existing time-series chart.

As I'm still frustrated with the text renderings of SVGs (which I perceive to be the desired norm on this article family), I'm sorry I wouldn't be the best one to perform the work. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I glossed over the point that I think much of the time-evolution information from the first graph is too detailed for this article. I'm only interested in the total historical emissions. My goal is not to retain as much information as possible at all, because "less is more". As such, no need for the sunburst diagram (which I find difficult to interpret anyway)

The choice for having cumulative or current emissions has an ethical dimension. Developing countries and particularly China have pushed for the cumulative pie chart/other type of chart to be prominent, while developed countries find this "uncomfortable" as that blames them more. They push for this current emissions. I'd like not to choose and think both types of information can be portrayed. I think the first graph isn't saveable, as there is too much detailed information for a single graph. The country names can never be big enough.

Since comments by the two of you, I've think I've learned how to make text editable in my python svg scripts, so I'm not too worried about that anymore. Time is my limiting factor now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Afterthought: per capita CO2 contributions of each nation/region would also be meaningful to include, alongside raw national/regional contributions. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would make the amount of graphs double again. If we only do the per capita numbers for the current emissions, it may be more clear.

Efbrazil, what do you think? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: a graphic including two bar charts (one raw numbers, the other per capita). —RCraig09 (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

For the blame game, maybe one chart that captures historical cumulative and current day per capita would be good.

A second chart would be like a dashboard comparing regions and saying who is getting better and worse in modern times. Carbon brief has a really good Web page that might help with graphical ideas for capturing how things are changing year to year by region and by source. It also includes the issue of carbon sinks ("Global Carbon Budget"), which we're ignoring right now.

I'd also like to kick off a new chart that captures the lifecycle of the problem at some point, using some of that carbon brief data. The gist to convey is this: 72% of GGE are from fossil fuels (agriculture 11%, other 17%). 76% of the GG radiative imbalance is caused by carbon dioxide (methane 16%, other 8%). Extra carbon dioxide goes 46% into the air (31% to biosphere, 23% to ocean)[6]. Excess heat energy is going 92% to the ocean (8% to air and land). Let me know what you think of that idea.

Anyhow, that's my preliminary thoughts. I should have time to grind on all of that next week. Efbrazil (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that your two March 5++ graphics, File:Total CO2 by Region.svg and File:Per Capita CO2 by Region.svg, are substantively important and masterfully created, though more specific sourcing (which chart/diagram on the Carbon Brief page) would be appropriate. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I added better sourcing the to the description of the 2 images. The Global Carbon Budget 2019 is really a fantastic source and is all creative commons licensed. The images from the report can be directly viewed here without downloading the giant pdf. I was lazy and scraped the images instead of rebuilding from the ground up, which would be higher quality for SVG in particular. I should loop back around and do that at some point. Efbrazil (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no debate on this page? Why is this page so 1 sided? I mean talk about bias. The 97% of scientists has been proven bs, and if you cannot freely edit a page it says volumes to the agenda you are promoting. Climate is controlled by the Sun not us little people. JFKelton (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Most people can edit this page, but not people completely new to Wikipedia. Some information how scientists know for certain the sun isn't causing warming is summarized by NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/ Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A few comments about the new figure:

1. Like all of these figures, I really think the font doesn't work. I cannot put my finger on it exactly. The letters seem to be spaced a bit too much, the font is too thin, all of which gives an unfriendly impression.
2. I was really confused at the figure to start with. How is it possible that carbon sinks and carbon sources match up? It took me a good while to discover that the atmosphere was grouped under the sinks. That's incorrect. Carbon sinks are everything that removes carbon from the atmosphere.^[1] You could make a third category of atmosphere (sources, sinks, atmosphere).
3. The fact that red and blue are almost lined up, but not completely, is off-putting. I don't mind either way, but not this middle-of-the-road
4. Can you add the tiniest amount of extra space between percentage and bar for the sources?
5. Could you make the bars a bit fatter? The white space between them dominates a bit.

Thanks! Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Efbrazil not sure whether you noticed this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep- I missed this, much thanks for reaching out and getting my attention. I updated the image with some of the easier stuff I talk about down below.

1. I agree that SVG rendering of fonts is not so good. Like I said, I'm following best advice from the help page folks, who insist I should not just convert the text to shapes because it messes up localization and searchability and so forth. If you find a better solution I'm all for it. I've sort of come around to "I can live with it", but I'll keep looking for a better way to handle fonts.
2. Yep- sources and what I called sinks match, except for errors in estimation. see here for a similar picture, the full report behind that picture explains that the "imbalance" is just a result of errors in the earlier part of the timeline (e.g. pre-1950)- the numbers should match. True that atmosphere shouldn't be grouped as a "sink" though. I renamed the category to "destinations". I want the grouping because the point of graphics like this is to show where carbon is coming from and where it is going to. It's no more natural for it to end up in the atmosphere as it is to end up in the ocean.
3. They're lined up, and directly in the center of the image. Not sure what you mean?
4. Sure, done.
5. That spacing is how all the graphs are- changing it here means changing it everywhere, which I'd rather avoid right now as it's a lot of work. Let's see if anywhere else complains.Efbrazil (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The first chart, a composite by User:Dragons_flight Dr. Robert A. Rohde, is the lead image in both articles, Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and is used in numerous non-English WP articles as well.

I've uploaded the second chart, showing MWP and LIA in colored regions. The source for my chart states "The data show that the modern period is very different to what occurred in the past. The often quoted Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are real phenomena, but small compared to the recent changes." Hence, I've added quotation marks around the two terms in my graphic.

User:Femkemilene's chart File:Temperature reconstruction last two millennia.svg and User:Efbrazil's SVG upgrade File:Common Era Temperature.svg are more in accord with Hawkins' chart which uses "PAGES2k" data.

With the understanding that MWP and LIA concepts are often said to be based too much on regional data rather than global data, I'm concerned that Dr. Rohde's widely-used graphic suggests that the MWP and LIA are more dramatic phenomena than they are. This suggestion may provide ammunition for deniers and misunderstanding for newcomers.

At this central GW/CC location, I'm requesting comments, especially from subject matter experts, on whether Hawkins' chart should supplement, or possibly replace, the earlier chart in the MWP and LIA articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That Rohde graph is definitely out of date. Please update with any of the PAGES2k charts. (Also, WP:PROCC and it's figure subpage are the right place for this. Text related to updating this article is already overwhelming). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Before replacing anything, I'll wait a few days for others' comments. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to wait. The old image could be considered misleading, as it implies that there was a global MWP. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

In complete absence of contrary comments, I've made the substitution in the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  The global warming article was relevant to the topic, and nothing included in the article was distracting. I found that this global warming article was unbiased, and it was purely for informational purposes. Sydmrobinson (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Soapboxing in another article, trimmed it & moving it here. See if you guys can incorporate it, or not.Leo Breman (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2019 IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land projects a net reduction of crop productivity.^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to summary information, above:

• Consensus-gauging table
• Reasoning table

Should we propose moving Global warming to Climate change?

• Strong support: this is the term used in statements adopted by numerous scientific societies.[7] This shift in usage from GW to CC by the scientific community is recognized by public opinion pollsters.[8] The phrase is used by education professionals to communicate the subject.[9] News organization have adopted it.[10] It is the most common current usage by public officials.[11] The phrase "climate change" has overtaken "global warming" as the de facto[12][13][14] catch all term for the subject of this article. This is the current and common usage per dictionary definitions.[15][16] which is reflected in the reliable sources that we rely on.[17]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I was just thinking about the fact that the “not supported by” clause in the last statement is isn’t supported by the references. I like the phrase though, so I’ll see if I can’t find something.Dtetta (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anchor: Gtrends chart 01]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is one point I agree with JJ that we haven't addressed at all. JJ states that the destabilisation of climate patterns isn't evident until 1970 and later, whereas temperature rise would be visible before. To translate this into sciency terms: you could possibly say that the time of emergence[18] for changes in variables like precipitation (whether it's stabilizing change or not) that are not surface temperature. While I haven't found a study investigating this, it is a very questionable hypothesis with respect to the water cycle. Water vapour responds to temperature within a time-scale of about three days, and it responds strongly as well. Therefore, it's difficult to defend the hypothesis that these two changes would start in different decades. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dtetta's comment that he favors a term is hardly advocacy for the term. By such a standard your previous statements "I favor "GW & CC"" (23:38, 4 Nov, [19]) and "I favor "GW & CC" so readers immediately confront the two terms" (21:36, 3 Dec, [20]) are equally advocacy, so you are being hypocritical in accusing him of doing the very thing you have done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anchor: GW_variation_chart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caption

Climate Change \n (roughly what we have now)

Global warming (more restricted)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved under forking discussion by Femkemilene

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that under WP:OVERLAP it also says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Climate change (general concept) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lede has a few problems:

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

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

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

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

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report has concluded that , "human influence on climate has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[21] The largest human influence has been the eEmissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are the principle cause of this effect. Fossil fuel burning is the dominant source of these gases, with agricultural emissions and deforestation also playing significant roles.[22] These findings have been endorsed by organizations throughout the world recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[12][13] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[23][24]

The only reference changes are substituting SR15 chapter 1, p. 53 for the older IPCC cite in footnote 10, and the deletion of citations/footnotes 12 and 13. I thought about ways of shortening the last sentence, but given the current level of climate denial on the internet[25][26][27], it seems like this somewhat repetitive phrasing is, unfortunately, still warranted. One other editing option would be to move the two sentences discussing greenhouse gases and sources to the end of the paragraph.

Let me know if you think more editing is needed.

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

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

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

Using recent science is better, 2013 is long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight Tinker (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I was just thinking about the fact that the "not disputed by" clause is not supported by the references when I read you post. I like the phrase, though, so I will see if I can find a 2015+ reference.Dtetta (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the three references that are given later in the article don't support it either. I'm pretty sure it is true though, but we might have to reformulate if we can't find a source. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the challenge of definitively documenting this is that you are trying to prove a negative, but it turns out that the link from the phrase starting with “not disputed by” to the Scientific consensus on climate change article takes you to some fairly good recent data. At the end of the Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing topic, the Opposing section indicates that the last scientific organization to formally oppose human caused global warming dropped their opposition in 2007. I think the multitude of organizations listed in this topic also suggests that the sentence starting with “These findings have been recognized by the national science academies”, could be worded more broadly, which is what I was trying to do with the “organizations worldwide” statement, although I agree that was a bit vague. I think the wikipedia article information is more comprehensive that what NASA displays on its page. But I don't have a strong opinion on the best wording for the beginning of the sentence.

Although not directly supporting it, the Surveys of scientists and scientific literature topic includes a reference to a 2019 paper by James Lawrence Powell, [28] in which his most recent survey of peer reviewed articles indicated 100% consensus.

I would think these items would be sufficient documentation to justify the “not disputed by” statement.

Something like this might work for that sentence: These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[29] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing. [30] This last reference only indirectly supports the statement, so it could be left out.Dtetta (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm not convinced yet of the sources. I feel we're doing a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS here. Link 32 includes a lot of non-industrialized nations, so we could drop the word industrialized in that sentence? It used to refer to the G8+5 statement. That 2019 paper can be used for the first sentence in the scientific consensus subsection, and we may want to include a bit of history in the scientific consensus subsection that consensus started in the 1970 from that paper. It states:

As a scholar of the history of science, she recognized that in spite of the widespread agreement on AGW from scientific associations, national academies, and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), their reports “might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions” from individual scientists.

I think the most likely statement that none of these bodies reject AGW would come from her more modern books..

Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about WP:SYNTHESIS. Right now, it would be helpful for me to summarize progress and clarify what needs to be done with this sentence, so here goes:

The wording of the first clause is ok, although it could be worded more broadly or otherwise adjusted to reflect the range of institutions mentioned in the CA Governor’s website and the Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing topic. The NASA reference is more limited in the number of organizations it cites, and is therefore a less relevant reference, and could be eliminated. So the references for that clause are sufficient, but the wording could use some more editing.

The second clause still needs a better citation, or its wording needs to be changed to better reflect what the supporting references actually say. The Opposing section at the end of the Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing topic indicates that since 2007 there are no organizations that oppose the human caused GW concept, though some organizations are currently non-committal. But that limited wording is not a sufficient reference. To be a valid reference for that statement, an individual or organization needs to be recently monitoring position statements of scientific organizations around the world and reporting on those findings. Oreskes’ more recent work might do this, but that needs to be looked into.

Does that capture the situation/current state of progress?Dtetta (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

So I would suggest that the current footnote 11 referencing the Joint science academies' statement be replaced by the CA Governor’s website and the Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing references.Dtetta (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Or how about this for the sentence:These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major nations, as well as over 200 scientific organizations worldwide[31], and are no longer disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing, nor cited in any recently published peer reviewed literature [32].

It moves the ball forward, although the "not supported by" clause still needs a citation. Its downside is that it creates a longer sentence.

As you mentioned earlier, we probably also want to adjust some of the wording in the "Scientific Consensus" topic in the article, to make it more reflective of this sentence, however it ends up being worded.Dtetta (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I'm starting to doubt the CA Governor's website a bit. It doesn't include any methodolgy, might be considered partisan and the links link not to statements by these organisations, but simply the front page website of these scientific bodies. What about a sentence in the direction of: IPCC + many scientific bodies have said humans are the dominant cause of warming (IPCC 2018, Oreskes book 2019, Google books doesn't show my page number anymore). This reflects an overwhelming consensus in peer reviewed literature (Powell 2019 & Cook 2016).. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I like that approach, it emphasizes the positive:)Dtetta (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In my attempt to find Oreskes quote again, I found a ref for our first claim! this 2016 book states almost exactly what we have in the lede (p55), and cites it to 2007 work by Oreskes. It states: Since 2007, no scientific body of national, or international, standing rejects the finding of human-induced climate change. Which gives us more options again. I'll try to verify the reference in the book, because books can also be sloppy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

While I cannot be a hundred percent sure, I think that cite in the 2016 book refers to the book we've already cited by Oreskes (now properly cited). Oreskes doesn't say exactly that, at least not on page 68, and I wouldn't be completely surprised if the sentence was copied from Wikipedia. My investigation continues. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Good find! Check out this blog from Peter Gleick with the Pacific Institute [33]. I think it is even more definitive, and from my perspective provides a reliable source for both clauses in the sentence:)Dtetta (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So I propose this: These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major nations, as well as numerous scientific organizations worldwide, and are no longer disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing[34].Dtetta (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of the blog, he states that no scientific organizations are currently disputing this, which is why I think this one reference can support the entire sentence.Dtetta (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've integrated this source in the lede and in the corresponding section. I made the lede a bit shorter than you suggested, as it was giving three statements about scientific bodies. I feel we are missing some kind of sentence in the scientific consensus subsection expressing why consensus means that we scientists are probably right. I'm not entirely sure though how/what. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that looks good, although I might have made the text wiki link more specifically to Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing, but maybe there is a reason for not doing that. That article and subsection need some work, as they are both somewhat incomplete and dated, which is why I did not have a link to them in my proposed sentence. But that is for another day. I will also work on the scientific consensus subsection on the GW article. Thanks again for all the amazing editing work you seem to be doing every day.Dtetta (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)