Talk:Climate change/Archive 91

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Business section

This is a proposed addition after making improvements as discussed in talk page archive number 90. This information could be worked into Section 6 of the article. However, given the broad scope of business investment, I tend to think the addition fits well as a new section following Section 8.

@Femkemilene, Thank you for your help. I will appreciate further suggestions!

== Business ==

For broader coverage of this topic, see Business action on climate change, Economics of climate change, and Climate finance.

By the end of 2021, investors were expressing a preference for businesses that act to reduce CO₂ and methane pollution. In December of 2021 Larry Fink, a well known investment manager, observed that "in the last 2 years the sustainable investment community has now raised four trillion dollars of assets". Improved ways of handling computer data were beginning to help identify "climate responsible" businesses, governments and other organizations.

By autumn 2020, as measured in US dollars, institutional investors managing $14 trillion worth of assets worldwide had committed to sell some or all of their fossil fuel holdings. The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance reported that as of December 31 2019 the equivalent of $35 trillion US dollars were invested in sustainable assets within the 5 major economies of the United States, Europe, Japan, Canada and Australasia.

Omygoshogolly (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I feel this is still not quite neutral: there is continued investment in fossil fuels, and quite a split in the business community to address climate change (some investors are serious, others only greenwash). The Paulson institute is a think tank, which we do not consider not a high-quality reliable source. Furthermore, the preferred style is to state information in WP:Wikipedia's voice, instead of quoting others. Femke (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

There are four apparent scam links that have been inserted as the first 4 references in this draft in the talk page. I did not insert these links. I will report them.

I'll remove the sentence containing the Larry Fink quote.

Thank you for your help. Omygoshogolly (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I'd like to see mention of ESG funds. It would also be ideal if any numbers offered included a comparison of how assets are allocated going forward, for instance X dollars to developing new fossil fuel sources, and Y dollars towards sustainable sources. Some mention of carbon offsets is probably also a good idea. McKinsey has a lot of recent research in the area, which is free if you create an account:

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring Efbrazil (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions!

I can investigate more specific mention of various topics including transitional fossil fuel investments, sustainable fossil fuel investments, greenwashing, fossil fuel investments made without regard for climate change, ESG funds, expected future allocation of investment between non-sustainable and sustainable energy sources, and carbon credits.

At what point should an addition to the article be published? Once published, it may attract more editors to make contributions. Omygoshogolly (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Omygoshogolly - I think a short section like this would be an improvement to the article. IMO it would be nice to incorporate info from all three of the “Main article/See also” links you list more broadly - what you have proposed so far is a fairly small slice of what those articles cover. You might also consider working on improving the Business action on climate change article as a way of focusing your thoughts on what edits to propose for this section. That article has a maintenance notice that lists a number of problems with it in its present form - so your efforts there would be very useful. The Climate finance and Economics of climate change pages you reference also have useful information you might consider incorporating. In addition, the Economics of climate change mitigation article might even be more on point, base on your suggestion that this be part of Section 6. I also think a brief discussion on costs/benefts, perhaps taken from the Economics of climate change article, might be a good intro for this section

In terms of IPCC related info, the AR6 WGIII SPM has a section B.5.4 on page SPM-15 that mentions Climate Finance briefly. In addition, Chapter 15 of that report has a lot of useful information you may want to review to help you refine your proposal. Again, most of it seems to be related a little more to Climate Finance more broadly, as opposed to the more specific investment topics you’ve mentioned.

I think your proposal might work in Section 6, but maybe also consider it for a revised Section 8 that could be retitled, “Policies, politics and finance” - just a thought, based on how some of this info is presented in the IPCC report.

Lastly, I had proposed a section on costs and benefits a couple of years ago. For a variety of reasons that was never finalized as an edit. But some of that text might still be useful.

Hope that helps - I realize there’s a lot of info to consider in those links. Dtetta (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing many great suggestions! At this point my tentative plan is to add more to the draft, then publish it in the end of section 8 retitled as “Policies, politics and finance” , and then work on adding more within section 8 and elsewhere. Omygoshogolly (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a generally good approach Omygoshogolly. I would encourage you to post your proposed text to the talk page before publishing it, as it seems like a fairly significant addition. You might try starting with an outline, along with the most important references for each element of the outline. Just a suggestion. Dtetta (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm about to retitle section 8 as "Policies, politics and finance" and add subsection 8.4 "Finance". My draft of subsection 8.4 includes the following: (for detailed references, see the draft)

• A paragraph on investor preferences, with these references: - "Do investors care about carbon risk?", Journal of Financial Economics - "The Evolving Landscape of Big Data Analytics and ESG Materiality Mapping", The Journal of Impact and Esg Investing
• A paragraph on environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG), with these references: "Five ways that ESG creates value". McKinsey - "The Best ESG Funds Of July 2022". Forbes Advisor - "It's Not Easy Being Green: Bringing Transparency and Accountability to Sustainable Investing". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
• A paragraph on carbon credits, with this reference: "What are carbon credits? How fighting climate change became a billion-dollar industry". NBC News
• Two paragraphs on the transition away from fossil fuels, with these key references: "The big choices for oil and gas in navigating the energy transition". McKinsey & Company - "World's top banks pumped $742 bln into fossil fuels in 2021 - report". Reuters - "Why the divestment movement is missing the mark". Nature Climate Change

August 7 proposal

Here is the draft for the new subsection 8.4:

=== Finance ===

For broader coverage of this topic, see Business action on climate change, Economics of climate change, and Climate finance.

By the end of 2021, investors were expressing a preference for businesses that act to reduce CO₂ and methane pollution. Improved ways of handling computer data were beginning to help identify "climate responsible" businesses, governments and other organizations.

The concept of Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) provided businesses with a way to commit to sustainable practices. Many mutual funds, index funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have specialized to invest in ESG businesses. In May of 2022 the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expressed concern that exaggerated or false claims about ESG practices (an example of greenwashing) could be misleading investors.

In addition to conventional forms of financing, carbon credits have provided a unique but sometimes abused way to direct investments into carbon reduction projects.

It’s been difficult to forecast future allocation of investment between non-sustainable and sustainable energy sources. By 2021 oil and gas companies needed to develop new policies and strategies in the face of an uncertain future for fossil fuel use. As of mid-2022 the transition away from fossil fuels was expected to be bumpy, complicated by the Russo-Ukrainian War. Climate action advocates expressed concern that large banks continued to fund expansion of oil, gas and coal.

By autumn 2020, as measured in US dollars, institutional investors managing $14 trillion worth of assets worldwide had committed to sell some or all of their fossil fuel holdings. The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance reported that as of December 31 2019 the equivalent of $35 trillion US dollars were invested in sustainable assets within the 5 major economies of the United States, Europe, Japan, Canada and Australasia.

Omygoshogolly (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I can see you put a lot of work in it. I'll try to give quite detailed feedback. Don't be discouraged by the quantity; writing about a controversial topic at featured level is difficult, and nobody is expected to get it right the first few times.

Overall comments: the source quality is much improved. All sources seem to be reliable, even if I don't believe all of them meet the higher sourcing standards required for the Featured article star.

• Where possible, articles should state facts, rather than attribute statements to institutions. This requires really high-quality sourcing.
• The first source talk only about US firms, covers the period 2005-2017 (so can't say anything about preferences in late 2021), and may not be the best representation of conclusions, as the paper says To summarize, investors seem to take a somewhat schizophrenic attitude to carbon emissions
• I don't think it's WP:due to talk about computer data; these methodological matters are too detailed. To show aspects are due, you'll need an overview source (such as the climate policy initiative or this OECD report).
• Why is it relevant to mention some US agency? Greenwashing is a global thing.
• These numbers don't mean anything to me. I have no idea how much money institutional investors hold, and if 14 trillion is a large or small percentage.
• I don't think the sustainable assets, as defined in the GSIA report, has a direct enough link to climate change. Those indices are quite vulnerable to not making much common sense (f.i. Tesla was recently dropped, and Exxon Mobil included in one of those indices. Tesla may score well on climate impact, but poorly on labour rights. And Exxon was included as it was considered the least bad of similar companies in the fossil-fuel sphere). Femke (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Like Femke, I think you’re making progress in finding better quality references. But I still don’t get a strong sense of what you’re trying to say in these paragraphs (which is why I was suggesting an outline where are you could start with just some clear, affirmative statements on the various aspects of this topic, along with supportive sources).

Some examples where I have concerns:

• Paragraph two starts out with a general promo for ESG investing, and reference three talks about theoretical ways ESG approaches make investment sense. But since this is section ideally is about the impact of finance/investment on climate change mitigation/adaptation efforts, I think the focus of the ESG paragraph should be more oriented towards how this investment technique makes a difference in terms of corporate decision making that impacts investment in mitigation/adaptation. Is it all just about reducing risk in order to benefit investors? (single materiality)? Or is there a component that positively affects the interests of the general public (double materiality)? See Lopucki (2022) p 4 for a perspective on this in terms of corporate GHG reporting. The references you’ve chosen don’t seem quite relevant to these kinds of issues. And the text related to reference five seems to contradict the text in the early part of the paragraph, so I am left wondering what is the main point you’re trying to make here.
• Similarly, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with the text of the fourth paragraph. I think it would be stronger if you characterize some of this in terms of issues around finding a transition towards low carbon technologies, as is discussed in reference #8, or at: IEA World Energy Outlook 2021.
• Paragraph five seems to duplicate some of the assertions in the first paragraph. But again, as Femke pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be any real context for these numbers, so it’s fairly confusing.
• As I’d mentioned, WGIII Chapter 15 has some fairly good info on this topic, but I don’t see any of it referenced here.

So here are some questions that, if you could create short responses to, would (IMO) help create a narrative for the section that hangs together (I’m sure I’ve missed some important ones, but these are what comes first to mind):

• What are the historical trends in climate finance over the past 10 -15 years? Expected over the next 10 years?
• How significant are they in terms of total global CAPEX spending?
• What portion of mitigation/adaptation investment is expected to be covered by corporate finance versus government subsidies?
• How do current corporate finance commitments match up against 2020-2025 Paris Agreement target levels (recognizing that this is a bit of an apple and oranges issue)?
• What role if any, has ESG investing principles played in these trends? From a related perspective, what role has divestment efforts played in moving society away from fossil fuels, or will play over the next 10 years?
• Do corporate greenhouse gas reporting initiatives move any of this forward, in terms of developing momentum towards increased investment in any of these areas in pursuit of net-zero goals?
• What are the features of investing most relevant to a transition from fossil fuel towards low carbon infrastructure generally?

Admittedly, addressing all of this in just three or so paragraphs is challenging, but I think that’s the task here. I also think you’re making progress, but this is a tough area to write clearly about, as there seems to be a lot of hype and often confusing information in it. Hope you can plan for a couple more iterations before trying to post an edit. Dtetta (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dtetta @Femke Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed suggestions about how to proceed! I appreciate your having guided me along on my learning path. At this point however, I think I’m going to mostly defer to editors with extensive featured article experience, who I hope can more efficiently make further improvements and can then publish the additional subsection. I do think it is important for the article to discuss business and finance activity. Omygoshogolly (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Understand Omygoshogolly - I don’t think this will be an easy segment to write. I will try to put together an outline based largely on the ideas in WGIII Chapter 15, hopefully in the next few days, and will try to incorporate some of the work you have already done as well. Happy to defer if someone else wants to try a different approach. But I agree with Omygoshogolly that a few paragraphs on this topic would be an improvement to the article. Dtetta (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Change “Subsidies” for energy transition to “investment”?

Since 2019 when the cite for “Subsidies could be used to support the transition to clean energy instead” was written fossil fuel prices have increased a lot as you know. So if there were no fossil fuel subsidies I doubt clean energy would need subsidies. How about we change the sentence to something like “The money could be invested in the transition to clean energy instead” or “The money could instead be used to speed up the transition to clean energy”? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the text. I chose not to change it to investment as the agent giving the subsidy (government), has a limited ability to invest this directly in renewables. Often, the market players do the investing (even if governments also do some procurement.) Femke (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Environmental sustainability

How do we measure climate change ? What activities contribute to climate change 117.230.149.98 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You could not find that info in this or linked articles? How long did you search for? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

AUGUST 14, 1912 newspaper article . . . handling Scientific Consensus

Hi, can anybody add this -

Artykuł w nowozelandzkiej gazecie (opublikowany 14 sierpnia 1912) opisujący zasady globalnego ocieplenia

(cleaner version)

- to the article? 01x07x2022000 (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that article from 1912 is amazing (I hadn't seen it yet)! 110 years ago people who wanted to know already knew what was coming! The image is already included at History of climate change science. Not sure if we should also include it here? I think yes, maybe? Although the article already has a lot of images. So I am undecided. EMsmile (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is compelling, but yeah, we'd need to replace something as the article is full of images already. I personally would pull the graphic on "Academic studies of scientific consensus", which is just a bunch of 100% bar charts, but I've been opposed to that graphic all along, so I shouldn't be the one to do that. If we did pull that graphic then we could add this one to the Discovery section. Efbrazil (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with Efbrazil on pulling the bar chart figure, I know there is no consensus for that. The current figure in the discovery section isn't high-quality. I wouldn't mind switching that one out. Femke (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

— A solution is to rename the "Discovery" section "History"—which is a more accurate description of the section's content anyway. Then, substitute File:Rodney·and·Otamatea·Times•1912•Coal·consumption·affecting·climate.jpg (now in History of climate change science) which is a cleaner graphic than the one at right. A newspaper clipping is less techy for a top-level article than the Tyndal apparatus.

— I favor retaining the Consensus bar chart, for the probably large proportion of lay readers who "only look at the pictures". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Done! I think history is better than discovery, but may attract edits about the non-scientific history.. Femke (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the discovery graphic to the 100% bar charts graphic, so I think the wrong one was replaced. Craig clearly prefers the opposite. Femke, I think that makes you the tie breaker. Would you rather see the 100% bar charts graphic cut, or the scientific discovery graphic cut? Efbrazil (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There's the issue of in which section the different graphics go. The Tyndal apparatus doesn't really belong where the Consensus graphic is. There's not enough room in the History section for two graphics. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, but the new graphic is taller and I'm seeing sandwiching push all the content down. Also, if you look at the recent doubting comments in the talk page up above they are all complaining that we are getting too far into advocacy and away from facts. The 100% bar chart graphic I think is clearly advocacy and offers no information that needs to be graphical. Now that the informative tyndall graphic is cut I think the 100% bar charts graphic stands out even more as advocacy and bias to me. We should educate and present facts and let people decide, not tell them what to think.

Anyhow, let's see what Femke says. My vote is to cut the scientific consensus graphic as it is no longer balanced by the tyndall graphic and is causing sandwiching. Efbrazil (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just changed the aspect ratio of the 1912 article. It's not sandwiching as I understand the term; it's the Consensus chart spilling over into the following section—caused by how short the Scientific Consensus section is (which is underweighted imo). Given the section names, there's little choice... except maybe removing the DC Climate March (advocacy?) photograph from the Climate Movement subsection. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to complicate things, sorry.

I agree that our pictures are weighted too much towards advocacy. I would like to see the consensus section merged into history, as I believe that gives it a less advocacy-like context (so when did consensus appear, rather than bombarding the reader with how big the consensus is). This is how Weart treats the subject, and I think that works brilliantly. The two images I think are the strongest 'advocacy'-like are the academic studies + the cherry picked data (the hiatus debate is long over). I hope strongly we can delete one of those.

And echoing what Clayoquot said at some point: we need pictures of solutions, rather than drumming on about problems. It's rather insane we have 13 photos (including lede) of impacts and zero of solutions. Femke (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Academic studies of scientific consensus(refs) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.(ref)

Placing this bar chart image here, for reference.

In the 1950s, Gilbert Plass created a detailed computer model that included different atmospheric layers and the infrared spectrum. This model predicted that increasing CO₂ levels would cause warming. Around the same time, Hans Suess found evidence that CO₂ levels had been rising, and Roger Revelle showed that the oceans would not absorb the increase. The two scientists subsequently helped Charles Keeling to begin a record of continued increase, which has been termed the "Keeling Curve". Scientists alerted the public, and the dangers were highlighted at James Hansen's 1988 Congressional testimony. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up in 1988 to provide formal advice to the world's governments, spurred interdisciplinary research. ——(not clear who posted this paragraph)——

References

I like the idea of folding the Scientific Consensus section into "History", because that consensus has become the outcome of history (scientifically, at least). With large numbers of people and a major political party in the U.S., plus decision makers in the Australian government, still resisting CC acknowledgement and still fighting mitigation efforts—the Consensus chart is education for English-language Wikipedia and not advocacy or "bombarding". The Denial and Misinformation section's GIF is about cherry-picking and not about the GW Hiatus per se, and the GIF is objectively illustrative and not advocacy. Separately, I think the most "advocacy"-laden image is the Climate March photograph... and marching isn't a CC "solution" per se.

There are almost three desktop-screenfuls in the "Reducing and recapturing emissions" section, and almost another screenful for Adaptation. I'm fine with adding graphics of adaptation and mitigation (esp. clean energy) efforts, but that's in earlier sections. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Craig, I agree with a merge too. You want to take a crack at that?

I think I used sandwiching the wrong way- I mean stacking, like the images are getting pushed down into the references area for me, although I have a large monitor, so I don't want to overplay that. The real rub for me is that the bar chart (and the march graphic) come across as pure advocacy graphics, not being informative. The Tyndall graphic, meanwhile, was informative, and should have stayed relative to those other two. I'd be much happier if we could cut either the march graphic or the scientific consensus graphic and put the Tyndall graphic back in when we merge.

I understand your point about people only viewing the graphics in articles (I think the same way about the importance of the lead). I just wish the expert opinion graphic had something to offer other than a collection of 100% bar charts. For instance, if it showed a poll of scientific opinion over time on the topic (which would change presumably), or if various statements could be presented which had varying levels of scientific consensus. As is, it reads to me like a giant blinking red sign saying "experts surveyed experts and they all agree". Efbrazil (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, experts did survey experts and they pretty much all agree! Scientific Consensus section is absorbed into the History section. The only more "historical" consensus diagram I could readily find is File:20210102 Academic studies of scientific consensus - global warming, climate change-en GIF.gif. Is that an improvement? If not, I could make a conventional vertical bar chart (rather than the green-egg-array chart). —RCraig09 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

... Or, consider Versions 2, 3 and 4 of File:20211103 Academic studies of scientific consensus - global warming, climate change - vertical bar chart - en.svg, which broke down Cook's 2016 Consensus on Consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There isn't really a good consistent methodology that has measured consensus over time, so I don't think we can make that graph (would be a cool graph though). The closest is the 2021 Myers study, which is comparable to the 2009 Zimmermann study. The gif would be a step back, given it's a bigger (and less professional) graph and I think this needs de-emphasis. Femke (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Since this is a oft-recurring discussion, it may be worth a simple RfC ("Should we include the consensus graph). Any objections? Femke (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Public knowledge and opinion (see graphs, esp. re English-speaking countries) indicate that a huge amount of education is needed, and that scientific consensus needs more emphasis, not less. As it stands, the Scientific Consensus graphic is the bottom graphic in the bottom section of the entire article. It's already de-emphasized.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I'm ~OK with a formal RFC... though that would draw people who are less knowledgeable. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am always in favor of consensus if possible, and Craig is right that the issue needs to be surfaced. I just don't think the graphic is the right way.

Craig, would you be OK swapping the graphic in exchange for tweaks to the first paragraph of the article? We took some stuff out of the lead that talked about scientific consensus as it was deemed defensive and unnecessary (if I recall right, I wasn't part of that discussion). I think a clear and well backed statement about rates of scientific consensus would be helpful to add back in. The first paragraph is probably all that most doubters will read, and is much more likely to be encountered than a graphic at the end of the article. Maybe a change like this (addition underlined, removal struck through):

Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to natural causes. Instead, they are but surveys of peer reviewed scientific literature show over 99% agreement that current changes are human-caused. Climate change is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy production creates most of these emissions. Certain agricultural practices, industrial processes, and forest loss are additional sources. Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth's surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth's surface and causing global warming.

References for the new sentence would be same as you currently have for your graphic. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your concept, User:Efbrazil, though perhaps "near universal agreement" is probably as strong as one can get and still be formally accurate. I had noted the absence of scientific consensus from the lead.

Given the gross difference between scientific consensus (bar chart) and public opinion (chart gallery above), I strongly perceive the need to graphically portray what is simply not understood by a huge swath of supposed homo "sapiens"—and not just politically motivated doubters or deniers but those who just haven't been exposed to the level of accumulated knowledge. Maybe that's what an RfC would be good for. I've boldly added subsection breaks to place the discussion in context. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I changed "universal" to "over 99%" up above. I prefer that to "near universal" because it's more definitive and backed by the sources. Also, whether you are asking about evolution or whether crystals change moods or whether the Earth is round you'll always find a good number of non-scientific views in the public. Climate change is not so special that way, it's just higher stakes because of the policy implications. Efbrazil (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Femke- are you good posting the RfC? My personal view is that we should offer the first paragraph text change above in exchange for cutting the graphical view of scientific consensus. There could just be consensus for the first paragraph text change if you like it. I'm not sure the best way to structure an RfC around all that. Efbrazil (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Caption: The public substantially underestimates the degree of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.^{[cite Kings College]} Studies from 2019–2021 found scientific consensus to range from 98.7–100%.^{[Cites: Powell, Lynas, Myers]}
Don't confuse with public opinion on climate change itself.
I couldn't find a source with other countries' surveys on this exact sub-topic, though I remember at least one in the past.

Would the chart in this recent article, modified to add one or four bars leading to 97-100% for actual consensus, be a better graphic? (It's international, though only with European countries.) Such a graphic would tell a larger story than the current Consensus bars you disfavor. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with adding a sentence like that back in, as I believe stressing consensus that much comes across as activist. I believe we had a wider discussion with consensus to leave out a similar statement relatively recently? If we're not yet on one page about what the RfC should ask, I'd like to wait until I'm less busy before continuing the discussion.

(Just affirming that I do approve of the subsection heading in the history section; there is some more work to be done to increase cohesion between the two subsection, but not urgent) Femke (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Given the gross disparity between public awareness of scientific consensus, and actual scientific consensus, I think scientific consensus is actually one of the most important issues to present in this main CC article. Daily my country is exposed to supporters of a former president whose approach to CC is "you just wait...I don't think science knows, actually", and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice (Barrett) who said during confirmation hearings that CC is "controversial". Further, the disparity shown in the new "Public estimates..." graph (at right) is itself a notable issue. I think it's not enough for us to present the facts about CC; we should convey that they are essentially scientifically established facts and not mere "opinion". My understanding of the word activist involves a call to action—which the consensus-related charts do not do. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the new graph better, thanks Craig! Why not have a survey from the USA? That seems pretty important here. I moved the graphic up some.

To address featuring rates of scientific consensus in the lead I moved the reference on over 99% scientific consensus up to the first paragraph of the lead. It helps back up the "not due to natural causes" sentence. I figure that's a good compromise here. Efbrazil (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ebrazil: For an hour or two, I searched but could not find any additional surveys of public estimates of scientific consensus, though I seem to remember seeing one a few years ago. The public surveys concern the public's opinion about CC itself, not about the public's perception of scientific consensus. I'm OK with your moving the Public Estimates chart up, as it relates to both public awareness/opinion and scientific consensus.

Like User:Femke, I don't remember why Scientific Consensus was not included in (or removed from?) the lead. I continue to think the issue is important on Wikipedia because it is, itself, a "debated" subject in the popular press, and the subject of repeated peer-reviewed studies like Powell, and Lynas, and Myers, in fairly rapid succession. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the popular press where you live is different from other countries. For example nowadays (despite its many other faults) the popular press here in Turkey does not doubt that climate change is human caused as far as I noticed. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, @Chidgk1: Because there is a large portion of the U.S. population (and one political party), plus decision-making officials in Australia, who doubt or discount climate science, I think scientific consensus itself is very important to emphasize in the English-language Wikipedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Not an Australian but I hope since the election they have very few influential people who doubt or discount climate science. So US Republicans are perhaps the only big group of native English speakers to have a lot of people who doubt or discount climate science.

Having said that it will be interesting to see what the Russians think and do now they have cheap cheap natural gas. As it will take them many years to build enough new liquification plants and gas pipelines to the east it would seem logical for them to stop burning coal completely, sell it to China, and just burn gas. They could also stop burning oil (except for military unfortunately) and swap it for Chinese EVs. Then they can tell the UNFCCC how green they are for giving up oil and coal. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how the public estimates could ever reach the scientific 100% as presumably the surveys don’t allow answers such as 110%? If you asked the public about anything it will never be 100% surely if your sample size is large. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Agreed re <=100%. However I don't understand how this observation relates to this discussion. I hope you understand that the "Public estimates..." chart relates to the public understanding of scientific consensus—not their belief in climate science itself. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

New Nature Climate Change Study on Greenland Ice Sheet Impacts

Those of you who get email feeds from any of the major print organizations have probably seen this story about the Greenland ice sheet now having about 27cm of baked in sea level rise. Although the Nature Climate Change study itself doesn’t seem to be describing a worst-case scenario for ice sheet impacts, and I’m not clear as to how it relates to the models/assessments in WGI (though the authors do touch on this point), it does seem like a tipping point type of situation, and in that sense could be illustrative of what the article is trying to say regarding tipping points. Should that segment of the article be edited to reflect this new research? If not, what other types of information should we look for first? To me it’s an ongoing issue of at what point does new research get incorporated into the article, and how we interpret/apply WP:RS, which is why I am posting it for discussion. Dtetta (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That paper has indeed received a lot of press. The following Washington Post article explains how this paper's forecasts are more extreme than other projections. I'm not sure if and how that study should influence content in this high-level WP article. Mooney, Chris (29 August 2022). "Greenland ice sheet set to raise sea levels by nearly a foot, study finds". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, this article shouldn't contain primary sources like that. Nature/Nature CC often publish state-of-the-art science, and state-of-the-art science is often proven wrong. Haven't looked into detail, but it could maybe find a home in tipping points in the climate system or Greenland ice sheet. Femke (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Femke - I think your point about cutting edge science often being wrong is a good caution to keep in mind. But how is this Greenland ice sheet paper different enough compared to Reference 139, dealing with the geographic range of tropical cyclones? Both seem to apply a different type of analysis and talk about their results in the context of previous research. Not necessarily pushing to have this particular research in this article, but I’m still confused as to when we cross that line when we think a research paper or report meets the requirement for inclusion. My reading of WP:RS and WP:OR would not exclude paraphrasing the main finding of this article in the tipping points subsection, particularly since our treatment of tipping points in the article is somewhat theoretical, based on older references (which may in fact be inconsistent with WGI findings), while this is a more current, concrete example. Dtetta (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I argued at one time for having a section called something like "tipping point risks" that would feature the possibility for more dramatic changes [like this], but that was seen as a bridge too far. I think the underlying issue is that this article is overstuffed as it is in talking about the consensus science and about what is happening in this century. We don't want to traffic in alarmism built on shaky ground. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the greenland study is more about the longer term impacts of zombie ice and didn't say much new about impacts in this century. Next century it is possible there will be deployed technologies that reverse some climate change effects plus people alive now will be dead, so it's hard to get too invested in trying to document that. Really anything we add to this article should be balanced by a deletion at this point. What concerns me more is that we are possibly ignoring outlying tipping point risks that could be catastrophic this century, but my understanding is that the IPCC has actually been dialing back concerns about those as the science gets better around climate change. Efbrazil (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Dtetta I don't know if it should go in this article or not, but it would be great if you could put it in the tipping points article and explain there whether there is a tipping point or not. Because tipping points still confuse me. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there is not a huge amount of support for including this in the tipping points and long-term impacts section. So I don’t think I’ll pursue this further but wanted to address a couple of the other posts.

Chidgk1 - I’d be glad to post an edit on the Tipping points in the climate system article>Greenland ice sheet disintegration section, if Femke decides not to do that. But I wonder if that is going to help with your confusion about what a tipping point is. When I look at the lead for that article, it seems fairly well written. Curious as to what your questions are, or what aspect you feel you don’t understand that the article could be clearer on.

Regarding the points that Efbrazil is making, I think the Guardian analysis of the article, and the quote from Jason Box, one of the researchers, makes it clear that they are in fact talking about impacts in this century, as well as impacts further out. I think this information is not alarmist at all, it’s just a more concrete confirmation of the things we already say in the article regarding the Greenland ice sheet. And on the question of how to prioritize things in an already long article, that’s a challenge we’re going to be facing regularly as new information comes in. A case in point is all the information from the last three AR6 reports. IMO there’s a lot of information in the article that’s fairly academic and technical, and could be moved into various of the “See also” articles that we list, and those sections could then be shortened. I think it might make sense to think about an informal policy where people who propose significant additions include a proposal for shortening in other parts of the article, but I’m not sure there would be general support for that. It would also make achieving support for a given proposed edit even harder.

Re: the IPCC dialing back on tipping points, the only one I’m aware has been “dialed back” a little bit in WGI was the AMOC risk this century. Although I haven’t read that report in a while, I certainly don’t have any sense that tipping point risks are seen as receding. But it would probably be good for someone to clean up the Tipping points section in this article based on another look at what was in WG1 and any other relevant sources. Femke may have done some of that work already. Dtetta (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not able to do any big work in the next weeks/months, so a quick comment. The difference between ref 139 and the current study: the first is a review article (so a secondary source), while the latter is a primary study (new research). It's a reliable source, absolutely, but it's not a high-quality reliable source, which are described in WP:SCIRS.

I'm always in favour of delegating technical details to subarticles. We've made good progress on that already, but there is always more to be done. I always try to think of removing text when adding new text, even if the proposals are parallel.

The IPCC hasn't really dialed back the alarm (au contraire), but has dialed back its use of the phrase "tipping points", in favour of more uniformly defined terms like "irreversibility", and "rapid change". Femke (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

Climate change isn't actually caused by humans, so please fix the article with the correct information. Climatepedia (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done. Fatually incorrect change. Failure to provide any reliables sources. --McSly (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually did provide a reliable source. See the reference below. Climatepedia (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No you did not. YouTube is not a WP:RS. You need to find something much better. It also needs to be better than all the scientific sources that disagree with you. Tough job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, see here for what that Creative Society actually is. The stuff they create is lies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That article mentions allegations of the Creative Society being manipulative. It provides no proof for those allegations. Climatepedia (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Since nothing produced by the Creative Society even remotely meets Wikipedia requirements for reliable sourcing, whether the allegations are true or not is completely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that we had the same discussion with a blocked IP a few months back. Femke (alt) (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Been away for awhile and I am not sure about the new version of the lead. "Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can be a result." These two sentences together suggest only migration and conflict might be the result of the previous sentence. Clearly, things like extreme heat and disease can cause death themselves. Bogazicili (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence there is intended as a secondary effect after a list of primary effects on people in the first sentence. It may be worthwhile clarifying the direct (first) and indirect (second) effects. --Mvqr (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I added an "also". Bogazicili (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Graphic re political division re CC being major threat

This is why I'm concerned about scientific consensus, and public perception of scientific consensus, especially in the U.S. and Australia. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

At right I add a graphic of results of a 31 August 2022 Pew survey to show the awareness problem among presumed readers of English-language Wikipedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I like it! I also think it would be a good replacement for the existing consensus graphic you have. More and more I hear conservatives acknowledge climate change, but then quickly pivot to say it's no big deal.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the country sort order you used. It looks like there's no sort at all. I'd try sorting by the Political Center position.

A less important nit pick is that I'm not sure if it's globally correct to say liberal = left, since liberal can mean libertarian over in Europe (you need to say "social liberal" there to mean left wing). But saying "left" and "right" is confusing since the left is on the right side of the graph and the right is on the left side, plus "social liberal" isn't really a thing in the USA, so maybe there's no good fix. Efbrazil (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

— The ordering of nations is the same as in the source: in order of size of disagreement (left minus right).

— I changed left/right from the source to the less colloquial liberal/conservative. I think readers get the idea.

— This 31 August 2022 "major threat" graphic is merely about public opinion, and does not involve the scientific consensus that I think is more important in an encyclopedia article. The 20220629 "Public estimates..." graphic catches both public opinion and scientific consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If somebody says they're social liberals, I'd still see them as centrist/ever so slightly left of centre. In the Netherlands, the biggest conservative/rightwing party is liberal. The original wording is more internationally precise.

It took me quite a while to understand the graph. The switch to a bar graph doesn't work, as we expect the colour in the bar graph to represent the people with a certain opinion. Instead, the white space on the left of the red bar represents the conservatives in the US. Femke (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

— In version 2 I've changed the wording back to "right/left" to match the source. International politics is confusing!

— Originally, I adapted the source's chart merely to have color. I understand that conventional bar charts represent values extending from the left vertical axis, but in Version 2 I've added color gradients extending from a diamond shape that represents the political center—red and blue bars extending in opposite directions from the diamond. I've also changed the main title to emphasize the bars show political divide. I think the source was clever in representing data for 42 opinions in this way, while a conventional cluster bar chart would have required 3x14=42 bars. I think the graphic is clear, even if it's "not your father's Oldsmobile/bar chart".

— I could add symbols at the left end of the red bar, and right end of the blue bar (to emphasize discrete opinion data). However, I'm leaning slightly against that for reasons of simplicity, given the intense color gradients already at the outside ends. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

— P.S. I'm not arguing to insert this "major threat" graphic into this high level CC article, but only to show my motivation for keeping a chart showing scientific consensus. Three of the four most-denying right-wing parties are in English-speaking countries! —RCraig09 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I would still change the sort order like I said- I don't think the left/right gap is really very interesting compared to where the center lies. I doubt people can make sense of the sort order as it is. Just my 2 bits. Efbrazil (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If we were to go by what is essentially a data point sort as you suggest, there is a choice between sorting based on the left extremes, the centers as you suggest, or the right extremes. There are arguments for each pointwise approach. The source's emphasizing spans allows the graphic to be compact by combining three points into a span, to demonstrate level of disagreement. I don't think the average reader tries to "make sense of the sort order", and the small lettering at the extreme left margin explains the sort order anyway. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It's confusing that the right is on the left and is coloured red, whereas the left is on the right and coloured blue. Femke (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

— Consistent with the source, I had the horizontal axis grow from 0% to 100% (per ~universal tradition). The right wing has smaller numbers so the red/"right" is on the "left", a fact that is shown in the large legend at the bottom. I know the left/right directions are the opposite of the right/left political attitudes, but I thought "0% to 100%" standardization was more important and more intuitive.

— The U.S. Republican party color is red, and the Democratic party color is blue. I've made several other graphics adopting this color scheme. Is there a standard internationally? Is the standard different from the U.S.? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

— Revisions for Version 3: adding markers to emphasize three data points per row (maybe the markers should be larger, to be seen better in thumbnail view). Expand width of "political center" neutral gray. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

— Version 4 has larger markers. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the colours are reversed in Europe, social democrats and socialists are red, and christian democrats and far-right parties are typically blue. Centrist liberal parties are often orange. Femke (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What a world we live in! We can't even agree on team colors! I'll be thinking about other color schemes. I'll leave the present red=right, left=blue scheme in the 'major threat' graphic since it matches various other graphics I've done in recent years. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Red traditionally represented the left in the United States as well, hence the red scare and similar. Even politically, color use was mixed, with the current unique and unusual color association being a 21st century phenomenon. Seeing charts with the right being represented as red is a bit jarring in a non US domestic context. CMD (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Right you are: Political colour. But since the U.S. has by far the largest portion of English-language populations, reading the English-language encyclopedia, I'm hesitant to change the colors as long as the graphic's legend is explicit. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we do this without colors? How does it look? Or neutral colours like gray and brown so it doesn't look US-centric and predictable? Bogazicili (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree with Bogazicili that these graphs should not use the US colours, which are the opposite of everybody else. Readers from the US make up less than 40% of readership on enwiki, not even a majority. Furthermore, in the spirit of MOS:COMMONALITY; if a colour scheme exists that is understandable to all groups, use that. Femke (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Relative populations of seven major English-speaking countries

— I'm surprised that U.S. wiki-readership is that low since it has ~70% of the English-speaking population, but maybe that explains why it's so backward on climate awareness! ( <--- humor, sort of ). However I note that the U.S. has >4x move wiki-views than the second-highest country (UK), with much of the remainder being spread across the other ~200 countries which probably have various color schemes.

— Like Femke, I'd agree that if a universally understandable color scheme exists, it should be used. But it looks like there isn't such a scheme—politically. The source, Pew Research, uses green and blue dots! In science, red=danger=hot and blue=safe=cool, a standard adopted by warming stripes and numerous other climate/temperature graphics I've seen.

— Like Bogazicili, I had considered neutral "colors" but discounted them because true "colors" make the eye associate everything of that color (reds are related to each other; blues are related to each other). Color adds a lot; otherwise everyone would make simpler gray-scale diagrams. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

— Politically neutral idea: does it make sense to use black (=coal) for the left end of the bars, and green (=environmentally conscious) for the right end of the bars, and gray (=neutral) for the center point? —RCraig09 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think brown and green would allow for extremes that have the same value (one isn't darker than the other). Also okay with neutral colours. The reason that US readers make up <50% of readership is that there are a lot of second-language readers. Femke (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A good solution! Version 6 uses brown and green (actually sienna and mediumseagreen for the bars, with brown and seagreen for the circles). Thanks to all for your time and Brainz in contributing. I hadn't imagined this issue would generate such interest. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewording the greenhouse gas description at the end of the first paragraph

We currently say this at the end of the first paragraph (the underlined text):

Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current rate of change is distinctly more rapid and is not due to natural causes. Instead, it is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy production creates most of these emissions. Certain agricultural practices, industrial processes, and forest loss are additional sources. Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth's surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth's surface and causing global warming.

I think it may be better if we turn those last two sentences around, beginning with the characteristic that causes global warming, like this:

Greenhouse gases cause global warming by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping it near the surface. They are also transparent to sunlight, allowing it through the atmosphere to heat the Earth's surface and causing an energy imbalance.

This has a few advantages without adding to overall length:

• We can lead with why we are talking about greenhouse gases, which connects back to the rest of the paragraph. That flows better than the existing wording, which to me reads like a new paragraph instead of being a continuation of the existing train of thought.
• We can open the door to energy imbalance, which is a good concept and wikilink for grounding the discussion. Climate change can seem very complicated until you break it down into the simple question of energy in vs energy out.

Also, I should add this builds on what Craig proposed before, namely getting rid of mentioning "infrared radiation" and adding "through the atmosphere". Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

— I like the current language to the extent that it describes the process chronologically, step by step, starting with incoming sunlight and ending with heat being trapped.

— I think a problem is that the first paragraph iit also buryn general has too many topics, ones that should be broken into separate, shorter paragraphs—bite-sized nuggets friendly to the lay reader. However, Wikipedia's formal guidelines advise against a given number of paragraphs in the lead. I don't want form to trump substance, and I would break up that paragraph, but it doesn't look like that will happen.

— I reaffirm my opposition to saying "infrared radiation" (too techy), and my absolute adoration :-) of the term "through the atmosphere" (tells the story chronologically). P.S. The techy term "energy imbalance" will puzzle or scare many lay readers. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the new first sentence. I've found the description a bit clumsy from the start, but wasn't able to improve it myself, but this does it. The second sentence is a bit unclear. What does 'it' refer to? (tbf, that was a problem before). As a technical point: it's not greenhouse gases, but the rise of greenhouse gases that causes global warming. I think the sunlight sentence isn't necessary.

About paragraphs: max 4 paragraphs is just advice. If we think it's better to put it as 5 paragraphs, that's perfectly fine within the FA criteria, as long as the overall lead doesn't grow. Femke (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a tough one to get right. Great feedback both of you.

Craig- I agree starting with sunlight is better in terms of energy flow, but it's weird to begin by talking about what greenhouse gases don't do. I think beginning with what greenhouse gases do (absorb heat radiation) is the important point of what we are saying, so we should lead with that. Also, if we try to break this up into two paragraphs I don't think we'll get to consensus. People will disagree on whether there should be an entire paragraph dedicated to a description of the greenhouse effect and the physics of greenhouse gases.

I understand "energy imbalance" is a wonky term, but it is at the heart of what we are trying to convey here. I think there are lots of misperceptions to debunk. For instance, that the heat generated when burning fossil fuels causes global warming, or that sunlight can't be the source of the heat as it is "natural" and solar is clean energy, or that particulates are part of the problem (since that's what you see when burning fuels), or that all heat is transferred by convection instead of radiation. In other words, this concept is very hard to understand on an intuitive level because it's all invisible, which is why it's so important to spell it out explicitly. What I did below was try to not use the word energy imbalance but to convey the concept.

Here's another take where I tried to incorporate the above feedback.

Greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping it near the surface. Greenhouse gas emissions are preventing the planet from radiating all the energy absorbed from sunlight back into space, causing global warming.

Efbrazil (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Aye, it's been a long haul to describe the GHE succinctly: see Talk:Greenhouse effect/Archive 6#Initial GHE definition in lede and Proposals and Discussion, which resulted in a longer explanation in the lead at Greenhouse effect—too long for here. I think your 20:06 proposal is an improvement. My earlier opinion about the order of sentences was not a strong opinion. I suggest the following massage of your 20:06 draft:

Greenhouse gases in the air trap heat radiated by the Earth after it receives sunlight. Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions prevent much of the energy from escaping into space, causing global warming.

Of course, I'm flexible re wording changes. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried a merge of what we wrote:

Greenhouse gases warm the air by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping the heat near the surface. Greenhouse gas emissions amplify this effect, causing the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it can radiate back into space.

Justification:

• The first sentence I switched from saying "warm the planet" to "warm the air"; I think that's a good improvement. I don't like "trap heat" because that's not as clear or accurate as "absorb heat radiated by the Earth, trapping it...". Just saying "trap heat" brings to mind a greenhouses blocking convection. I want people to come away from these two sentences having an actual understanding of what's going on, because that is the key to grounding discussion of climate change. I don't think there's room for sunlight in the first sentence, because I think we need to keep it focused on what greenhouse gases actually do.
• For the second sentence, I tried to tighten things up and improve the flow. I don't think we need to say "human-caused greenhouse gas emissions", as we already very clearly state that earlier in the paragraph. I also took out "causing global warming" for similar reasons- I think clarity and flow is most important. Also it's inaccurate to say "much of the energy" because only a fraction of a percent increase in retaining the sun's heat is what causes global warming.

Hopefully this works? Efbrazil (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm up for this compromise. Any objection to me changing "Burning fossil fuels for energy production creates most of these emissions" to "These emissions come mostly from burning fossil fuels for energy production". I feel that improves the flow too. Femke (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Good! No objection to that tweak as well. Efbrazil (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the 17:40 quote, though I suggest changing "take in more energy" to —retain more energy—. RCraig09 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2022‎ (UTC)

We're close! I don't want to replace "take in more" with "retain more", because that's not correct: the Earth retains only a small bit of extra energy, the vast majority is radiated back into space. I understand the point about replacing "take in more energy in from sunlight" though, as the Earth doesn't take in more energy from sunlight, but the text is in comparison to how much is radiated into space, so it is technically correct. I hope that the prior sentence makes it clear that we are saying the effect is on retention of solar energy, not intake of solar energy. The only alternative I can think of is to flip things around to the way I had it before, so the sentence would read "Greenhouse gas emissions amplify this effect, preventing the Earth from radiating all the energy it takes in from sunlight back into space." On the down side, that's more awkward to read than the new first sentence, and is arguable an unnecessary clarification. Anyone have a preference? Efbrazil (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm frankly not following the lengthy reasoning applied to my minor suggestion, but in any event I prefer your most recent (17:40) proposal over your earlier one. Proceed! —RCraig09 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Good / done! Efbrazil (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Tightening up wording in first paragraph

Yet another rewording to try and make the first paragraph a bit more readable and less jargony. Rationale for changes:

• The sentence beginning with "instead" is jargony and breaks the flow. I got rid of the word "emissions" in particular. I think people will glaze over when they get to that part.
• I think it reads better to state the primary cause in one succinct sentence, instead of having a cause (greenhouse gas emissions) followed by a cause of the cause (fossil fuels).
• Fewer words overall is better, although I tried to keep all the content

Proposed change with additions underlined and removals struck out:

Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current rate of change is distinctly more rapid and not due to natural causes.[2][3] Instead, it is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. These emissions come mostly from burning fossil fuels for energy production.is being caused by humans.[2][3] Burning fossil fuels is adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, most importantly carbon dioxide and methane. Certain agricultural practices, industrial processes, and forest loss are additional sources.[4] Greenhouse gases warm the air by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping the heat near the surface. Greenhouse gas emissions amplify this effect, causing the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it can radiate back into space. Efbrazil (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thumbs up! I'm slightly in favor of omitting the sentence starting "Certain agricultural practices..." because its individual examples (agricultural, industrial, forest) are less-than-helpfully vague. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I made the change with along with a couple tweaks. I added a wiki link to "Scientific consensus on climate change", from "caused by humans". I think that goes further to address the concern you had that we back up that statement.

Regarding the sentence you suggest cutting and to make it clear that fossil fuels are the primary issue, I changed that sentence to begin with "Smaller contributions come from " instead of ending with "are additional sources". I didn't want to omit that sentence entirely without a separate discussion. It would help if there was a decent wiki link to industrial practices causing climate change. Our main article is Green industrial policy, but all that really talks about is energy, and it doesn't even mention contributing processes like cement manufacturing. Efbrazil (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed lede change to make talk of climate change singular instead of plural

I think it reads better to keep talk of climate change in the singular form instead of going from singular and then to plural and then back to singular. To me at least, it's confusing to switch between "climate change" and then "the current changes" and then back again. What exactly are "the current changes"? I changed to talking about rate of change, to eliminate the ambiguity, and to make it clear we're talking about the overall system. Here is the proposed change to the beginning of the first paragraph:

Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but current changes are distinctly more rapid andthe current rate of change is distinctly more rapid and is not due to natural causes. Instead, they areit is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy production creates most of these emissions. Efbrazil (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To further clarify, the source makes it clear that the "changes" are global temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Since only global temperature is part of climate change, we should be speaking in the singular here. If it helps, we could make the sourcing more clear as to what it is talking about. The current quote from source is "These global-level rates of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biosphere forces that have altered the Earth System trajectory in the past…", raising the question of what "these" refers to. Maybe we should change it to "[CO2 concentrations and global average temperature] rates of human-driven change far exceed the rates of change driven by geophysical or biosphere forces that have altered the Earth System trajectory in the past". Efbrazil (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The phrase 'the current rate of change is distinctly more rapid' is grammatically incorrect (rate is higher, or change is faster). No opinion on plural/singluar. Would be mildly against complicating the sentence, prioritising simplicity over precision. Femke (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I see your points, User:Efbrazil. What I thought was a minor formal improvement was to avoid the ~incorrect wording, "a rate of change is more rapid"—it's the change itself that is more rapid. Changing sourcing itself doesn't solve wording problem, so I'll stick to wording. My simpler proposal adopts plural processes: There have been previous periods of global warming and climate change, but current changes are distinctly more rapid and are caused primarily by humans. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we can fix things by getting specific in what we are talking about here, which is global average temperature according to the IPCC statement. How about this: "There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current rise in global average temperature is more rapid and is primarily being caused by humans". I cut "distinctly" because the IPCC does not say that in the source. Does that work? Efbrazil (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bullseye! I would omit the word "being" to avoid "-ing" participles. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Done! Efbrazil (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

California-related content

Hi, I am joining this page and I am attempting to make a substantial revision to the first paragraph. My focus is "Droughts in California" but I need to direct to the Climate Change page since the region of California is distinct and requires more description from the main topic page. I also need to refer to the "Climate of California" page and that further involves discussion of specific aspects of Climate Change. Would you please allow me to make the changes before making any small tweaks to the wording. FinancialCents (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am attempting to respond to the response below which is a misinterpretation of my opening statement. I am attempting to update "Droughts in California." This state-specific page needs to refer back to other broader topics such as "Climate in California" and "Climate Change." I would not attempt to discuss all of Climate Change on the page for Droughts in California. The parts that are more pertinent to drought in California would go on the latter page. The background for all Climate Change would go on the main page for Climate Change. Is that more clear? This is why I need to correct the base pages for all of Climate Change. FinancialCents (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If I understand your description properly, I think the lead paragraphs of this high-level article are not the place to insert content specific to one U.S. state. Climate change in California a more appropriate destination for your planned content. 00:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Updating Climate Change article in keeping with climatology

Climate change refers to all types of changes in climate. Global warming is only one type of climate change. Global warming is the average rise in earth's temperatures, yet climate change can be regional or global, it can range from cooling to heating, drought to flood, dryness to storm. Global warming is not caused only by greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, nuclear plant lake warming, or the urban heat island effect cause temperatures to rise. Further, there are two types of climate change, natural and anthropogenic (man made). Natural climate change can contribute to global warming, such as volcanic eruptions that emit gasses and particulate matter. Volcanoes are a part of contemporary climate change. Anthropogenic also includes effects of deforestation, impermeable asphalt paving, aqueducts, or other land use changes. By perusal I am seeing Wikipedia is needing meteorology and climatology expertise. There is a call on the Droughts in California page. Much of my study came from the core texts Meteorology Today (Ahrens and Hensen) and Climatology (Rohli and Vega). FinancialCents (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The page entitled Climate Change could be renamed Global Warming, if it is about Global Warming. Global Warming is a topic in itself. It is one aspect of Climate Change. Climate change requires a page that addresses both types and all forms of climate change. FinancialCents (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Also I will add I studied under Dr. Fred Semazzi who has worked on one of the twelve global climate models. If you ask him, this is what he will tell you, global warming is one kind of climate change, there are other changes besides global warming. There are two types, natural and anthropogenic. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fredrick-Semazzi. I would like to update the Wikipedia articles for accuracy before requesting review by PhD's. FinancialCents (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@FinancialCents, expert editors are welcome, but have no authority over other editors. Review by PhD's is not necessary. Anyone can find reliable sources and edit technical articles because the authority is in the sources. Please reread Wikipedia:Expert editors to see how this works. See Talk:Global warming for why the articles are named as they are. A lot of work and discussion has gone into this topic already. It is time to focus on the content of the articles. We need editors with your expertise, but they do get scared off by our way of people of all backgrounds working together and respecting each other. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I started on this page: "Droughts in California"Droughts in California where you will see there is a call for experts in climate change. When you get into technical matters on advanced subjects, a reliable source isn't generally enough of a foundation to be an effective encylopedist/Wikipedist. For instance, could you put together a page on Multiple Gaussian Hypergeometric Series? If you could, that is great, but I would expect, if so, you would have much more background than a stack of books or articles on the subject. FinancialCents (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

After much discussion here, a few years ago it was decided that references to "global warming" would be redirected to this article, "Climate change", which describes both concepts. On English-language Wikipedia, the "Climate change" article is limited to global climate change by consensus of editors here. There is a separate article, Climate variability and change, directed to climate change(s) in the more general sense. There are about 200 climate-related articles that you can see arranged in the blue-bar "Climate change" template at the bottom of this article. (example: Climate change in California). Any attempt at substantive changes to this high-level article "Climate change" should be specifically proposed here at Talk Page first, to save yourself a lot of work and possible conflict. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just located the reference #24 NASA which says global warming and climate change are sometimes used interchangeable, and then it goes on to say, BUT that is incorrect, and this source explains the difference between the two, and that global warming is a subset of all climate change. The AP reference appears to be a misinterpretation by a layperson in the media. Overall this article on Climate Change is incorrect due to the lack of a meteorologist / climatologist. I am attempting to improve the accuracy of climate articles on Wikipedia. FinancialCents (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There are various contradictory definitions in the literature. We use the UNFCCC definition (which basically says climate change is short-hand for human-caused climate change). This is how the words climate change are most often used (rather than defined) in the scientific literature. Don't worry, there are multiple climate scientists active on Wikipedia, me amongst them. Those references can be improved, however. Femke (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Along lines Femke describes, a main issue is that Wikipedia's article titles concentrate on how a term is used, even if it's different from a formal definition in scientific literature. This practice derives in part from the way that public readers search for topics: using keywords in search boxes. Any ambiguity of terms should be resolved in the text within the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I get it, I have a Kleenex made by Puff. Except that in the climate arena, confusion over the headlining terms leads to further and further muddling of the topics at hand, and starts down a chasm of error and misconceptions about climate overall. Wikipedia is a useful tool to describe what is climate change and what isn't, what is global warming and what isn't. If you tell me the terminology I suggest is not uniform across UC Davis or U of Colorado Boulder I will take it up with the PhD's but they are deeply engaged in research. I need to link from "Droughts in California" to higher level topics and need to be able to do this as an encylopedist presenting correct info to the public, not as a National Enquirer that coins terms. I plan to contribute to the climate area on Wikipedia which is needed. Please allow me to do so. I promise to be understandable and not esoteric, to the extent possible. FinancialCents (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I assure you that the assortment of editors in this subject area are well aware that how a term is used by reliable sources, not National Enquirer, governs usage on Wikipedia. I think all experienced editors here are well aware of the distinction between GW and CC, and that the distinction is properly explained in the first paragraph of the article. I'm not seeing how this article's treatment of this distinction contradicts (as you say) what is presently footnote [12] (IPCC AR6 WG1 Technical Summary 2021, p. 71).^{P.S. Footnote numbers can change over time} If you have specific proposals to change articles, the Talk Page is the best place to proceed; reasonable people do reach resolution. The various sections above show how change is accomplished. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There are 112 pages but I looked at the opening terminology and global warming is defined and is not stated to be interchangeable with "climate change." Also at the end pages, there is a review of such things as "Heat and Cold," "Wet and Dry,", "Oceans," ... not just warming, and not just global but the regional effects. It is true that anthropogenic global warming is the most critical category of climate change to these agencies who are joining to form policy. Wikipedia needs to begin with the correct definition of "Climate Change" as a follow up to the correct definition for climate on the page "Climate," to act as a functional resource. The problem that has arisen is one of misinterpretations by lay persons. Please allow me to improve the content. I would be glad to send you my drafts and suggested material for inclusion. FinancialCents (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

... I just went to the Wikipedia page "Climate" and the first sentence defines Climate and does so correctly! The next step is to begin "Climate Change" with a correct definition. I will look at IPCC and will comment. FinancialCents (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So, RCraig09, what you have said above, that the editors are aware of the distinction between GW and CC and that the distinction is properly explained in the first paragraph, is incorrect. The Climate Change article did not produce any hits for my search on "Mauna Loa" or "James Balof" so I think there is a lot to be done still on all the pages. I see that none of the editors are accurately interpreting the NASA reference or the IPCC reference, the latter of which is a conference meant to specifically address anthropogenic global warming. What I can do is to create a draft page for your perusal, so you can more clearly see how a few simple changes would produce an accurate Wikipedia. Again, I have not consulted Florida, Colorado, Davis, but I am glad to do that after providing some updated content for review. There is a "ped" in "Wikipedia" so that does imply this is a resource which is meant to be encyclopedic, instructive, not a collection produced from random discussion and votes. FinancialCents (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As a practical matter, it's best if you were to propose specific wording changes to specific passages in the article. We should be able to make progress then. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi RCraig09 I do have specific wording changes, beginning with the title. This seems to be the point that is immutable. Yet climate change differs from global warming, even if the terms are used interchangeably for the purpose of a conference, and the correct terminology is necessary to make progress. I'll see if I can find other ways around this and am open to suggestions that are helpful towards improving accuracy. FinancialCents (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Global Warming, not man made.

As an encyclopaedia, aren't you supposed to be impartial, even on Global warming and cooling. 82.43.115.226 (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sigh... Read the FAQs above (direct link here). EMsmile (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

EMsmile, your comments are skirting all of the pertinent points. Please read carefully what other people are asserting is necessary to correct the errors of the article pages and make the terminology more accurate. I would be glad to contact Florida, Colorado, UCDavis, UCLA, whichever institutions are writing the terminology, if you don't believe me. FinancialCents (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure who made the post but most global warming has anthropogenic causes, from pollution. To me the articles seem to come across as biased in some respects because they are layperson interpretations and need to be updated for accuracy with more relevant background in the sciences. Some scientists do believe cooling or freezing will be a result of greenhouse gasses but right now the major catastrophe is the melting of the glaciers. FinancialCents (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"Some scientists do believe cooling or freezing will be a result of greenhouse gasses". Name one. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Rename Page "Global Warming"

To simplify the discussion, I am requesting renaming the "Climate Change" article to "Global Warming" since global warming is a critically important *subtopic* of Climate Change. This is in keeping with science. The reference 24 by NASA explains it is a mistake to use the terms interchangeably, but this source has been misinterpreted by the page creators. A new page on "Climate Change" can then be created to cover warming and cooling, drought and flood, stillness and storm, the full range according to climate science. FinancialCents (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the decision to name this article climate change can be found in the archives. Femke (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello FinancialCents. Your request is covered by the FAQ at the top of this page (Question 22) as well as by answers you already received on this page as well as your own talk page. The new article you are proposing already exists, it's Climate variability and change. It think that was also already pointed out to you. --McSly (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the terminology used on Wikipedia is incorrect. I did see an accurate statement in the conversation, but the votes taken are random input not based on fact. Wikipedia is not supposed to be opinion based, or based on mainstream misconceptions or misinterpretations. Otherwise the page could be named Climate Change (mainstream) and I could create Climate Change (scientific)? Search engines could teach people accurate correct terminology, rather than determine the terminology from mass searches. FinancialCents (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. That's how Wikipedia operates. Again, a main issue is that Wikipedia's article titles concentrate on how a term is used, even if it's different from a formal definition in scientific literature. This practice derives in part from the way that public readers search for topics: using keywords in search boxes. Any ambiguity of terms should be resolved in the text within the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to add, if you have a supporting source like UC Davis or University of Colorado Boulder, with meteorology and atmospheric science divisions, I would accept that source if it differs from my alma mater. I understood I was taught terminology that is uniform (but commonly misused casually). What I see in the article is that the NASA source #24 has been misinterpreted. FinancialCents (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the UNFCCC definition I alluded to before, you can find an overview at User:Mu301/Climate change and User:Mu301/Climate2. You see a variety of use in these sources, many supporting the definition you gave, but many giving a more restricted definition. Even those with a broad definition use the term climate change to refer to the current episode. Femke (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the UNFCCC definition and Wikipedia editors have misinterpreted the opening statements. First, note the heading that says "For the purposes of this convention..." They are stating explicitly that these are not overarching definitions. That is because they are assigned to deal with a certain type of change that is most critical. Secondly, when they define climate change, they do not specify warming. They are using the term variability to refer to natural phenomenon but it is a jargon for the convention which they agree upon to facilitate discussion. FinancialCents (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've submitted a request to UC Davis to see if I can get some help with the explanation of terminology that is being missed here. FinancialCents (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have the perfect source and I hope you will accept it. It is climate change terminology published by the US government. https://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/glossary Please notice since climate is defined typically over a 30 year period (see Wikipedia page for Climate which gives an accurate definition) but sometimes longer, climate change refers to changes over the average period of multiple decades such as a change to extremes, or change to averages. Also see the definition for Global Warming in this same glossary that states it is a type of climate change. This source is not "for the purposes of a convention." It is the correct terminology. FinancialCents (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that this page should be named "Global Warming". In general usage, folks do understand and use climate change to include warming and cooling, but since we are in a warming period, that becomes the default when unspecified, but does not encompass the totality of meaning. This article needs either to be edited to reflect that, or undergo the aforementioned name change. Crescent77 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that a change of title is needed. There was a long, long process two years ago which changed the article from "global warming" to "climate change" (see here the archive of discussions). This is not the right time to restart that discussion - I think none of us who are longer term Wikipedia editors who were involved back then have an appetite or energy or time to restart all this. Please rather focus your energy on all the relevant sub-articles which also need updating and improvement! Have you looked at WikiProject Climate Change yet? For example, I suggest you start with effects of climate change, effects of climate change on oceans etc. In fact, see all of the articles in the category effects of climate change. There is also climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. Very important articles that need work (note that they all include "climate change" in their article titles, not global warming...). I am not planning to contribute further to a new discussion on renaming the climate change article to "global warming". I just wanted to support what others, e.g. Femke, RCraig09, have said. EMsmile (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to second this opinion- that energy is better spent elsewhere as this has been exhaustively covered previously, and nothing has changed since the last discussion. The basic issue is that "Climate Change" is the WP:COMMONNAME for contemporaneous climate change driven by global warming. Climate change can refer to pre-industrial climate change or global cooling, but only when brought up in that context as it is the far less common usage. There is disambiguation at the top of the page for alternate definitions, plus the terminology section for people that want further clarity. Continuing this discussion is going to be fruitless. Efbrazil (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Because I need scientific accuracy in the articles, my solution is to create a page "Climate Change (Scientific)." That is different from global warming but encompasses global warming. It is true global warming is the major issue in climate change. Still it is not enough to describe all phenomena related to climate and its changes. The pages do not have enough accuracy to be useful as references to subtopics. This lack of accuracy also results in biases appearing that do not belong on Wikipedia. FinancialCents (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

FinancialCents, that would be a violation of the guideline WP:Content forking. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

To save yourself time and heartache, again I urge you FinancialCents to use this Talk Page to make specific proposals with specific changes to specific passages of the present article. When we look at wording concretely, things should be resolved. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

RCraig09 I did include the changes I aspire to make in this Talk Page under the heading "Updating Climate Change article in keeping with climatology" and I was told it was too long and detailed, to keep things short and crisp here in Talk. FinancialCents (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the work all the longer term editors have done, and I respect your sense of ownership over the material you have put effort into, but to protest discussion on the grounds of a lack of personal "appetite or energy or time" is extremely problematic. WP thrives because millions of folks step in to support it's ongoing relevancy. One of its major criticisms is that articles stagnate because obstinant gatekeepers put their efforts into maintaining stasis for personal or financial reasons rather than fully embrace the often overwhelming chaos of open source efforts that to continue to build this encyclopedia. Whatever energy you do have to put into WP, please don't use it to stifle discussion. It may be a "restart" for you, but for others, it is just the beginning. Crescent77 (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the articles Instrumental temperature record and Temperature record of the last 2,000 years and Global temperature record might be used as link destinations for "global warming" in isolation from climate change. The present article encompasses both GW and CC, and as I suggested it's probably best to use this Talk Page to make specific suggestions to specific existing language rather than trying to fork content into an entirely new article. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crescent77: you're absolutely right that we should avoid ownership behaviour in such an imprtant article, despite WP:FAOWN. And WP:consensus can change. Even so, I would like to avoid another WP:requested move starting, as previously it probably cost the community over 100 hours to make this decision, it's only been two years, and I believe it's unlikely a new user without solid policy knowledge of WP:article title, and without a background in climate science [1], will be able to sway the community. That time is better spent updating all of our outdated climate articles. Femke (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Femke! EMsmile (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, RCraig09. I suspect there would be opposition to redirecting "global warming" to Instrumental temperature record but I find it an interesting proposition. Even if the redirect is not placed, I would love to see some attention devoted to Instrumental temperature record, an important sub-article for climate change. See its talk page for some unresolved issues around naming and overlap between articles. EMsmile (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Femke summarized it well. Nothing appears to have changed since the thoroughly argued GW-->CC move/rename, so a new Move Request would undoubtedly confirm the result of the last one. Separately: I was in no way suggesting a general Redirect to the three articles I listed; I only brought them up in case the objecting editor(s) weren't aware of them if they wanted to link to specific content. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi RCraig09 in that case I misunderstood what you meant with "might be used as link destinations for "global warming" in isolation from climate change"? I am confused now what you meant with "if they wanted to link to specific content"? What was your proposal? Were you talking about wikilinks inside of sentences when in some cases "global warming" should link to e.g. Instrumental temperature record? Perhaps you could clarify by using an example sentence? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Just updated through August 2022: Ratio of "global warming" Google searches over "climate change" Google searches has steadily decreased. This fact is relevant to WP:COMMONNAME.

I was referring to when an editor is working in another article (not CC) but wants to link to a description of global warming specifically, distinct from the concept of climate change. This CC article might not be the best destination for what that editor wants to link to. So that editor might want to link to Instrumental temperature record or Temperature record of the last 2,000 years or Global temperature record instead. (I don't have an example.) —RCraig09 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understood what you meant. Makes sense. EMsmile (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So @Crescent77Crescent77, how can I engage in a conversation with you? I went to your user page and the Talk page but I did not see a way to strike up a conversation about climate change there. I am still finding my way around. I would like to involve you in my draft page if possible. FinancialCents (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please Femke. Minimizing discussion because a user lacks "solid policy knowledge" and "a background in climate science" is quite antithetical to the spirit of WP, and demonstrates a clear ownership issue. Once again, I appreciate what expertise you may provide, and the time spent on this article by you and the community, but neither is relevant to the discussion at hand. Please reread the info you linked concerning ownership. I would also suggest the advanced challenge in Wikipedia:Levels of competence.

And more to the issue at hand, I'm not seeing a strong consensus 2 years ago. Rehashing this discussion may have its value. Crescent77 (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The background in climate science was definitely stupidly phrased on my part. I attempted to be diplomatic, but ended up saying something I didn't mean. I meant that somebody who ascribes to the climate myth around some climate scientists believing that GHGs cause cooling, is less likely to convince the community.

That said, I cannot stop a WP:RM being opened here. And maybe I'm wrong, and there is a chance that this will lead to a rename. Femke (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I absolutely love that challenge, thanks for pointing me to it. I very much try to do this, even if I may fail (especially when editing when tired..). Femke (alt) (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Right on Femke. I may be misinterpreting here, but you may be shell shocked from years of fighting with deniers. Understandably so, fortunately their ranks are thinning. But the user pushing for the name change is not of that mindset. On the contrary, they stated anthropogenically forced warming is the critical climate issue. Therfore, it has become the default understanding of the term if not specified otherwise. But as we all understand, climate change has more nuance, both in effects and scale. The article does not read as such, it reads as a dissertation on "global warming". Crescent77 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at Google Trends, and climate change seems to be more popular since 2016ish [2] (and I just noticed this point was already made by RCraig09, and he made a chart, which I somehow missed lol!!). So I think climate change is more appropriate, given recent usage. UN also uses this term, eg: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bogazicili (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'm shell shocked by fighting with deniers; by the time I became active on enwiki they had receded mostly. I am perhaps too impatient with people that do not seem willing to listen. The article is about global warming + its wider effects, so it should read as an encyclopedic article on that. Global warming redirects here.

When you say 'dissertation', do you believe the tone is inappropriate in places? Keen to hear your thoughts. While I generally want this article to be short, I do think we may want to include more comparisons with natural climate change, like they do in the German FA on the topic. Femke (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Btw, here's a news article about this issue: [3]. Maybe we can talk more about this issue, that climate change is now the preferred term, and global warming as a term was confusing. Maybe we can do this in History section. Actually this issue seems to be well covered in Terminology section, if there's any more confusion maybe we can add an additional sentence there. Bogazicili (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Flags for factual accuracy, misinterpreted citations, lack of focus

A primary inaccuracy seems to arise from the misinterpretation of the cited NASA source. I noted that a glossary exists at globalchange.gov which consists of thirteen agencies, one of which is NASA. This is a reliable source for terminology. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. "An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge." "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information" (I will include here, random interpretations). Five Pillars. I will submit a draft of the corrected definitions for review and request higher up review from the Climate Change article editors, so that the misinterpretations can be resolved. I have not completed a thorough review of the entire article but I would suppose that the topic has been misinterpreted or else the article is incomplete due to the absence of the most significant climate change evidence. Incompleteness and misinterpretation lead to an appearance of a biased viewpoint. A top scientist is not required to repair the article, but since the topic is from an advanced science, the article contributors need to have more than a layperson's comprehension since in practice the result has been misinterpretation and bias. FinancialCents (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What is a 'higher up review' and where are you proposing to request it? Wikipedia doesn't, as far as I'm aware, engage in such 'reviews', and nor does it restrict the right to comment on articles to subject-matter experts. Or to people that claim to be such experts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The closest we have to such a review process is a WP:Featured article review. You may be interested in reading the 2021 review. During that review, the article was examined from top to bottom, and in the end, after various improvements, a consensus was reached it still meets the standards of a WP:featured article. Femke (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

But it still has errors in it, and in general the discussion is predominated by misinterpretations. That means that the topic requires escalation, in order to keep with the Five Pillars specifically that Wikipedia is encyclopedic. As I have explained a few times now, I believe. FinancialCents (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Vaguely asserting "errors" and "misinterpretations" will not bring improvement. Whether it's here on the Talk Page or in a separate review, you will not see improvement unless you propose specific wording changes that you think should be made to the article's current, specific text. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with RCraig09. Apart from the article title, which in your opinion is wrong, which other errors have you spotted so far that are not related to the article title, and not related to "climate change vs. global warming"? Please provide the exact sentences that you think have errors in them, and propose improvements to those sentences, based on reliable sources. Let's just start with 3 specific sentences so that we don't end up with a wall of text from you. Where are the errors exactly? A statement such as "in general the discussion is predominated by misinterpretations" is not particularly helpful as it's not specific. Secondly, like I have suggested before, why don't you first start with one of the other climate change sub-articles - the ones that are not yet of WP:FA quality? Help with improving those? See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Effects_of_climate_change or see also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Small_to_medium_tasks . EMsmile (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I question these statements of yours: "the absence of the most significant climate change evidence". Which publication do you mean? Surely the Sixth IPCC Assessment Report is the main publication to draw on. You also said "an appearance of a biased viewpoint" - biased in which direction? EMsmile (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not read through the Sixth IPCC Assessment Report. As I mentioned, I am focusing on Drought in California. There is information on Climate Change that is pertinent to Drought in California but is not specific to California, so I am seeking the proper reference. On quick searches I do not see any mention of Mauna Loa, James Balof, or the effect of the "conveyor belt" current shutting down which causes continuous winters even from greenhouse gasses. FinancialCents (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to keep your article the way it is, then the citations need to support the material within the article and be reliable. NASA is a scientific source I accept while you say in talk you do not want scientific sources, you want to be more mainstream. However, I would say NASA in this case meets the Five Pillars yet the definition on the Wikipedia page does not agree with NASA as cited. So then the Chicken-and-Egg Problem arises: a google search produces the definition of Climate Change from the Wikipedia page, while Wikipedia editors insist on adopting terms misused broadly, maybe because the public relies on google which takes the terms from Wikipedia which is not meeting the Five Pillars encyclopedic standard. Here are definitions from the globalchange.gov glossary which includes NASA as one of thirteen agencies: // Climate Change - Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system. [See also global change] Global change: Changes in the global environment that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life. Global change encompasses climate change, but it also includes other critical drivers of environmental change that may interact with climate change, such as land use change, the alteration of the water cycle, changes in biogeochemical cycles, and biodiversity loss. [See also climate change] // The resource you have cited by NASA "What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change" from 2008 gives these definitions in the side bar: // Global warming - the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Climate change - a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth. // So now, when the discrepancy is identified, with well presented dialogue, all that is done in response is the tags are removed and talk provides misinterpretations without solid citations to support the viewpoint, and instead refers to a 100-hour vote that provided a consensus without ever having arrived upon a reliable and properly-quoted source. What's wrong here? FinancialCents (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you keep your comments brief and focused on specific problems and solutions. While a formal edit request shouldn't be needed, something very similar would probably be your best option for improving this article. --Hipal (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal, thank you for a constructive suggestion for achieving improvements. I have already tagged the article as having an incorrectly quoted citation but the tag was simply removed. It seems an edit request would meet the same fate, the 100 hour vote. I keep getting comments to leave short answers and comments that my answers aren't long and clear enough, even when they are long. So I am sorry I can't help you there! I need to reach a higher level of Wikipedia that is concerned about the Five Pillars and that this is an encylopedia rather than a random collection. What I have read online in reviews of the Wikipedia medium is exactly what I am facing here. 2601:645:780:2500:359F:4A1E:F6F9:8F44 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Please could you start a new section with a shorter and more specific suggestion Chidgk1 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Also I feel that my questions were not answered in your answer. I had said: Also, I question these statements of yours: "the absence of the most significant climate change evidence". Which publication do you mean? Surely the Sixth IPCC Assessment Report is the main publication to draw on. You also said "an appearance of a biased viewpoint" - biased in which direction? With "conveyor belt" you probably mean this topic which is mentioned in the article and has its own article: Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Don't know what you meant with "I do not see any mention of Mauna Loa, James Balof". I do recommend that you read the Sixth IPCC Assessment Report, at least the technical summary and summary for decision makers: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ It is the main source of updated information that we have used for this climate change article. EMsmile (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@EMsmile: "the absence of the most significant climate change evidence" => "I do not see any mention of Mauna Loa, James Balof." "biased in which direction?" => please refer to the definition of "bias" and the definition of "climate change." I can not continue to answer your questions if you do not have a basic background in climate. As I said before, I am focused on the page on Drought in California. I did not come here to read hundreds of pages. Yes, I am familiar with IPCC. 2601:645:780:2500:359F:4A1E:F6F9:8F44 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I finally have a parallel example. I apologize I am not sure how to create the link, here is my attempt. [[4]] If a person is talking about a rodent problem, they probably mean rats. If you choose an exterminator as your main source, then rodent means the same thing as rats. In fact, rats are a subset of rodents. The exterminator is obviously not going to be trapping beavers invading someone's home. If the problem were beavers, they would say a beaver got in the house, not a rodent. From an encyclopedic standpoint which is the first of the five pillars of Wikipedia (thus the "PED" in WikiPEDia), the beginning of the Rodent article defines what a rodent is. Then it shows the different types of rodents that exist. So Climate Change is similar. Most of the time, when people talk about climate change in a current context, they mean global warming. But this isn't a news page. It is an online encyclopedia. Citing the Hit Man Exterminator company on the major content of the rodent page would probably not provide an accurate entry that includes beavers and marmots. It is critical to begin the Climate Change page with a definition of Climate Change. Global warming is one type of climate change, a predominant type in media, but it is still a subset the same as beavers are a subset of rodents. Not all rodents are rats. FinancialCents (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You are approaching this back to front. Article titles do not determine content. Instead, titles are determined based upon the topic of the article, taking into account a few different criteria that centre around the usual name for the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

— @FinancialCents: The current first sentence captures your rodent analogy, indicating global warming is one aspect of climate change: "Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns."

— I've placed detailed comments at Draft talk:Climate Change (scientific) explaining why your massive proposal will not fly in this website. Again, work incrementally at proposing specific changes to existing article content. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that global warming and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns is incomplete. Global warming including its impacts is a subset of all climate change. I am not sure how many ways I need to say this. I provided the draft. FinancialCents (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

No, CMD, I am not. There is all of this absurd allusion to "content forking." Climate change includes much more than global warming and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns. Any attempt to fully describe what climate change is, results in these content forking comments which are impertinent. FinancialCents (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to make an article about the general topic of climatic change. That article exists, and is (awkwardly) named climate variability and change. Femke (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the crux of the issue that the OP is raising. "Climate change" in one sense refers to all the variations in climate that have taken place since the Earth has existed. The above climate variability and change covers that, and is prominently linked from the top of this article, to avoid confusion. However, consensus over the years has determined that that general concept is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "climate change" as a whole. In terms of what people are looking for when they search for climate change, and common usage, the present period of change, induced by human activity, is the primary, even though you could argue it's a subtopic of the other (like the rat vs rodent example, and in fact we see exactly that at Chimpanzee, which refers to one species, even though it's a subtopic of Pan (genus), a group also referred to as the chimpanzees. On the climate change vs global warming question, that too was debated extensively at a Requested move discussion a year or two ago, and the article was moved from global warming to climate change. This reflected a change in usage by reliable sources over recent years, and hence why the current name satisfies the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Man, it sounds like you folks agree that the page isn't fully descriptive of "Climate Change", it's really all about "Global Warming", yet you don't want to name it that. And it seems like the only good reason put forth for that is that'll get more Google hits as "Climate Change". I'm not seeing that end well. Wikipedia references Google, Google references Wikipedia...considering those are possibly the 2 major information sources, it seems like we may be working on a recipe for an Idoicracy. No offense intended, I'm just seeing alot of folks spend alot of time in some convoluted discussions here because of all that, and I'm wondering if it's really helping anybody. Crescent77 (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not about Google searches. It's about which term is best, under Wikipedia principles like WP:COMMONNAME, to summarize what's in the article: the narrower, causal term "GW", or the more inclusive, effects term "CC" that is increasingly adopted both formally and popularly. Recent "convoluted discussions" have swirled around one editor who didn't understand what's in the article, especially Climate change#Terminology. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rcraig09, well summarized. I invite anyone who's concerned about terminology to rather focus on improving this section on terminology: Climate change#Terminology (maybe one day we even need a separate Wikipedia article on that; It's also related to History of climate change science and History of climate change policy and politics). EMsmile (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that I could sway that other editor's opinion but here's another aspect: all the other key terms and concepts these days in the media and publications are now a combination of "climate change" with something else (not "global warming" and something else), so it's all just more consistent like this - think of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, effects of climate change, climate change denial, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate change scenario - and often even without the term "change" like in these terms: climate action, climate risk, climate crisis, climate vulnerability. Isn't all that pretty good evidence that climate and climate change have become the WP:COMMONNAME to be short for the longer but more correct term "anthropogenic caused global warming leading to a changing climate"? EMsmile (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Source on COI in climate research supporting denialism

An interesting investigative report just appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I'm not sure whether the article is publicly accessible or behind a paywall, so I'll put an extensive excerpt below. Perhaps editors with experience in editing Climate change and Climate change denial can decide whether some of this should be in one or both of those articles. The source says:

As the effects of climate change become daily more apparent, universities are busy declaring climate emergencies, divesting their financial assets in fossil fuel, and pledging to meet ambitious climate goals. At the same time, however, these institutions are accepting hundreds of millions of dollars from the fossil-fuel industry. In a grim irony, many of the scientists and scholars tasked with helping us survive the climate crisis are funded by companies actively working to delay climate action.

A particularly disturbing instance of this influence is the case of Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, the climate change-denying Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist who has received more than $1 million in funding from fossil-fuel companies - as well as untraceable dark money routed though a fund with a history of supporting climate-denial groups. In 2003 Soon authored an article concluding that the 20th century is "probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climactic period." The article, published by the peer-reviewed journal Climate Research, was the subject of a biting rejoinder from 13 climate scientists; its publication ultimately led five of the journal's 10 board members to resign.

Since then, Soon has published numerous other articles casting doubt on the idea that human activity is driving climate change, often without disclosing his funding sources. It's hard not to suspect that fossil-fuel funding bought specific research outcomes: In a report to one of those funders, he describes his scientific papers as "deliverables."

Most of the influence, however, is more subtle.

In 2011 the MIT Energy Initiative released a white paper, The Future of Natural Gas, which advocated government investment in natural gas as a "bridge to a low carbon future." The authors - one of whom later became secretary of energy - failed to disclose numerous ties to industry. The Energy Institute itself was funded by ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, and other oil and gas companies - including Schlumberger, which counts among its directors the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's president, L. Rafael Reif.

Yet despite these conflicts of interests, the report came to function as an "independent" confirmation of industry's message. In 2014, for example, it was included among supporting documents compiled by Energy in Depth - a public-relations front for the oil industry - in a successful bid to persuade Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to lease mineral rights for gas drilling. And its ideas also surfaced in President Barack Obama's 2014 State of the Union address, which claimed that natural gas could be a "bridge" to a clean energy future.

A more recent example is the 2022 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to restrict greenhouse gases. Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion references an article by Susan Dudley, director of George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center. The center's funders include the Koch Brothers, Searle Freedom Trust, and the ExxonMobil Foundation, all large backers of climate-change denialism. Nowhere in the article is Dudley’s funding disclosed.

NightHeron (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to find the material for a whole "Greenwashing" section, but I'm not sure that's necessary here. Crescent77 (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Undisclosed COI is more serious than "greenwashing". NightHeron (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This could go in the climate change denial article, but I don't think it belongs in this primary article. This main article is plenty big focusing on scientific facts.

Also, it's important to realize that just as opponents of climate action have funders that benefit from no climate action, supporters of climate change action receive funding and attention in proportion to how much they inflate the level of alarm around climate change. It's easy to argue bias on both sides. Efbrazil (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

supporters of climate change action receive funding and attention in proportion to how much they inflate the level of alarm They do? Isn't that a fairy tale made up by deniers? RS please. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

From Global warming conspiracy theory: the Cooler Heads Coalition published an article supporting the Lavoisier Group's conspiracy theory that hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the climate change theory in order to protect their research funding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff but doesn't belong in this high level overview article. There are several sub-articles where it could go instead, e.g. Climate change denial.EMsmile (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course: WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously climate change is a real thing and denial is absurd and the IPCC report represents best science, but just as obviously climate change is unlikely to be an "existential risk", contrary to what politicians say to whip up the crowd. The problem is that, to sell books and get clicks, the easiest thing to do is to just publicize the world of RCP 8.5 along with outlying possibilities that have been floated like cloud dispersal. That leads to bullshit publications like "The Uninhabitable Earth", which climate scientists said was alarmist but still got lots of play in the mainstream media. An inconvenient truth hyped hurricanes that were not due to climate change, water world presented continents under water, and most any extreme weather event is linked to climate change in the media. Attempting to combat these tendencies is difficult, but here's an article where Cliff Mass tries. Efbrazil (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the claim was about funding, and the RS are about something else. But Femke is right, this is not the place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

When you refer disparagingly to what politicians say to whip up the crowd, the example you cite is a Policy Brief by Washington State Governor Inslee. The paragraph summarizing that document is the following:

As devastating wildfires burned thousands of acres across Washington in 2020, blanketing our state with smoke and unhealthy air, it was unmistakable that the effects of climate change were helping the fires start easier, spread faster, and last longer. The science is clear that climate change poses significant risks to our economy, our health, our environment and our way of life. Aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout our economy is critical to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and reduce the impacts already upon us.

Can you explain exactly what you find wrong with this?

Claiming an equivalence between Gov. Inslee's climate policy and climate denialism is an obvious case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. NightHeron (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Let's keep the discussion focused on improving the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention "intensification of the water cycle" at least once?

I am currently working on effects of climate change on the water cycle and on water cycle. I came here to see what this article says about the observed changes to the water cycle and was surprised to see that "water cycle" (or hydrological cycle) is not even mentioned once. Yes, precipitation and droughts are mentioned but I think the important term is now "intensification of the water cycle". For now I have added a link to effects of climate change on the water cycle in one location (I am currently building up that article). But I propose that a statement about the changing water cycle ought to be mentioned as well. It's all in chapter 8 of the AR 6 WG 1 report. A possible statement could be this or something along those lines: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report stated in 2021 that "Human-caused climate change has driven detectable changes in the global water cycle since the mid-20th century (high confidence), and it is projected to cause substantial further changes at both global and regional scales (high confidence)".EMsmile (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the current wording is better for a lay audience. We mention rainfall, tropical cyclones and droughts. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you mention those terms (often) but we don't mention anywhere that this is the water cycle that we're talking about. Every child learns about the water cycle at primary school, it's a very popular concept. People are probably more familiar with the term than with "tropical cyclone". So I do think it would be justified to include a statement about the water cycle. The WG 1 report has a whole chapter about it "CHAPTER 8 Water Cycle Changes - Chapter 8 explores the changing water cycle and its sensitivity to multiple drivers." For comparison, the term "carbon cycle" is mentioned in our article 6 times. EMsmile (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced water cycle is a primary school word, I'm more concerned about intensification,quite an abstract concept. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely taught at primary school level at least in Germany and Australia, is my personal experience at least. But you're right "intensification" is a more difficult term. We could just speak of "changes to the water cycle" then? I do think that for many people, climate change is primarily becoming obvious in daily life through those changes nowadays (no rain, too much rain, stronger storms etc.). And to think that we're now affecting something so fundamental as the water cycle is quite scary - so an important aspect to bring across. We have this sentence There has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation, melting of snow and land ice, and increased atmospheric humidity. We could modify it to There have been observed changes to the natural water cycle, e.g. an increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation, melting of snow and land ice, and increased atmospheric humidity. - But OK, perhaps it's enough when it's all explained well at effects of climate change, the important sub-article. EMsmile (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Femke that forcing the term is a little too academic. Granted the concept of "water cycle" is taught in primary school here as well, but so are many other academic concepts that folks may understand if asked, but really don't integrate into common terminology. But I also do think that it may be an important enough sub-topic to justify its own subsection, with said terminology incorporated. Crescent77 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW: I don't remember the term water cycle being universally taught as such in U.S. schools, but I certainly don't object to using that term, at least in passing, in this article. It's a good term in bringing perspective to the effects of CC. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I've woven the term water cycle into the article with this modified sentence now: For example, changes to the natural water cycle have been predicted and observed, such as an increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation, melting of snow and land ice, and increased atmospheric humidity.. Is that OK? EMsmile (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Climate Change (scientific) - draft

I submitted a draft in order to make suggestions about how an encyclopedic page would appear first defining what climate change is. This page would then link to Global Warming. I feel the best way for everyone to see what I am requesting as a change is to create the page. I am asking that this format be adopted by Wikipedia. Maybe the Global Warming page could be titled Global Warming (Climate Change) since it is the most publicized form and the most pressing form of climate change. Is everyone able to view the draft? I am learning my way around Wikipedia and had not anticipated there would be need to make these updates. FinancialCents (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say, if you have reliable sources that differ from what I am suggesting in the draft please feel free to provide them. FinancialCents (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Link to draft: Draft:Climate Change (scientific)
• Wowzers. I think discussion should not be here, but at Draft talk:Climate Change (scientific) —RCraig09 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  One of many key defining points that is missed by the current Climate Change article, is that one sudden record breaker constitutes climate change. So, for instance, in 2022, there were record breaking hot temperatures around the SF Bay Area. That is by definition climate change, because extremes are a part of the definition of climate change. If an extreme high is not a record breaker, there could still be climate change if the extremes become more frequent than in the past. Here is an example source article of recent record breaking temperatures: [5]ABC News Heat Wave FinancialCents (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  A record breaker does not constitute climate change, and a source that does not not claim it does, is unhelpful. Instead, it may be a (weak) sign of climate change. Femke (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  I see in the article for Climate, that climate is defined according to mean and variability (i.e. standard deviation or variance) and it appears to be convincingly cited. The source is the IPCC glossary. So, as I have said before, I am fine with anyone wanting to suggest changes or make improvements and updates, I simply proposed a format for definitions for climate change. The same IPCC glossary has a definition for Climate Change immediately below the definition for Climate. There is consistency between these definitions, and so there could also be the same consistency on Wikipedia. Instead, the definition of Climate Change is misinterpreted from the NASA citation. So if Climate Change is defined according to mean and variability, then your assertion that a record breaker does not constitute climate change would hold. Also you have written a source that "does not not" claim so you may wish to reconsider your response. In any case, please consider the definition that has been selected for climate change before considering what does and does not constitute change. I am content with a reliable and accurately interpreted source. I do not have that yet. FinancialCents (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

While, the unfortunate news is that, if you are unable to provide proper citations that are factually correct and meet WP:NOR, WP:V, and comply with WP:EXPERT, it's likely that it would not pass AfC- the first hurdle, or NPP. By referring the The same IPCC glossary, I believe you are hinting to Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system per IPCC, see here. Compare this to your definition: Climate is defined as the typical weather pattern for an area, and is usually taken as an average over 30 years although a longer multi-decadal period may be selected. Additionally, weather extremes witnessed over the period of decades define the climate of the region and the frequency of the extremes that underlie the averages. Climate has not remained the same across thousands of years, so a multi-decadal period describes the current climate features of a region as opposed to the climate history. It seems that your definition is similar to IPCC, but you lack citations for the claim that although a longer multi-decadal period may be selected, which seems vague and would benefit from a specified example. And also let's discuss your previous argument that a single extreme event constitutes climate change. I have to agree with User:Femke here as it could be a weak indication, but per IPCC, Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, I doubt that a single extreme event constitutes of persists for an extended period. Let's continue- you state that Instead, the definition of Climate Change is misinterpreted from the NASA citation. So if Climate Change is defined according to mean and variability, then your assertion that a record breaker does not constitute climate change would hold; however, I'd appreciate it if a ref could be provided that back up this claim from NASA is misleading, given that you don't have refs right now. (And speaking of the nitpicking based on a typo "does not not"- everyone makes typos including myself and also your capitalisation of climate change, which shows that this is a poor argument). Again, many thanks for your efforts, time, and help! VickKiang 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi VickKiang, I have dropped the single event as climate change and that should show up in the draft. I changed the draft to refer to the NASA and IPCC sources that were already being used in the Climate Change article. The draft is meant as a suggestion on how to clarify the definition and how the splits of the definition and subsets fit in to the main title. FinancialCents (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention IPCC's definition explicitly in the terminology section?

For the terminology section, we should perhaps also mention "alternative" definitions (of important organisations only), just so show the range of possible definitions. We have given the one that we use for this article but for the purpose of being balanced, should we also show others? I am in particular thinking of the definition that IPCC uses in the IPCC report's glossary where it says: Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. followed by The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes.. It might help the reader to understand that there are different definitions of climate change around. They are all pretty similar, just some refer to just the human-induced part and others to any type of climate change. EMsmile (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

So rather than the current sentence Climate change can also refer more broadly to both human-caused changes or natural changes throughout Earth's history. how about we insert a paragraph break before that sentence to indicate that this is now a different perspective and we say: The definitions of climate change vary amongst different organisations: For example, the IPCC defines climate change very broadly and not limited to human influences: "Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. " but at the same time notes that the UNFCCC "makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes". OK, admittedly, this will be too long but I'd like to make the point to the readers that there are different definitions of climate change in the literature, even to this day. We've clarified now how we use climate change for this article but we should mention that others may define it differently - to give the full picture, and especially since it's the IPCC which I would mention explicitly in the text here. - Overall there is no right or wrong, it's just a matter of different definitions by different orgs. EMsmile (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly. I am favorable towards updating the climate change article to be accurate. However here you are confusing that different organizations have different definitions. I created a draft page of definitions that clarify this. So the current sentence has a couple of problems. It's not just that Climate change refers more broadly to both human-caused or natural changes. That is the division between anthropogenic and natural, but global warming is still a subset of climate change that can have both anthropogenic and natural causes. The IPCC definition corresponds well to the base definition of climate. The UNFCC does not differ from the IPCC. It is just a split. The IPCC definition you are quoting *is* the definition of climate change. That belongs at the beginning of a page on Climate Change. Just because people refer to Global Warming as climate change doesn't make it a common name and the only meaning of climate change. Global Warming is still a subset of Climate Change. It is okay for people to say climate change and mean global warming, but that does not change the definition of climate change, it just is convenient to do because global warming is a large contributor to climate change and the most pressing of our time. FinancialCents (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added a VENN diagram to the draft definitions page I created, in case it might help to clarify the subsets and overlap of terms. There isn't any conflict between the IPCC and UNFCCC. In the diagram, the large circle is all climate change. There is a dividing line between anthropogenic and natural (they are mutually exclusive). Global warming is a subset inside of climate change, and it can be either anthropogenic or natural. There is also variable climate change which can be anthropogenic or natural, but is probably mostly natural, and probably most of it is distinct from global warming. This should clarify that there is no actual disagreement on terminology among organizations (that I have seen in any case). FinancialCents (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there would not be a line, the whole circle would be natural. FinancialCents (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Alternative proposal to clarify lead

@FinancialCents: There is not much point in directing people to your draft substitute article and Venn diagram. It should be obvious that you will not likely gain a following, much less a consensus, if you continue as you have been. I suggest you insert into the following quote-box, two sentences that concisely capture the definitions of GW and CC that you think are correct. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Climate Change is a scientific topic and Wikipedia is encyclopedic. There is already consensus in the scientific community about what Climate Change is and what it means. I have been pursuing the five pillars, to correct an erroneous citation. I feel I have all the consensus I need from scientists as well as the citations which are already included as references, from NASA and the IPCC. Since the definition of "Climate" on the "Climate" article page is taken from NASA and the IPCC (and from my own understanding which is above layperson but surely not PhD in this topic), that definition has been given correctly and the citation from the articles was made correctly. Maybe the "Climate" citation is misplaced a sentence early but I do not see that as an issue since the reference can easily be located and confirmed. Since I have no argument there, and the citations are also already included on the "Climate Change" page, then to follow an encyclopedic format the definition for "Climate Change" ought to flow from the definition of "Climate." There are other reasons as well, for instance, that it gives an accurate and correct definition as cited. It would not make sense to me to take another direction by changing the references or considering other definitions for Climate than what is in place and not cause for concern or contest. So the definition of "Climate Change" I would suggest would come directly from the IPCC and NASA reliable references provided, and I feel strongly these should not be altered from the source references as that brings up a huge glaring problem of a citation error. I understand that the articles may be misinterpreted or misunderstood as the topic has rather complex underpinnings that can take a while to absorb and to click, still, to adhere to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia requires an accurate and correct definition or else it begins to look as though the Climate Change page has been taken over by a special interest group. I am not saying that the page is controlled by a special interest group, I am only saying that glaring errors will begin to give that appearance, and that is one major reason that the definition needs to be according to the reliable references cited...*not* according to a few anonymous editors who have banded together, who for all we know are contributing to this open forum from the head office of polluters. If you wish to appear unbiased, then begin with the definition of Climate Change and then go ahead and add to it what you feel is the common usage but be clear the reasons for the usage is that it is a broad subset, and that usage does not change the meaning of what climate change is. Since the definitions are already present in the citations, I do not see why I need to be told by others to copy them into a box, as I have already gone through efforts to explain and diagram what is correct in hopes that the meaning of the references would be grasped. FinancialCents (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

FinancialCents' proposal

(FinancialCents: insert text here) . . . Since 'climate' is the typical weather pattern over the long term on Earth or some region on Earth, 'climate change' is a change in the climate of the Earth or some region. The change in climate would be identifiable by change over time in weather phenomena (eg. temperature, humidity, rainfall, etc.) according to descriptive statistical parameters (mean and/or variability). Although the term 'climate change' may be used to refer to global warming, global warming is in fact, just one aspect of climate change. Global warming is the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature, primarily due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

IPCC, NASA, USGS, NRDC, National Geographic, etc.

• Sorry to be slow to the party. I edited the original box up top to tighten up the wording in the second and third sentences. I'm not entirely comfortable with "in the broadest sense" and almost changed that to "in scientific usage", but don't want to suggest contemporary climate change isn't scientific, plus didn't feel strongly enough to change previous edits. Efbrazil (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

FinancialCents, the intro, especially the opening couple sentences,needs to be easy to read and straight to the point. A fairly literate grade schooler should be able to readily understand it. Your proposal provides an accurate definition, but is way too wordy for the opening. Crescent77 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright I will make the updates but my objective has been to achieve accuracy. I would like to give my attention to other pages. EVeryone needs to understand that the definition of climate change in the past is not different; there were greenhouse gasses emitted by volcanos in order to form the atmosphere that exists today or else we'd be having a lot of penguins and polar bear populations. I will copy here the main basis, which are the already-cited references I reused but with encyclopedic accuracy as the focus. IPCC Glossary defines Climate Change as: A change in the state of the climate that can be identifed (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. (Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.) Global warming: Global warming refers to the increase in global surface temperature relative to a baseline reference period, averaging over a period suffcient to remove interannual variations (e.g., 20 or 30 years). (A common choice for the baseline is 1850–1900 (the earliest period of reliable observations with suffcient geographic coverage), with more modern baselines used depending upon the application.) // NASA 'What's in a Name' defines Climate Change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth. Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. // Although people may sometimes use the term Climate Change to refer to Global Warming, Global Warming is in fact, just one aspect of Climate Change. There are numerous reliable sources that have reached consensus on this matter of definition. https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/. https://youmatter.world/en/definition/climate-change-meaning-definition-causes-and-consequences/ FinancialCents (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I just want to add here a conceptual note. There is what climate change "is" and there is what is happening to climate currently. There have always been changes in climate, but the changes have been slow over lengthy eras. The current changes are happening extraordinarily fast, like a blink of an eye in history, and mostly due to emissions from pollution. If you want to have an article that is about what is "contemporary" it does not change the definitions. It is clear there is focus on global warming everywhere, in media, in science, in politics, in environmental concerns. Still, if you want to have an article on global warming, the proof is wrapped up in Mauna Loa and James Balof, and a search of your page produces no hits on either of these topics. So I am not sure you can say you are actually focused and achieving your goals. My goal is accuracy so the page will be usable. There is more work to do after accuracy and correctness are achieved so let's try to grasp the concepts of what climate and climate change is. The VENN diagram is worth referring to and applies across all time periods except that there would not have been anthropogenic contributions, that circle would be zero. FinancialCents (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

FinancialCents, I think all the folks involved in discussion here understand the technical nuances of the terms climate change and global warming. The issue at hand is how to present that to a general audience. Take a look at what the UN, the USGS and NASA present as general definitions of climate change. They all present in very simple, concise phrasing. Crescent77 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is the terminology has been used incorrectly. Did you look in the box? I have already looked at all of those definitions and I have stuck to the sources that were cited on the original page. I have not ever had any problems with the sources. I had more than one definition copied in the box, you could have taken the second one. I have already edited it according to your request. If it does not meet your requirements, feel free to adapt it, but please do not alter what the source has stated. FinancialCents (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

FinancialCents,from WP:Title, "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." What the other editors are saying is that the primary topic when "climate change" is mentioned is global warming. I don't think there's any doubt to that; even if it may be technically incorrect, it is the primary topic. What you need to do is convince folks that presenting the technical definition is paramount to presenting the primary concept, which unlike in a technical work, is not a given in Wikipedia. Promoting general understanding trumps promoting technical accuracy in Wikipedia. Crescent77 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The name isn't exactly ambiguous. It is a change in climate. We have been through this before. The article has serious deficiencies beginning with the title. The problem you arise at is that there is no way to say everything else that is climate change is also global warming. I already gave the example of calling rats rodents. You run into the problem of what to do with your marmots. If you have a good way of solving it then go ahead and suggest how to solve it. I don't need to convince anyone. It is already written in the sources cited and I accept those sources as reliable. Climate change is not always global warming even if it is a major piece of the topic today. I am not getting paid for this and I never volunteered my time. I am here to tag a citation error and move on to the pages of main concern to me. I would just like a resource that I could refer to but maybe I will need to refer to something outside of Wikipedia, and promote inconsistency found on the pages that already violate the Five Pillars. FinancialCents (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And don't tell me Climate Variability and Change. No, the splits are incorrect. There are major accuracy and correctness problems here. FinancialCents (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Another problem besides skipping over the Five Pillars that Wikipedia be encyclopedic (and therefore useful) is that you are confusing the reliable source statement that some people will often use the term incorrectly, with common usage. A common error does not represent common usage. It may be understood that an exterminator is dealing with rats but that doesn't mean even the exterminator believes that all rodents are rats. We can't have a wikipedia page called rodents that is all about rats and a second page called "Marmots and Rodents." That would be weird. FinancialCents (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And besides that marmots are mutually exclusive from rats. Climate variability could involve warming. The splits are all wrong. I am not here to give a two semester course in climatology and meteorology. I just want the pages to be corrected please. FinancialCents (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

FinancialCents, a common error sure can create common usage, as has happened with the term "climate change", and thousands of other terms in the English language. As I said, technical accuracy and correctness are secondary to understanding in WP. Perhaps you should figure out a way to reconcile those. The blue box is an improvement over what is currently there, if you have something better, please type it out. Otherwise, feel free to concentrate your efforts elsewhere, as was suggested. Crescent77 (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No you are still skipping over the Five Pillars and misinterpreting context. I already have typed in the box. There is no improvement in the blue box. It is still non-encyclopedic. There were many editors who understood climate change who were involved in the conversation but they have left. I am new to Wikipedia and I am finding it sad considering it fuels google. Please do not reference NASA or IPCC if you are changing the content of the sources in Wikipedia. I do not wish to be engaged with the anonymous people who created a sorry page. I mean, I scrolled past a diagram with (A) and (B) choices and one of them is according to definition. All you have to do is read the definition. FinancialCents (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

Italics in the section on terminology

I am noticing a lot of italics formatting in the section on terminology. Sometimes the italics are used for emphasis and sometimes for a term. Here italics is used for emphasis: Though the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably,. WP:MOS states: "Italics are used for emphasis, rather than boldface or capitals. But overuse diminishes its effect; consider rewriting instead." So I suggest rewording for that. Also I wonder if it might be better to use quotation marks rather than italics in this sentence: "In recent usage, global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas climate change can more broadly refer to natural or anthropogenic change". It would then become: "In recent usage, "global warming" usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas "climate change" can more broadly refer to natural or anthropogenic change." I would find this more intuitive. EMsmile (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Because the section is /* Terminology */ I think the terms under discussion should remain italicized. Italics seem less distracting than repeated quotation marks. Also, quotation marks for "global warming" and "climate change" are inconsistent with their subsequent proper use in Guardian the Oxford text quotations in the final paragraph. (I just removed italicization for used since it's not a term being discussed.) —RCraig09 (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the problem about having loads of quotation marks in one paragraph so perhaps italics is better. However, in other parts of the article we do use quotation marks for something similar, e.g. here: That same year, the European Parliament declared a "climate and environmental emergency" or here Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are labelled as "climate change skeptics", which several scientists have noted is a misnomer.. Would it be better to be consistent? I think in general, quotation marks are better than italics because italics are easy to overlook, especially on smaller screens. But this is personal preference, so I am happy to be overruled. EMsmile (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

When you're talking about a word/term as a word, it should be in italics, whereas quotes are quoted. I think we're correctly following the manual of style already. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Except be careful about getting the definitions correct here. Global warming can be caused by phenomena that are not human induced. Primarily Global Warming is due to greenhouse gas emissions, and mostly these are from human activity. But this is supposed to be encyclopedic so needs to be accurate. So actually since volcanos emit greenhouse gasses, not all warming is caused by humans. And if a wildfire is natural, burning trees does release carbon. Climate change refers to a change in climate according to the definition of climate, and climate change can have natural or anthropogenic causes. Global warming is a subset of all climate change because not all climate change is warming. I have no comment at this point on fonts. FinancialCents (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

First sentence of terminology section

I think this is a very weak first sentence for the terminology section: "Before the 1980s, it was unclear whether warming by increased greenhouse gases would dominate aerosol-induced cooling." As a layperson I find it unclear what is meant with "would dominate aerosol-induced cooling". There is not even a wikilink there for the aerosol content, and no reference for the statement as a whole. I think we should delete this sentence as it only leads to confusion. It makes it seem like scientists didn't know that we were going to have increasing global temperatures before the 1980s. A discussion on that could be included in the section on History but doesn't fit as the first sentence for the terminology section. If it needs to stay then it needs to be made clearer and needs a reference. EMsmile (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there's actually some truth to the perception that "scientists didn't know that we were going to have increasing global temperatures before the 1980s". Though the greenhouse effect was known a century earlier, it wasn't until the aerosol ban that global warming dramatically accelerated. I think the first sentence, which I just modified and added internal links, is now clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't really aware of that. The new sentence is Before the 1980s, when it was unclear whether the warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations would dominate over the cooling effect of some aerosols, scientists used the term inadvertent climate modification.. The wikilinks and ref is good. I think it could be useful to clarify it further. Perhaps like this Before the 1980s it was still unclear whether the warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations would exceed the cooling effect of some aerosols, and therefore lead to an overall drop in global temperature. Therefore, scientists at the time often used the term inadvertent climate modification when speaking about the observed changes. I just find the wording "dominate over" unclear, and I also think it's important to weave the first sentence with another explanation what this has to do with terminology aspects. Perhaps my proposal is too long. I am just trying to make it easier for readers to understand. EMsmile (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think most of your proposed additional language is technically correct, but I think it's unnecessary to increase the word count since the context is clear, immediately after reading the lead. The word "Therefore" seems improper since there isn't a specific cause-and-effect relationship to choose the specific term inadvertent cllimate modification.—RCraig09 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yea, it's a disadvantage of my proposal to increase the word count but I think your statement of "since the context is clear, immediately after reading the lead" would assume the readers read a Wikipedia article from start to finish. In reality, they might jump straight to the section that interests them, i.e. in this case straight to the "terminology" section. Therefore its first sentence should be as clear as possible. My proposed version might well be too long but perhaps it could be condensed. It's just that this "would dominate over" is really not clear in my opinion. My proposal of }would exceed the cooling effect of some aerosols, and therefore lead to an overall drop in global temperature does not add many words (and adds a useful wikilink). If still too many words could we at least replace "dominate" with "exceed" or something similar? If not fine, I won't push for it more, especially if I am the only one who feels it ought to be changed. EMsmile (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice improvement. A tangent, but the type of aerosols from refrigerators banned by the Montreal protocol caused warming. Aerosols released from the burning of fossil fuels often have a cooling effect. Femke (alt) (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

User:RCraig09, did you see this? Femke (alt) (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

~ blush ~

@Femke (alt): . I had always thought the dramatic GW since 1980 occurred after banning aerosols. Is there a distinct reason for the 1980s "launchpad"? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The concept of "aerosol" in common terminology is different than its meaning in scientific communities. As Femke discussed, there are certain types of "aerosols" that cause cooling, which are thought more of as "particule matter" or "haze" or "smog" in the colloquial. Considering it links to "particulates", I would suggest switching to some version of that for better understanding for a non-specialist. Crescent77 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the new first sentence is pretty good now and also stays close to what the source said: Before the 1980s, when it was unclear whether the warming effect of increased greenhouse gases were stronger than the cooling effect of some aerosols, scientists used the term inadvertent climate modification to refer to human impacts on the climate. I wonder if we have scoured the literature enough - surely there are more publications out there which explain the different terms used for this phenomenon over the last 50 years (the NASA blog post from 2008 which is used here as a source is useful and interesting but does it meet our requirements for reliable sources? I am not sure as it's not a "proper" publication). One term is clear: greenhouse effect is a term that has been used all along. How things evolved through "global warming" and then "climate change" is interesting. I think this statement from the NASA 2008 blog post is pretty good, we could even consider taking a quote from part of it: But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.. EMsmile (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Crescent77 Chidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@rcraig: you're half right. A bit before the Montreal protocol, individual countries in europe/NA instated clear air laws, which reduced particulate matter pollution from coal burning. I don't think we know exactly how much that contributed to the acceleration of GW, but surely some. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@crescent: I think those are good suggestions. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I am confused: which suggestion exactly do you mean and has it already been implemented? Crescent had said: "Considering it links to "particulates", I would suggest switching to some version of that for better understanding for a non-specialist." Do you mean the wikilink or the actual wording? At the moment the wording is "than the cooling effect of some aerosols" and the wikilink is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Climate_effects (by the way that section uses rather old IPCC reports from 2007 - this should be updated as well). - It seems to me that "aerosol" is the right term here, not "particulates". Or any of these (from the first sentence of that article): Particulates – also known as atmospheric aerosol particles, atmospheric particulate matter, particulate matter (PM) or suspended particulate matter (SPM)? EMsmile (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No, this proposed wording change hasn't been implemented yet. Particulate matter is a term used in the literature for the type of aerosols that cause cooling ([6]). I think this may be clearer than aerosols? The other two terms (smog / haze) are even simpler, but I'm not 100% sure they're used in scicom / completely accurate. Local air pollution may be another way to describe aerosols. Femke (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed "some aerosols" to "particulate matter"- if I misunderstood concensus feel free to undo.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

On second thoughts how about "smoke"? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think smoke or smog would be right but how about "stronger than the cooling effect of airborne particulates from local air pollution"? Air pollution is a term that everyone knows.

Hmm yes "air pollution" is good - what about "stronger than the cooling effect of dust and smoke in air pollution"? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Second definitional sentence in "Terminology"

I think we should delete (see below) revise the sentence, "In recent usage, global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas climate change can more broadly refer to natural or anthropogenic change". First, the supporting footnote relies on two distinct references--NOAA for GW and IPCC for CC--so this sourcing technically amounts to a WP:SYNTHesis violation. Second, this use of climate change refers broadly to Climate variability and change which is distinct from the meaning intended in this article as a whole, and thus confuses the section. Third, the definitions in the objectionable sentence are different from the NASA definition earlier in the same paragraph: "global warming refers only to increased surface warming, and climate change describes the full effect of greenhouse gases on the climate"--which is much clearer. I think these are strong reasons to delete revise the objectionable sentence per my 12:40 post below. 04:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Opinion revised —RCraig09 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Usual meaning of climate change: Looking at the terminology section after seeing the above discussion, I noticed the line "In recent usage, global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas climate change can more broadly refer to natural or anthropogenic change." I find this a bit confusing, because it appears to contrast what global warming "usually refers to" with the same analysis for climate change. But clearly it would also be correct to say that "In recent usage, climate change usually refers to human-induced changes". That's why this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term. I think it would be better to clarify that point explicitly, and then give the alternative meaning as a separate point, "the term is also sometimes used more broadly to refer to natural or anthropogenic change". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  @RCraig09: ha, we made very similar points just four minutes apart, but I hadn't seen yours when I wrote mine... I wouldn't object to removing the sentence altogether, as you suggest above. Currently it's contradictory to what's said above, and even if we fixed that we'd only be duplicating the same info again. The only thing that might be worth keeping, in a reworded form, is the link to Climate variability and change and a note that sometimes, but lesson commonly nowadays, "climate change" can refer to this.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Revision of opinion by OP: (after edit conflict) After reading Amakuru's 04:34 post, if consensus is to retain part of the sentence in question, I'm seeing the wisdom in the following: In recent usage, global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas Less commonly, climate change can refer more broadly to both natural and human-caused changes in climate . . . and keeping only the IPCC part of the footnote. Other suggestions welcome. 05:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Added "Less commonly". —RCraig09 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I support RCraig09's suggestion to delete that sentence. It does double up on something that comes earlier. Also, I have a problem with the term "recent usage". Could we try to be more specific on that (if it's decided to keep that sentence)? I generally don't like "recent" in Wikipedia articles. These articles are here to stay for another 20 years or more (we hope), so what we think is "recent" now won't be recent in 10 or 20 years time. The word "recent" actually appears 16 times in his Wikipedia article - perhaps a few of the "recent" ones could be replaced with year estimates (like we have it in the first sentence which uses the 1980s as a cut off point). E.g. we have that graph above here on the talk page which indicates when the usage changed from global warming to climate change: around 2015. I know it's hard to find reliable references for these kinds of things which are more perceptions and broad trends (the graph probably wouldn't count as a reference). EMsmile (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree re removing "Recently". But I've changed my opinion above to include (only) the second half of the sentence, with suggested beginning: "Less commonly, .... —RCraig09 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09, which source supports "less commonly"? Femke (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Competing interpretations: whether GW causes, or itself is a part of, CC.

@Femke: A valid question. I remember that after the GW-->CC renaming, we did a massive project using your huge spreadsheet to be sure that Wikipedia's thousands of internal "climate change" links were properly (re)directed: at least 90% of the internal Wikipedia links properly directed to the present CC article and not to the precursor of Climate variability and change. Here, I think it's important to mention when a use of "CC" that is less common, so I'll search a bit for a reference that states the preference more clearly. (Hopefully our learned colleagues may find one sooner :-) ) —RCraig09 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've searched without success for explicit support for "Less commonly" (most references compare "GW" to "CC", not CChuman versus CCnatural). NOAA mentions how GW "almost always" means human-caused GW, but that's different from CC's usage. I'm OK with your deleting "Less commonly" until something more explicit is found. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Commenting on the diagram, first, greenhouse gases do not cause Global Warming UNLESS you are comparing zero greenhouse gases versus their presence. Greenhouse gases were present in the formation of the natural atmosphere. A certain concentration of greenhouse gases will lead to a certain climate. Since we are considering "change," then it would be an increase in GHG's that lead to global warming, and a change (increase or decrease) that lead to climate change. So both A and B are incorrect unless you are considering that the original GHG's warmed the temperature of the earth to its familiar climates of the 1970's. And if the latter is true, then that warming is not climate change, so A and B are still incorrect because you are comparing to something that has been more of a constant. If the diagram is updated to read "Increase in Greenhouse gases" in the grey circle, then B is more correct except for whatever it is the arrows mean? The definition of Climate Change is a change in the long term weather patterns, including temperature. "Warming" is an increase in temperature, so that is one type of climate change. But not all types. If you are considering changes in precipitation, for instance, then of course, weather phenomena are interactive, the oceans and the atmosphere are intricately linked and interacting, so there are more effects of global warming on climate besides temperature. But in essence, in my opinion, these diagrams show a failure to understand the most basic definitions and concepts underlying global warming and climate change. Surely that is a starting point for writing an encyclopedic article, the base understanding of the topic. FinancialCents (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Link to terminology section also from the two "history of climate change" articles

I'm really glad we're currently improving the terminology section. Perhaps once we have that optimised any future discussions on the article title would become easier to steer and conclude. It occurred to me that the two articles that deal with the history of CC do not yet say anything on terminology, as far as I can see: History of climate change science and history of climate change policy and politics. Maybe it would be smart to add an excerpt to those two articles that repeats our new terminology section also there? Or if not an excerpt then at least some other link across? Surely the changes in terminology are related to the history of science, policy and politics. EMsmile (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the connection with the policy article, but this information can be duplicated in the science article. Unfortunately, using an excerpt there will break the chronological structure. Femke (alt) (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've added an excerpt now to History of climate change science at the end. I don't think it causes problems with the chronological structure as it's anyway for the "most recent" time period. Regarding the relevance for history of climate change policy and politics, I think it could be relevant because people adopt different terms for different reasons. This is also evident in the sentence in our terminology section which starts with "Various scientists, politicians and media figures have adopted the terms climate crisis or climate emergency to talk about climate change". I could imagine for example that fossil fuel companies prefer a different term than The Guardian etc. (but I don't have references at hand to prove this) EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Compare with the terminology section at climate variability and change

I have never paid much attention to the article on climate variability and change yet (lack of time) but I noticed its section on Terminology now: Climate variability and change#Terminology. Is there anything in there that helps us with our terminology section here? Are the two terminology sections matching well with each other? E.g. it says there, with a reference from 2016: Climate change is now used as both a technical description of the process, as well as a noun used to describe the problem. EMsmile (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A bold proposal for this section

So I have a different proposal for this section. I think that we should move it to the bottom of the article, combine it with the history section, and title the combined section “History and Terminology. The flow of the text in this section has a history type feel to it, and, IMO, it’s current placement detracts from a reader’s ability to get into the basic concepts that most are probably here to learn about. Namely, how much global warming/climate change is really happening, what’s causing it, what are the effects, and what can be done about it. None of the other top tier pages that come up in my Google search for “climate change”, like NASA, The Royal Society, or the UN’s main Climate Change page, start in this fashion. I think the flow from the lead to the Observed temperature rise section would be stronger if the Terminology section was moved to the bottom. Playing devil’s advocate here, when we were talking about what the title of the page should be back in early 2020, I remember Tony Leiserowitz, director of Yale‘s school of climate change communication, telling me he liked the idea of clarifying the terminology as part of the article. But I don’t think it’s a justification for having it at the beginning. Thoughts? Dtetta (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

References

I think that the reason the /* Terminology */ section remains at the top, is that it involves the very definition of what this article covers: global warming and climate change—definitions that are currently under discussion here re the first two sentences of the lead. I agree that the climate crisis and climate emergency paragraph could be massaged into the history section somehow, since those two terms are characterizations and are not neutrally definitional in the same manner as GW and CC. —16:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Update: I think the first sentence of the final paragraph (climate crisis and climate emergency) should remain in the /* Terminology */ section because they're purely definitional and widely used. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving the climate crisis and climate emergency info to the end might be a good idea. I still would like to see explicit mention of the fact that different orgs define climate change differently - simply to state different definitions, there is no right or wrong (see also my proposal below about mentioning how IPCC and UNFCCC define climate change). It's good for readers to understand that different technologies definitions of the same term exist. This is common for many Wikipedia articles, see e.g. Water security#Definitions and Sustainability#Definitions. Actually, perhaps it would make more sense to rename this section "definitions"? EMsmile (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Bringing organizations into the mix is a complicating digression from the reason for the existence of the /* Terminology */ section in the first place: to concisely explain what has long been in the first sentence of the lead. The public's GW vs CC confusion justifies prominent placement of this section, but opening discussion up to "organizations" leads to an interminable discussion of how many organizations, and which organizations, to cite—and would not resolve which definitions are "right or wrong" the you mention. Separately, this definitional issue has to do with word meanings, not "different technologies". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think just three organisations would suffice and be useful: NASA (we already have), IPCC (we don't have yet; different definition to "ours"), UNFCC (we don't have yet but they use the same definition as we do). Isn't this NASA and IPCC discrepancy what cause the whole long discussions with FinancialCents? If we had had this content already in our article we could have referred that new user simply to that? - Also I am wondering: what is the difference between a "terminology" and a "definition" section? The publication/glossary by IPCC calls it a definition. What did you mean with "different technologies"? Oh, I am really sorry I see now my typo above. I meant to say "different definitions". My mistake. EMsmile (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Again: talking about organizations is a digression from the purpose of a /* Terminology */ section that we are trying to trim. That section has always clearly shown that there are different definitions, and saying which organizations have which definitions would increase (explode?) word count in a top-level article with negligible value to a public that's foggy on NASA vs IPCC vs UNFCC in the first place. Separately, it's pure conjecture what caused FinancialCents confusion—confusion that would not have been prevented by merely labeling which definition is associated with which organization. The kind of detail you're talking about belongs in a separate article, not here. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that further trimming of the terminology section (from here on) is needed? I think it's pretty short now as it is (as of today); perhaps too short for such an important aspect. I think the section has never explicitly stated that there are different definitions used by different people. It just says "Climate change can also refer more broadly to". Personally, I feel that a half statement about "Different organisations use the term climate change in different ways", or similar, wouldn't go astray. You suggest The kind of detail you're talking about belongs in a separate article - which sub-article do you have in mind? Maybe this one?: History of climate change science? EMsmile (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The topic of terminology is only "important" here, to explain what this article covers (as summarized in the opening sentences of the lead). Elaborating on organizations accomplishes nothing for that purpose. And saying "Different organisations use the term climate change in different ways" gives novices the impression that climate change is a subject with many interpretations, which deniers will jump on as proof that climate scientists still don't agree on diddle. Separately, I don't know which, if any, secondary article such discussion would fine a home—just not in this top-level article. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove last two sentences?

The last two sentences of the section now read The policy editor-in-chief of The Guardian said they included this language in their editorial guidelines "to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue". In 2019, Oxford Languages chose climate emergency as its word of the year, defining it as "a situation in which urgent action is required to reduce or halt climate change and avoid potentially irreversible environmental damage resulting from it".

This is cited to news articles and two of the three articles are primary too.

• The quote by a news organisation is a bit biased, giving the view of one more activist news site on its own. Best to omit it.
• Word of the year is trivia
• climate emergency definition is open door.

Femke (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Aside; let's keep the climate crisis and climate emergency sentence, as it validly relates to /* Terminology */

2. As I implied in the previous section on this Talk Page, The Guardian's use of those two terms is valid content for massaging into the /* History */ section provided it continues to be expressed as Guardian's actions and not presented as fact. I think it's an OK use of a primary reference.

3. I agree that the Word of the Year sentence should be removed altogether, not even added to /* History */ as alluded to above. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Still don't think the Guardian quote meets NPOV, and I believe it is getting more prominence in its new location as a standalone paragraph. A similar point may be made with a secondary source more succinctly? Femke (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

As a Guardian subscriber and having read it for 50 years I am obviously not biased against it. However I boldly removed this because 1) It does not really fit in the "scientific consensus" section 2) Mentioning an individual newspaper is too much detail and the idea is already covered in the "terminology" section. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm on second thoughts maybe I should have waited for @RCraig09 reaction and counter argument to my points - I won't argue if you put it back Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I can appreciate Femke's observation re the Guardian ref being undesirably "primary", and Chidgk1's point that it doesn't really fit into the /* ... Scientific Consensus */ subsection. The more recent characterizations (climate crisis, emergency...) might deserve mention somewhere in the /* History */ section, though it may be too repetitive of what's already (properly) in the /* Terminology */ section above. Bottomline: I'm OK with Chidgk1's deletion of the Guardian content from /* Scientific Consensus */ section. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Readability

Just as an FYI, one unfortunate result of the various editing efforts for the first paragraph have been to raise the grade level of the text to Grade 12, from a Grade level of 10.6 for the text that was there late last year. A significant decrease in readability. That’s using the Readable tool. Dtetta (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That's an important observation, thanks Dtetta. I had another look at the lead, trying to identify which sentences might have caused the score to get worse. I can't identify many spots which seem problematic, except perhaps these two at the end of the first para. Two sentences where the second part of the sentence is starting with a verb in "ing" form (a present participle or a gerund). They are a little bit harder to interpret for non-native speakers. Consider connecting the second part of the sentence with "therefore", or splitting into a separate sentence? I mean these two (I've marked the two ing-verbs in italics): Greenhouse gases warm the air by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping the heat near the surface. Greenhouse gas emissions amplify this effect, causing the Earth to take in more energy from sunlight than it can radiate back into space. Apart from that, are there any obvious, low hanging fruit to improve the readability score? EMsmile (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not all greenhouse gases react in the same way. FinancialCents (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the blue box or the pink box? The statistical terminology can be removed if you want to reduce the accuracy and provide a vague description of the concepts. FinancialCents (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So here are the revisions I would suggest, from the article version of a couple of days ago:

• Contemporary is a long word (as Femke pointed out in her recent edit) and decreases readability, change it to “modern”.
• Using "climate change” and “climate system” in the first sentence is a circular approach to describing this concept. I adjusted for that, switched to global impacts, and that also helps with readability.
• The second sentence, that includes “broadest sense“ could be moved down to the main article. it’s not reflective of what’s now in the article, and should be somewhere (in a slightly more developed manner) in the terminology section rather than just in the lead. But it’s ok from a readability standpoint. So I left it in, but deleted the last clause.
• Third sentence -I used “warming” rather than “global average temperature”. I included the reference to “the last 2000 years” (WG1 SPM-7 I believe) because it’s more specific, less climate denial sounding, and more reflective of what’s in the AR6WG1 report.
• Eliminated the last sentence, it’s long, doesn’t seem to help the explanation all that much, and detracts a bit from readability

When I do that I get a grade level of 10.0. Here is the revised text:

---

Modern "climate change" describes both current global warming—the ongoing increase in worldwide average temperature—and its global impacts. Climate change in its broadest sense also includes previous long-term changes. The current rate of warming is more rapid than any period in the last 2000 years. It is caused primarily by humans. Burning fossil fuels adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, most importantly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Smaller contributions come from agriculture, industrial processes, and forest loss. These greenhouse gases warm the air by absorbing heat radiated by the Earth, trapping the heat near the surface. Dtetta (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

• Modern, current and ongoing convey the same information. Only one of the three is needed.
• Global impacts is vague. Surely, a failed harvest is not climate change?
• I agree. As a possible compromise we could link climate change in a broader sense, rather than previous long-term changes in Earth's climate. (Long term should be deleted, as climate is per definition long term)
• No opinion on warming/GAT
• Agree, but I know other disagree.

I'm not keen on saying past 2000 years. It's a true statement, but it implies that it's likely there were faster periods before then. From SR15, that seems unlikely. AR6 SPM-7 only talks about absolute temperature (saying f.i. "The Last Interglacial, around 125,000 years ago, is the next most recent candidate for a period of higher temperature"; a couple of weeks after publication this statement was refuted by a high-quality study showing that period was slightly colder). Femke (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of changes in your proposal, Dtetta.

• "Modern climate change describes..." doesn't register quite right. Remember: climate change is emphasized here as a term to distinguish from GW, so CC's meaning isn't something that can be "modern". I favor retaining "In common usage, climate change describes/refers to..." —which treats the term as a term and not to what the term refers to.
• It's definitely not the superlative "broadest" sense as Femke noted recently. I favor "a broader sense" of the term.
• I think it's a huge mistake, and a gift to deniers, to limit the comparison to 2000 years. I'd keep broader language.
• OK to remove the last sentence re amplifying.
• New suggestion: OK to join the two sentences re "current rate" and "caused by humans" (makes the paragraph less choppy, even if a Readability algorithm objects to longer sentences. 19:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

My two cents worth: Regarding the first sentence: "In common usage, climate change refers to contemporary global warming— I very much like how it starts with "in common usage". This is spot on. In the current live version we don't use contemporary before global warming. I guess this has been added to reduce confusion a la FinancialCents? I agree with Dtetta that contemporary is not great for readability but I don't like modern either. Could we use current global warming or ongoing global warming instead? EMsmile (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I prefer ongoing, which is what we say right now (global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature). Moving that word in front of global warming feels wrong, as global warming is often defined as the ongoing temperature rise, so the word becomes duplicative. Femke (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm opposed to removing the last sentence. It's key to helping people understand that the sun is what is warming the Earth, not the heat generated by burning fossil fuels. It is difficult to understand what else is being talked about at this point without a clear proposal, as some of the changes have already been made. I'd suggest consolidating discussion down to the section Sentence in the lead that starts with "smaller contributions"" Efbrazil (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Can’t address all the various points here, so I’m gonna try to stick with what seems most important.

• It’s important to avoid the circularity of the first sentence that uses climate system to define climate change. I still like global impacts, and I am not convinced by Femke’s failed harvest analogy. But I’m sure there are also other ways to say it in a more specific way.
• Global average temperature is a difficult to read phrase, and ideally should be kept out of the first paragraph. At least don’t use it twice.
• Craig’s suggestion of joining the two sentence of “current rate” and “caused by humans” seems like an OK approach, even if it creates a longer sentence.
• I’m not wed to the term "modern” either. Some of the suggested alternatives above, such as those by EMsmile, seem reasonable.
• In terms of time, period comparisons, I should have said, “at least the last 2000 years” (per the SPM) rather than just “the last 2000 years”. Disagree with Craig about this being a gift to deniers. IMO simply saying “more rapid than previous changes" is both vague and invites deniers to use a variety of reference period comparisons to diminish the significance of the changes. We devote a fair amount of space in the article to show how you can play with short term changes (which fall under the vague category of "previous changes") to give the perception that warming is not happening. My concern is that the way this is described in the lead invites more of that kind of thing. Seems like there must be a way to capture the findings in SR 15 or in Chapter 2.3 of WGI to come up with a stronger and more specific way of describing the magnitude of current global warming. Femke clearly has a good sense of where this debate is at, so I would defer to her choice of words (just please not "more rapid":)
• I stand by my preference to remove the last sentence, but it’s a relatively minor decrease in readability to keep it in.
• I still think it’s reasonable to shoot for a grade level of around 10 or a little higher for this paragraph. At this point I would recommend that anyone interested might take a shot at using Readable or Hemingway to experiment with alternative phrasings for the various sentences. Dtetta (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Where does this last 2000 years come from? Is it a random number? Is it confusing "since 2000" with "last 2000 years"? Here's what the source says:

The rise in global CO2 concentration since 2000 is about 20 ppm per decade, which is up to 10 times faster than any sustained rise in CO2 during the past 800,000 years

[7]

I also don't see any need to say modern etc in the first sentence, since the scope of the article is in the top note (""Global warming" redirects here. For other uses, see Climate change (disambiguation) and Global warming (disambiguation). This article is about contemporary climate change. For historical climate trends, see Climate variability and change.") Bogazicili (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion "at least the last 2000 years" seem to come from AR6 WGI. It looks more detailed than at least 2000 years, however:

A.2 The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole – and the present state of many aspects of the climate system – are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. {2.2, 2.3, Cross-Chapter Box 2.1, 5.1} (Figure SPM.1) A.2.1 In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years (high confidence), and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years (very high confidence). Since 1750, increases in CO2 (47%) and CH4 (156%) concentrations far exceed – and increases in N2O (23%) are similar to – the natural multi-millennial changes between glacial and interglacial periods over at least the past 800,000 years (very high confidence). {2.2, 5.1, TS.2.2} A.2.2 Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years (high confidence). Temperatures during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6500 years ago13 [0.2°C to 1°C relative to 1850–1900] (medium confidence). Prior to that, the next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago, when the multi-century temperature [0.5°C to 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900] overlaps the observations of the most recent decade (medium confidence). {2.3, Cross-Chapter Box 2.1, Cross-Section Box TS.1} (Figure SPM.1)

[8] Bogazicili (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

When a discussion of a major proposal becomes buried in details and digressions, it's a good sign that the proposal is far from consensus. I definitely think it's more fruitful to pursue Efbrazil's proposal in the section titled "Talk:Climate change#Sentence in the lead that starts with "smaller contributions"" (below). That discussion is converging on consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)