Talk:Climate change

Tipping points clouds

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

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

Preliminary discussion concerning possible Requested Move of "Global warming"

In parallel with the Move Request from "Climate change" to "Climate change (general concept)" and changing the "CC" article to a redirect to the present article "Global warming" (October 30, 2019 closing diff), various suggestions were made to move the present article, which describes current warming of Earth's climate system.

Both colloquially (popularly) and in Reliable Sources, this subject matter is widely referred to both as GW and as CC, raising the issue as to what this destination article should be titled. I open this section in hopes that, eventually, a formal Move Request proceeds with sound reasoning and with all reasonable viewpoints fairly considered. To start things, I list the following proposals that I have noticed so far. Please add to the table, make procedural suggestions below, and discuss your reasoned preferences below, to achieve consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Subsection: Table to help gauge consensus

Editors:

• Add your account name only (no comments or conditions) to the appropriate table box(es). Use a line break ''<br>'' to avoid wraparound.
• You may of course amend your entries later.
• Do not feel the need to express on each proposed name!

Proposed article name	Strong support	Mild support	Mild oppose	Strong oppose	Neutral or Undecided
Global warming (no change)	J. Johnson	Chidgk1 Tdslk	Femkemilene Mu301	RCraig09 Efbrazil EMsmile NAEG
Global warming and climate change	RCraig09 Red Slash François Robere NAEG J. Johnson	Efbrazil Chidgk1	Femkemilene Tdslk	Mu301 EMsmile
Anthropogenic global warming and climate change		J. Johnson RCraig09		Femkemilene Efbrazil Mu301 EMsmile NAEG Tdslk
Human-caused global warming and climate change		Chidgk1 RCraig09		Femkemilene Efbrazil J. Johnson Mu301 NAEG Tdslk
Climate change (global warming)	Efbrazil	Chidgk1		Femkemilene J. Johnson Mu301 NAEG Tdslk RCraig09
Global warming (climate change)		Chidgk1		Femkemilene Efbrazil J. Johnson Mu301 NAEG Tdslk RCraig09
Climate change	Efbrazil Femkemilene Mu301 EMsmile Chidgk1 RCraig09	Tdslk	Red Slash	J. Johnson NAEG
Global climate change		Femkemilene	Tdslk Mu301	Efbrazil J. Johnson NAEG
Modern climate change		Femkemilene	Efbrazil J. Johnson Tdslk	Mu301 NAEG
Anthropogenic climate change (or) Human-caused climate change (or) Climate change (anthropogenic) (or) Climate change (human-caused)	RCraig09			Mu301 Femkemilene	NAEG
___
___

Subsection: Reasoning table (Editors: please add to this table)

Be BRIEF and CONCISE! Add others' fair arguments, pro and con, not only your own. Cite policy whenever possible.

Use a line break "<br>" to minimize wraparound, and a hyphen "-" to denote a newline.

Proposed article name	Policy "FOR" Be CONCISE!	Policy "AGAINST" Be CONCISE!
Global warming (no change)	-WP:NATURAL (searches and int. links) -WP:Concise -WP:PRECISE (Not the fault of the title that editors have exceed the scope.) -WP:COMMONNAME of specific topic.	-RS usage of "GW" less than half "CC" and waning -Not WP:PRECISE because too restrictive -Not WP:NEUTRAL as it disregards all other CC aspects.
Global warming and climate change	-"GW", "CC" individually fit WP:COMMONNAMEs     ↳Google searches "GW" and "CC" lead here     ↳Internal searches "GW" and "CC" lead here -Refutes "they changed the name" myth -WP:NPOV because it doesn't pick sides -WP:RECOGNIZABILITY focuses on nonspecialists -Suggests GW→CC causationunder some definitions -Consistent precedent: Deforestation and climate change -Consistent precedent: Climate change and agriculture	-Not WP:CONCISE -Title as a whole not WP:COMMONNAME -Title as a whole not WP:NATURAL -WP:AND should be avoided if possible -Implies terms are distinct, instead of CC superset of GW -Positions "GW" first despite:     ↳"GW" not being WP:precise     ↳"GW" usage less than half that of "CC"
Bifurcate into separate Global warming and climate change articles	-WP:Concise -WP:PRECISION -WP:NATURAL -WP:COMMONNAME -WP:SIZE -WP:SUMMARYSTYLE	-Large WP:OVERLAP of substantive GW and CC content     ↳ (GW --> CC) --> effects --> feedback --> GW       ↳ (example: effects of GW same as effects of CC)     ↳ GW considered part of CC by some definitions -Public (=WP readers) use two terms ~interchangeably -Distinguish closely intertwined terms in one place -GW minutiae proper in Instrumental temperature record -CC concepts proper in CC (general concept)
Anthropogenic global warming                     and climate change Human-caused global warming                     and climate change	-Describes subject matter WP:PRECISION -Shows GW→CC causationunder some definitions	-Not WP:CONCISE -Not WP:COMMONNAME -WP:AND should be avoided if possible -Anthropogenic too difficult for lay audience. -Not WP:NATURAL
Climate change (global warming)	-Disambiguates vs "CC(GenCon)" -Correctly places "Climate change" as primary title	-Incorrectly insinuates GW=CC -Doesn't follow WP:PARENDIS
Global warming (climate change)		-Incorrectly insinuates GW=CC -Doesn't follow WP:PARENDIS
Climate change	-WP:CONCISE -RS usage of "CC" > double "GW", growing -WP:NATURAL (searches & int. links) -"CC"narrow definition is PRECISE scientific usage	-"CC" also has broad definition: WP:PRECISION issue     ↳Not as descriptive/informative as "global warming" -Possibly not WP:NEUTRAL - sidelines warming, human factor
Global climate change
Modern climate change
Anthropogenic climate change (or) Human-caused climate change (or) Climate change (anthropogenic) (or) Climate change (human-caused)	-Describes subject matter WP:PRECISION -RS usage of "CC" double "GW" and growing "ACC" does fit WP:COMMONNAME -Disambiguates vs "CC(GenCon)"	-Not WP:COMMONNAME -Doesn't follow WP:PARENDIS Anthropogenic too difficult for lay audience.
___
___

Sub-sub-section: comments about "Reasoning table"

For discussion relating to the table itself; not to present substantive arguments

I don't think this table is going to work, per the WP:TPG. There isn't any way to sign, and it invites edit warring when multiple people try to write WP:OTHERSOPINION at the same time. That exercise is about a single editor trying to understand and restate others opinions. By definition, it is a solo (single-editor) exercise. But the idea is great. Would you consider moving it to your user space and leaving a pointer diff here, kind of like I did during the climate change RM? (Userspace table and pointer diff). There may be other ways to organize this, but just multi editing a summary table seems like a recipe for problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings @NewsAndEventsGuy: The "Concise^(snicker) opinions on specific article names" section, below, is already ~8500 10,100 words long and over twelve about fourteen screenfuls on a desktop! Newly arriving editors will simply not read that Wall of Words—it's Yuge and getting Yuger!!!. This table will "work" since it distills essential arguments, pro and con, reducing unnecessary verbiage below from new people who might not find an existing thread buried in the 8500+ words. Purposely, there is no place for signed arguments: that's what the first table is for! It's definitely not a solo-editor exercise, as any editor can, and hopefully will, modify it. As an aside, I think that the "Neutral" column in the first chart does not aid decision-makers' cogitations, and I suggest it be removed as it may worsen wraparound on smaller screens. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC) updated RCraig09 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A few paragraphs of substantive discussion that don't belong here have been moved below, to "Subsection: Concise opinions on specific article names". (diff) (link to new location) —RCraig09 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC) and RCraig09 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

---

I have not previously engaged with this table because it looks like a boondoggle: "work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value." I appreciate the attempt, and even welcome it as a valiant try, but it has some serious deficiencies. A fundamental deficiency is that "BRIEF and CONCISE!" citations of policies provides no scope for actual reasoning – "the drawing of inferences or conclusions from known or assumed facts; use of reason; [or] the proofs or reasons resulting from this." (YDMV.) This table has only tags that (mostly) only point to a policy which someone thinks provides a basis for an argument. There is no argument, no reasoning, just these tag lines which apparently are supposed to be self-evident. They provide no basis for building consensus by (per WP:Consensus#Consensus-building) considering "the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree," in addition to policies.

Another deficiency: the underlying issues are not identified. (E.g.: is the problem that a title is not consonant with an article's content? Or is it the content that is not consonant with the title? Two different formulations of a problem, which suggest two different solutions.) Also: the options proposed are stated without regard to whatever the driving problem is, or to any factors that might affect their suitability, or to alternatives.

I may make some additions, but I still think this is a boondoggle. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Reasoning table concentrates the major applicable policies/guidelines developed in the ~THIRTY desktop-screenfuls of discussion in the Preliminary Discussion (begun 30 Oct 2019) and the ~NINETEEN desktop-screenfuls of discussion in the Second Discussion (begun 2 Dec 2019). —RCraig09 (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Subsection: When to proceed

(A) I don't understand the structure above, if you meant to make subsections they aren't subsections and if you meant to just use bold I don't understand the purpose of the bold text. (struck after some reformatting of OP) (B) Please consider withdrawing for a little bit. In these difficult waters, I think we'll have the best community and strongest consensus if we use the walking path instead of the railroad. A lot of people probably haven't yet realized the change took place, much less had a chance to consider formal undo efforts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(A) I didn't plan a particular "structure". (B) Some opposed the CC-->CC(GenCon) move out of concern for what would happen to "GW"! These changes—including any (hypothetical) "undo efforts"—are interrelated and should be thoughtfully and comprehensively coordinated. This Preliminary Discussion is the opposite of railroading, and helps concerned editors "realize the change took place". Notably, if we had all "withdrawn a bit" on the necessary issue of how to redirect "CC" after the move, then the CC Move Closer would not have made the CC-->GW redirect and we would not have come this far. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have some ideas to add to the list. The previous discussion has left me exhausted however and I would like to postpone this discussion at least until we have fixed all the internal links that now incorrectly point here. I think that is a matter of some urgency at least, which might need a small army of volunteers not elsewhere distracted. Would that work for you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see harm in opening a discussion on this now. If you're worried about backlash, I think this discussion would be a productive place to direct any backlash, instead of having it go into the already completed move. All the "climate change" links now point here and "climate change" is the modern term for "global warming", so the need for a rename that includes "climate change" in the title is obvious. Efbrazil (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

With subsiding numbers of posts or new ideas on this topic, are we ready for a formal Move Request now? Related: It's been a month since the 30 Oct creation of Climate change (general concept), without specific objection or alternative proposals since that date. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Move to which title? I don't see that a strong consensus has settled on a single target name. --mikeu ^talk 19:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus to move away from Global warming. True, there are two favorite destinations, not one, but that's what a formal move request might (hopefully) resolve. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Negative: there is not "strong consensus to move away from Global warming". The current lull in discussion is partly because we're all busy with other work (and NAEG is taking a wikibreak). I have been quiet because I am doing research on the terms (and being laggard on writing anything). But so far we do not have well-developed, factual and/or policy-based arguments, and various points are yet to be resolved. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"When to proceed" is more recently under discussion below, at #Proposal to reevaluate in one or two years. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Subsection: How to proceed

Any comments on how to conduct any prospective Move Request

• I've started this section because several possible article names have already been suggested, and we should at least narrow the choice(s) down before any formal Move Request. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• To launch the formal RM proposal we should close this "preliminary" thread and all of its subsections using {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Before we launch a formal RM proposal, we have to find a way to decide whether it's going to be GW+CC or CC or decide to put both options on the table. I think it's quite clear that those are the only two options with wide support now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think the next step is to start a new round of discussion on just the top contenders. Personally, I found this discussion to be chaotic, disorganized, confusing, and most difficult to follow. (To be fair - I also found the discussion thought provoking and nescessary. I just found the procedure to be hapzard.) I'd like to make a suggestion for formatting and discussion flow for the next round that I've found useful on other projects:

Have a list of questions with yes/no answers. ie. 1) should this page move to Title One, 2) or should... Title Two

Beneath each question have statements by individual contributors about the topic, under their own headings, not to exceed 700 words. Threaded and long-form discussions should take place under a general heading beneath contributor headings. Statements may contain links to other discussions or longer statements on another page.

A participant can collapse a prior statement within their own section and replace it with a new one if they change their mind later.

--mikeu ^talk 22:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a round with the top two contenders is now the way to go. I think it is best to only consider climate change and global warming and climate change, as these have way more support than the other names and way fewer people strongly against. This should solely focus on which one should be brought forward for a formal renaming proposal. I suspect all content-related arguments have been brought forward between the contesters for a new name, with only some small clarifications and summaries needed.

Once we have a rough consensus, OR a few (one of two might be enough) weeks of clear disagreement about the best title (but continuing rough consensus that new title might be desirable), we propose one of the two.

I like your proposal of a maximum word count. Seven hundred is quite a lot, and I think that we'd benefit from a smaller word count (400?) as one of the means to restrict vocal people like me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Subsection: Concise opinions on specific article names

Suggested format:     ● Your preferred article name: concise reasoning.

Climate change (global warming)

• The term global warming was renamed to climate change back in the George W Bush administration in US government communications, and the change has stuck. It's the IPCC after all, not the IPGWCC or whatever. The parenthesis in the proposed title will make it clear what the scope is and will clearly differentiate the article from Climate change (general concept). The rename from "global warming" to "climate change" was partly made to clarify that "global warming" had more effects than just temperature increase, but the terms are used to refer to the same phenomena and we should not introduce confusion by implying they are different concepts (using "and") when somebody is looking up information on wikipedia. Efbrazil (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

GW Bush admin. shift is discussed at Frank Luntz#Global warming . . dave souza, talk 11:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Just getting the facts straight: climate change was already the preferred term before this one adviser to Bush tried to push it. See https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm. It was always the most popular term in scientific writing. US English btw lags behind on other variants in uptake CC vs GW (see Google trends). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As the source says; re 'global warming' vs. 'climate change', "In reality, the two terms mean different things ...... Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena." . . . dave souza, talk 11:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good source. A key point that the article skips though is that from 1988 NASA testimony about global warming to congress to the defeat of Al Gore in 2000, there was a preference for using the term global warming in US public debate. Even in the 2006 Al Gore film an inconvenient truth, the term "global warming" is used 24 times and "climate change" is not used once. Since that time, there's been a steady trend towards climate change as the term, partly because of its use in the scientific community. The graph in your article captures some of that transition. I think this article has the most depth on the issue that I've seen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/01/29/debunking-the-claim-they-changed-global-warming-to-climate-change-because-its-cooling/ Efbrazil (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Efbrazil, I disagree with your (apparent) premise that GW and CC are the same concept. Properly defined, they are different. Per the newly-organized second paragraph (this diff), the concepts are are different concepts, even though readers arrive at this article from two directions (readers 'using both "GW" and "CC"). The "and" in "GW and CC" contrasts these two different concepts. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09, I'm really fine with that point of view. I think the key thing is having the first two words of the article title be "climate change" since that's what I think the article title will inevitably be- the tack on terms will get stripped in time. Climate change is both the more popular term now and, in proper terms, the scope of the article is climate change since it includes desertification and ocean acidification and so on. The reason I slightly prefer "climate change (global warming)" is it disambiguates nicely from "climate change (general concept)" and it makes it clear that climate change is the scope of the article, demoting global warming to a scoping clarifier. Efbrazil (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: I agree, and "CC" may eventually supplant "GW" in the literature but^{as noted below a few minutes ago} I favor "GW & CC" because^{to oversimplify} GW is the cause and CC is the effect, and the concepts are inextricably linked. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Cause and effect — exactly. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Efbrazil: Your initial comment that GW has "more effects than just temperature increase" is incorrect. Global warming is the temperature increase (of the earth's climate system), of which all the other aspects of current climate change are the effects. The current GW is a specific, measurable phenomena, and the effect of (primarily) anthropomorphic emissions (mainly CO2 and methane). These are NOT "the same phenomena", regardless of how much these terms are muddled in the mass media. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

JJ, I didn't look up the DIFF but we just had this same back and forth a few days ago. The technical "global warming" is about Global surface temperature and does not include the whole climate system, for example, Ocean heat content (i.e., warming below the surface) is not included. See Dave's excellent collection of sources here for more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where "we just had this same back and forth a few days ago" (it is difficult to keep up with all this stuff), so perhaps you could provide a timestamp, so I could we what you are referring to. You seem to think that GW is equivalent to Global surface temperature, and your statement that GW "does not include the whole climate system ..." is a bit of a head-scratcher. Are you thinking that GW is properly restricted to Global surface temperature, and therefore should exclude ocean heat content? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I asserted this on your own talk page oct 26 here. We never dove into sources though. Have you reviewed the sources in the Archive 75 link I provided? For one, see NASA, "Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature...." (bold added) [1] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

NAEG: Our "back and forth a few days ago" on this was your two sentence assertion on my Talk page that "the technical narrow definition of GW does not include, for example, Ocean heat content", and that, "defined narrowly, GW is about rising mean Global surface temperature." An assertion of a technical narrow definition, which in no way amounts to a discussion on THIS page of the suitability of this term for this topic.

I grant that "global warming" has been "defined" – technically and narrowly – in terms of "Global Mean Surface Temperature" (GMST) (see the IPCC reports). That definition of what is being measured is primarily surface temperatures because historically that was the only measurement instrumentrally accessible. As it turns out, the oceans store a lot of the heat in the climate system, and measurement of the Earth's temperature is incomplete (and even erratic) without accounting for "ocean heat content".

Yes, I have reviewed most of Dave's sources. And if you would review a little deeper into the NOAA Climate.gov page you cite you will see where Kennedy and Lindsey say that regardless of whether you use "global warming" in a technically narrow or popularly broad sense, "you’re essentially talking about the same basic phenomenon: the build up of excess heat energy in the Earth system." Note: excess heat energy in the Earth system. I also grant that NOAA (and even the IPCC) haven't really explained that in any public statements. (Perhaps due to the difficulty of explaining the difference between "heat" and "temperature"? I presume everyone here understands the difference between a form of energy, and its measurement, yes?) The IPCC (AR5 WG1 Ch1, p129) does refer to surface temperature as an indicator of climate change.

This distinction between "heat" and "temperature" is a crucial point in two respects: (1) greenhouse gases do not capture (retain) temperature, they capture heat. and (2) temperature – particularly mean surface temperature – is not always a complete measure of warming. A case in point: the "hiatus" a few years back, where the deniers claimed (correctly) that measurements of temperatures were not increasing as predicted. As it turns out, warming, in the sense of heat, did continue to increase, but was being diverted into (!) the deep ocean.

The concept that "global warming" is more than just surface temperature is a powerful explicator in many CC issues. Even if we don't want to say as much as that, it is a valuable aid in understanding some of these issues. I think we should at least avoid any formulation that perpetuates misunderstandings. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Climate change as this is BY FAR the most universally used term, conforms to WP:CONCISE, and is consistent with many, many other WP articles/categories that already have "climate change" (not "global warming") in their titles (such as Climate change denial). The content here can be distinguished with the separate broader topic covered at climate change (general concept) by hatnotes in both articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy with this as well, I just didn't want to overreach. Efbrazil (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Though you are correct that "CC" is definitely gaining favor (even in popular use), as Femke notes above^{(19:21, 31 Oct)} the U.S. is slow to adopt; more importantly, since "GW" and "CC" are not properly interchangeable,^{(see my above 03:47 1 Nov post)} to eliminate "GW" altogether would obscure this still-important distinction from readers. Maybe when use of "GW" effectively disappears, the article name can change. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes to "still-important distinction", but I strongly disagree about "when use of "GW" effectively disappears...." As I have stated before, global warming identifies a specific phenomena which is not "going away", and the "effective disappearance" of the term in favor of the blander, less "alarmistic", and broader "climate change" is politically contrived.

Back in the "Climate change" move discussion I suggested (21:30, 28 Oct.) that the ulterior purpose of the move was to "have "climate change" entirely supplant "global warming"." RCraig09 stated he couldn't conceive how that result could possibly come about, but here we are: a suggestion that this article be renamed "Climate change". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

JJ, when you accuse folks of this alleged '"ulterior motive" you're talking about an RM in which I was the original proposer. Please provide a diff showing where I have ever - even just once - suggested renaming this article as you accuse me of trying to do. If you can't find one, please explain why you accuse me of this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@JJ In my Oct 28 post that you cite, I was referring to the concepts of GW and CC, not to the title of this GW article. In the above Table I mildly oppose re-titling to "CC" but if, ~ten years from now, "GW" is ~never used by sources or searched for by readers, then a rename excluding "GW" will be appropriate; the content will still be here to explain the critical concept of "GW-->CC" causation. Note that, substantively, GW is merely an intermediate step: GHGs --> GW --> CC; I'm not seeing why you're "defending" GW since its substantive content is not at risk. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson, your arguments here seem to contradict the position you take in the voting table. If your position is that global warming as a term should be limited to temperature only, then the content of this article is clearly out of step with that since only a small section of the article is dealing with temperature change specifically, and most of the article deals with other impacts and issues that clearly fit the scope of the term "climate change". Do you want to see two different articles, where the current article content becomes "climate change" but there is also a second, newer article covering "global warming"? Do you want to see no changes at all, meaning there should be no article on "climate change" at all? Your position here is confusing and an outlier in comparison with other views, so I think it would be good if clarified what you want to see happen. Efbrazil (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My apologies to all for lagging behind the pack (I'm having some acesss issues), and I will try to catch up real soon. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

• NAEG: Diff. ("... we could improve the stub Global surface temperature with the addition of sections #Global warming and #Global cooling.") ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• RCraig09: It's not the substantive content of this article that I am concerned about, but its reframing as merely "climate change". As to whether that would be appropriate in ten years is immaterial, as (please note which section we are in) this is being proposed here and NOW.

I also object to basing the choice of terminology on Google searches, but I will address that elsewhere. I most certainly agree that GW is an effect of GHG, but I would not describe it as "merely an intermediate step". It is the connection from GHG to CC. Of course, what we really mean is anthropogenic greenhouse gases (and do we have any data on how often people google for that?), which is the original cause of all these current and coming CC problems. Warming – more precisely, the increased heating of the Earth's climate system – is what pulls the pollyanish "climate change happens and nobody's really responsible for it" back to "why is this happening?" ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• EfBrazil: No, it is not my position that GW refers only to "temperature change". (Presumably and more precisely, "Global Mean Surface Temperature".) That is NAEG's position (based on the NOAA www.climate.gov site, but also the definition used by the IPCC). My position is that GW is (1) the increase in heat added to the Earth's climate system, and (2) not an effect or some kind of variety of "climate change" but the main cause of most of these CC effects. It is (as I just replied to RCraig09) the connection between anthropogenic GWG and CC.

There could be separate articles for GW and CC (which might be more correct scientifically), but with the popular media's confounding of these terms it may be best that both terms end up at the same location. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really, JJ, at least not the part in your first paragraph. First, it isn't "my position". It is my understanding of the position presented by RSs. You have declared how you construct these things within your own mind, but that's not really that helpful. Instead, please share citations to whatever you read and tell us what you think their position is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, excuse me, of course by "yours" I meant "the position which you endorse as backing the end you want", and I had thought you would understand that. And please note that you have gone off the rails here: I was clarifying who has which position, without arguing the positions themselves. As to what I read: that's a LOT, much of it not particularly useful, and I haven't yet organized a bibliography. As to the underlying issue please note I have already cited (just above, at 00:56, 7 Nov.) where the IPCC refers to surface temperature as an indicator of climate change. And I referred you the statement further in the source you cited (at www.climate.gov) where it mentions "build up of excess heat energy in the Earth system." I will of course provide more sources, when I have evaluated them.

As to what I think your position is: I have provided a diff. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I think everyone here might be interested in some comments by an atmospheric scientist at https://hannahlab.org/global-warming-vs-climate-change/. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. FYI: I've been compiling a reading list of sources that analyze popular usage and perceptions of the terms at User:Mu301/Climate change. I honestly don't have an opinion (yet) about what, if anything, in those works is relevant to our discussion here. --mikeu ^talk 23:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Global warming (climate change)

• the linked article covers global warming and its climatic effects, hence the influence of GW on CC, and GW as the dominant factor in CC since around 1900. Since both terms redirect to the article, both should appear in the title and in bold in the lead paragraph: the opening sentence should cover their relationship, and the relationship to natural CC. . . dave souza, talk 11:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC) (modified 11:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)}

Given the guidelines distaste for parentheses (i.e. adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title), how to you value this title compared to GW and CC? You are using CC in the technical IPCC definition here, instead of the primary (per closer's notes) UNFCCC definition, right? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Global warming and climate change

I prefer this variant over Global warming (climate change) because parenthetical disambig further confuses matters by adding weight to synonymous lay aspect of these terms. I believe we do better if our one article gives equal weight to both the technical distinction and the lay treatment as synonyms. That way can explain how the technical meaning of the terms interrelate, and that the public treats them as synonyms, and then with the obfuscating confusion about terms out of the way we can present the substance of the issue. So I agree with Dave that both should be in the name, but I also think they should be on equal footing joined by the conjunction "and". No doubt someone who is not a regular climate editor will object because it isn't "CONCISE". Speaking as a topic veteran, this change would solve a lot of problems. These four things are all true

(A) Sources exist to support a narrow technical distinction between "climate change" and "global warming"

(B) In the vernacular they have the same PRIMARYTOPIC-(by use) and are often treated as synonyms

(C) Some sources even state both (A) and (B). For example, in one of the past times we debated all this, I cited the 2018 AP Style book

The terms global warming and climate change can be used interchangeably. Climate change is more accurate scientifically to describe the various effects of greenhouse gases on the world because it includes extreme weather, storms and changes in rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and sea level. But global warming as a term is more common and understandable to the public." (Source. (bold added)

(D) We've spent way too much time engaged in either/or debate. (Partial list)

* Talk:Climate_change/Archive_1#Merge_with_global_warming_article (2004)

• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_16#Merge_with_Climate_change (2006)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_32#Climate Change (2007)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_59#RfC on article name change (2010)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_61#The_title_should_be_changed (July 2010)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_62#Request_for_clearer_definitions_of_terminology_and_wikipedia_page_structure_on_'climate_change'/'global_warming' (Jan 2011)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_63#Suggestion:_Move_to_Global_climate_change? (Feb 2011)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_67#terminology_usage_question:_climate_change_&/or_global_warming? (June 2012)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Revisit_article_title_and_Scope (2014)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_72#Rename_article? (2015)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_73#Proposal_to_change_title (2017)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_74#First_sentence_of_this_article.

• Continued in Talk:Global_warming/Archive_74#Requested_move_3_June_2018 (2018)

• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_75#Global_Warming_vs.Climate_Change (2018)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_75#Sources:_global_warming_definitions,_relation_to_climate_change (2018)
• Talk:Climate_change/Archive_6#Requested_move_25_February_2019 (2019)
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_76#Article_naming

Plus more recent ones, and some debates at other articles' archives if memory serves

..... ok, I admit it. When I said "these four things are all true, this last one is subjective. But go ahead and read them all, then ask yourself, Is NAEG blowing smoke?

SOLUTION

• (1) Stop having an either/or argument
• (2) Instead use both in the title
• (3) Modify the lead so there is a simple explanation of (A) and (B) (i.e., at the same time there is a technical distinction and frequent use as synonyms by non-scientists)

FERVENT PRAYER

If we implement that change, the perennial terminology arguments will finally be put to rest.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Can go along with that, whichever works best for the eventual first sentence of the lead, while keeping the sequence GW + CC. . . dave souza, talk 13:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why lead with "Global warming"? Why not "Climate change and global warming" instead of the other way around? Climate change is the term that both appropriately describes the article (since a lot of it is about the effects of global warming) and is the term that is most used in popular discourse, education, and the scientific community. I mean, my preference would be simply having "Climate change" on it's own, but I think it's OK if "global warming" is tacked on if that helps with consensus. Efbrazil (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Which of these sounds more natural to you?

Engine repair and carburator rebuild versus Carburator rebuild and engine repair

Meal prep and cooking versus Cooking and meal prep

Education and arithmetic versus Arithmetic and education

The usual convention is to start with the part and follow with the whole. As for adding parenthetical disambig, we just agreed there is strong PRIMARYTOPIC-(by use). Disambig isn't necessary. But making sense of the paradox of two true mutually exclusive definitions very much is needed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I favor "GW & CC" because^{to oversimplify} GW is the cause and CC is the effect. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(supplemental) Another point is the rest of the world seems to do it that way more ofte too. I was unhappy with the precision of my google searches, so I'm not posting links here, but I poked around in Google, and Google Books, and even the Library of Congress. Looking only at the main title, there seems to be more with the phrase GW & CC than the other way around. I never did figure out how to limit the searches to the exact phrases and main title only, so if someone else is better at that, maybe share some search urls? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you see the problem with leading with "global warming" in the renamed title? It makes it sound like that's the primary topic of the article, which causes lots of problems- 1. global warming is associated with alarmist messaging like "an inconvenient truth" (which used the term exclusively). 2. it's dated and not used in the public debate anymore 3. it's verbose and not needed for qualifying what "climate change" means in the first place, like you said. 4. having both terms with "and" will tend to make the focus of the article the terminology distinction instead of the topic itself. It would be as if we had the wikipedia article on "Evolution" called something like "Darwinism and evolution". Darwinism is a loaded term, antiquated, verbose, confusing, and unnecessary. You would expect that article to talk all about how darwinism came about and led to theories of evolution, instead of just being about the phenomena itself. If we agree that disambig isn't necessary, would you be in support of a straight rename to "Climate change"? I think that's inevitably where this article ends up, so maybe we should bite the bullet and do it now. Efbrazil (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Opposed to "climate change". Read the MOS about the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE (especially the sub paragraph WP:BOLDSYN). If it were "climate change", the first sentence would likely start off Climate change, also known as global warming is...blah blah blah... That would be a misrepresentation because it would invalidate the scientific definition of the terms as though that did not exist, and it would exclusively use the lay popular meaning of the terms. We aren't in the business of picking sides or leading terminology trends. The sources abundantly make clear that (A) one way they are used they are different and (B) the other way they are used they're the same. We can easily use both, and give a simple explanation of both ways they are used, and then get on with the (Beyond) Meat of the story. BTW, people in my town use "global warming" all the time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If the title of the article were simply "Climate change" then the topic would not start off with Climate change, also known as global warming. It would instead start off talking about climate change and how it is driven by greenhouse gas emissions. At some point global temperature would be discussed and the term global warming would be introduced. The point here is to be concise and accurate. Efbrazil (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Efbrazil, since this is only a friendly preliminary thread, I'll just observe that sources don't agree with you. They say the two are frequently used interchangeably, and on that basis I'd press to keep both in the title and the first sentence. But this is only the preliminary thread so I'm not going to keep repeating and repeating the same argument now. Hopefully not then either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: I think cause-and-effect (GW-->CC), and continued^{though evolving} use of both terms, trump formal considerations such as non-verbosity. To respond to your 19:51 comment: 1. "GW" isn't in fact alarmist; 2. "GW" is declining but far from absent; 3. GW should qualify CC, because recent CC is being mainly caused by GW; 4. the "and" links the two cause-and-effect terms that, collectively, are indeed the topic itself (substantive article content). —RCraig09 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy @RCraig09 I completely agree that "global warming" is both a synonym and a subset of climate change, depending on context. What I don't agree with is not having an article on "climate change". We must not lose the forest for the trees- we will be successful only when people can look up "climate change" and see an article entitled "climate change" on Wikipedia. I hope you also see that as a necessary goal. By the numbers on Google "climate change" is already used more than twice as often as "global warming", and the trend is continuing. See here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=climate%20change,global%20warming . See below for another proposal that attempts to address these concerns. Efbrazil (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Efbrazil: I disagree with your premise that readers look for "an article entitled climate change". When people search a term, what they seek is the substantive content of the term; how Wikipedia names articles is not readers' concern. The substantive content is here, regardless of the article's name. People arrive here after seeking the substance of "GW" and after seeking the substance of "CC" as they understand it. Don't confuse naming (which is formal) with content (which is substance). I can tell you're arguing in good faith, but I think you don't appreciate that in this article naming inquiry we're talking about formal labeling; it's article content that deals with the substance readers seek. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have three (related) objections to this title. I still think I consider it to be a slight improvement over the current title, but I'm not entirely sure. The first objection is the length: WP:TITLECRITERIA's conciseness criterion is quite clear that IF it is possible to denote the article name in a concise manner, that should be done. I think we have more concise titles at our disposal that are entirely clear. The second objection is specific to the word AND, about which the Article title guideline says: Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases. My final objection is that since global warming is the main aspect of climate change, including it is unnessesary
• The major reason I consider this a (possible) improvement over the previous title is that it's a step towards modernization with climate change being (in the) name of a very large majority of major RSs about this subject. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• The simplest, most straightforward option. It's a single subject known to the lay reader by two short names - so use both. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• If we use this title Global warming and climate change here is some draft first lead paragraph text

Modern-day global warming is causing climate change throughout the world. Because the Earth now has a positive energy balance, Earth's overall climate system is warming up, causing long-term changes in a wide variety of meteorological variables. Collectively, scientists call this climate change. Of all the meteorological variables, one of the most familiar is probably global surface temperature (GST), which is rising. Scientists call the rising GST global warming. Despite these distinct technical meanings, to the lay public the terms global warming and climate change are often used as synonyms to describe the warming of earth's climate system and its many diverse effects.

Technically we do not have to have any WP:LEADCITE and I left them out for the time being, for simplicity.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Break where we go into "GW-CC" causation

I'm strongly against saying that global warming is causing climate change, as it's mostly wrong. Global warming is (the most substantative) part of climate change. As RCraig09 showed, there are very few sources, most of them non-scientific/non-popsci, that refer to climate change as being caused by global warming. Which comes to the basic question again: As GW is part of CC, why mention it in the title? I'm not aware of any other title on Wikipedia that does this. Further comments on lede that don't bear on article titling: I would like to do something like this: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/climate-and-climate-change/climate-change/index, which omits technical and difficult terms like the Earth's energy budget, meteorological, variable, scientist, the (uncommon?) abbreviation for global surface temperature (normally we use GMST) and lay (yes, lay is a difficult term, especially for nonnative speakers that often don't have a direct translation for that word into their language). Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is it mostly wrong? In Earth's energy budget we see incoming solar energy first being converted to long wave radiation at earth's surface, which (I assume) warms that surface first. The build up of Ocean heat content does not begin at depth. It is a surface warming thing first. Only then do the extra BTUs make their way through the water column. Increased atmospheric vapor content does not happen from the stratosphere. It starts with surface warming driving increased evaporation. I've always understood that the conversion of insolation to infrared radiation at earth's survace was the first domino in the chain of dominoes. Without human activities messingup the energy budget, the chain of dominoes (the climate for most of history) remained stable. THe push of the human finger is knocking down the whole chain. But the first dominoe to fall is surface warming, i.e, increase GST, i.e. "global warming". It then knocks over all the others "causing" them to fall as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's mostly wrong because global warming is the main aspect of climate change. An (awkward) sentence like: "global warming causes many of the other changes in climate", would be correct. While you're right that many other changes are a result of surface warming, there are a few aspects of climate change that are not caused by global warming: (a) decreasing stratospheric temperatures, (b) increasing acidification (if you consider that part of the climate), (c) changes to do with regional differences in warming, such as possible changes in the jet stream. But most importantly you can't say A causes B, when A is a part of B. Even if we were to think it's true, let's follow the sources, which do not typically explain it like this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see your point. My text did accidentally imply GW was not in itself part of CC. Good catch. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: By the voting, the preferred choice (narrowly) among everyone is a simple rename to "climate change". I think that's pretty clearly what the article is covering, is clearly the most succinct choice, and is also where things will ultimately end up. I was surprised to see you oppose it without reason NAEG. Could you explain? Efbrazil (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Replying to Efbrazil's question above the outdent...

• A. We'll leave behind a substantial slice of the US audience over 30 years old. If we were reporting on Poodle breeds I wouldn't care. On this issue its really important to keep everyone on the same page
• B. As JJ has pointed out, the word choice matters 2011 study, 2017 study so the best way to overcome that bias (either our own or our readers) is to use both terms
• C. To help neutralize the "they changed the name" myth. [2]
• D. Staring into my crystal ball, I predict that a real RFC on a RM will be unwieldy and using both terms will be attractive to some, and will be grudgingly acceptable to enough others to be a happy middle place
• E. To avoid too much change at once. We only just moved the former climate change and there is already another RM at Climate change (general concept). I believe "change shock minimization" is desirable, and we should let at least a year of stable editing happen while these top level changes perk down through sub articles. A further refinement of the name here won't upset any of that.
• F. (reserved for whatever I forgot or haven't thought of yet!)

Thanks for asking, and that's why I want to use both terms in the form Global warming and climate change and do not want to use just Climate change. As a side note, these are all part of my reasons for not just using "global warming" either, though in that case I have additional reasons which I have been talking about off and on since at least my 2014 rename proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't have that much time, so I hope you can forgive the bluntness. A) Let's fight the WP:Systemic bias in favour of the US public on Wikipedia. I can accept that these people still use GW, but how do we know that they're unfamiliar with CC? And how many young people in Europe laugh when they see it's still called GW? For some, it might be as archaic as 'inadvertent climate modification' B & C) WP:TITLECHANGES states: remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense.. I also think that myth was tied to the GMST slowdown and has lost its relevance within the denial machine. D & E: tactical voting? With E, I agree that it's desirable to wait a bit before dust has settled before starting a RM. But I do think we should go for the optimum title directly and not some in between compromise if at all possible. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I've made CC&GW and GW&CC redirects to GW. Can we remove this 'pro' from GW&CC now? All the (natural?) proposed titles will lead to this article, so adding that to the table will make is unnecessary full. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That only solves in-wiki searching. For Google and other offwiki search engines my guess is that having both in the title is more likely to reach more readers searching for this article. In addition, once in awhile offline versions of Wikipedia are distributed, and I don't trust the redirects will work correctly under those conditions NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think we're here to compete with other sources on Google. I do wonder with our renaming effort whether Google will adjust its search results soon (one other reason for me to postpone a discussion untill we fixed all the internal links, which I suspect are used by Google to determine the importance of the article). If you're worried about redirects not working, surely you'd want to choose either of the two common names for this topic: global warming or climate change?

@Femke: I'm not sure we're communicating on this issue. I've just clarified my language: "GW" searches and "CC" searches lead here. Your new redirects are good to have, but those other terms aren't as likely to be searched as "GW", or as likely to be searched as "CC". I see this search destination as important, especially since it's only one line. Thanks for all your work. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I now understand what NEAG means by it (I assume you two are on the same wavelength on this?) and have specified that further in the table. Being findable by a search engine for both terms, while not one of our WP:CRITERIA, is indeed one of the unique advantages of this title. I've removed the link for naturalness. Upon closer reading, that criterion really about the entire title: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.. Readers are not looking for the compound typically for for either GW or CC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Femke: GW isn't an "aspect" of CC, it is the primary driver of CC effects. (I grant ocean acidification is an exception.) Your rejection that "A" can be causative of "B" arises from semantic confusion of just what "part of" means. You could as validly extend the definition of "climate change" to include greenhouse gases, and then by the same "part of" logic claim that GHG are not causative, which is patently false.

GW "is part of CC" only if CC is defined broadly. Even if the definition is broad enough to fully subsume GW it is still differentiated as being a cause rather than an effect. Blurring this distinction obscures matters of causation (and responsibility), and tends to reduce the "climate crisis" issue to "shit happens, get over it". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. All sources about climate change (without further specification) I find on Google's top 10 are clear: CC (referring to current climate change) is caused by us emitting GHG. That GW is a part/aspect instead of cause of (current) climate change is supported by a majority of these RSs as well As RCraig09 showed, it's only a small minority of sources, and I've not found one that meets our RSs standards, that say that CC is caused by GW. Of the three examples I gave of GHG impacting climate directly, the two others were stronger (cooling stratosphere, regional changes), as ocean acidification is only seen to be part of CC by some sources. The Met Office's view (among more sources) that ocean acidification is climate change's evil twin is more correct. You say that GW is part of CC only if CC is defined broadly. I've never never found any definition of climate or climate change that disregards temperature as one of the main variables. In the technical/general/broad definition of climate change (general concept), I would say that GW is a part of an (the current) instance of climate change (general concept), with that instance being caused by us. I recognize that there is a small group in the world still clamming on unto the specific climate change myth that what we see is natural, but for me the point has come to put the interests of the majority above this small group, and go for the name that scientists regard as most accurate ánd people use most. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The "causation"/"causality" issue seems to be between:

(#1) Humans --> GHGs --> GW --> CC --> SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW/etc . . . . (CC may include some of SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW.)

versus:

(#2) Humans --> GHGs --> (GW ∈ CC) --> SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW/etc . . . . (CC may include some of SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW.)

where --> is "causes", and "∈" means "is a subset of" and " SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW" are effects of CC.

@Femkemilene:, as I understand it, your are saying RSs favor #2, even though #1 emphasizes that GW is the cause of the rest of CC. Is my understanding correct? —RCraig09 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Separately: "Climate change (human-caused)" (or similar) avoids the "GW ∈ CC" altogether! —RCraig09 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, #2 is how almost all sources describe it (from the subset that makes it explicit). With the caveat that some sources also note some climatic changes that don't go via surface temparture increase alone: lapse rate, acidification (which I don't consider part of CC) and decreasing stratospheric temperatures. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a good (and workable) illustration of the issue, but there is a deeper issue in different conceptions of just what "GW" is. I'm working on an explanation, but need to know how much explanation is needed. In particular: does everyone present understand the difference between temperature and heat? I'm going to ping you all on this; please give me a "yes" or "no". If there are any page lurkers too shy to speak up please consider sending me an e-mail. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• @RCraig09? Yes, Ja, Si, Oui: I understand, but I don't understand why you're asking. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Femkemilene? Yep. You stated previously that difference between a form of energy, and its measurement. This is not entirely correct. Temperature and heat are both physical quantities with different units: Kelvin (unit) and Joule. To raise the temperature of water by one degree you need a factor of a 1000 more heat than to raise the temperature of air by one degree: ${\Delta T}={\frac {\Delta Q}{C_{V}}}.$, where Q stands for heat and C_V stands for the heat capacity. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a good point, but most people don't understand that a measurement of temperature is not a measurement of heat, which is key to what I will be going into RSN. :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Lurker in the Dark by Errol Fuller. Oil on panel, year unknown.

• @NewsAndEventsGuy? I decline to participate in the condescending pop-quiz. If you have something to say, please just say it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a pop-quiz, it's to find out what our backgrounds are, and how much I might have to explain what I will be saying. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Efbrazil?
• @François Robere? Irrelevant. You're going into a level of detail that doesn't matter. It's a general purpose encyclopedia, not a physics book. Titles should be accurate and representative enough, and reflect readers' expectations. Global warming may "just" be a subset of climate change, but it's also a standalone title and an important search term, and that's what matters. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Dave souza?
• @Chidgk1? Yes but I am not following this discussion because if I don't edit the climate change articles about the country where I live nobody else is likely to. Excellent lurker pic of my home country is distracting me though.
• @EMsmileyes - Well, I think I know what the difference is but if you ask me like that I wonder if there is more to it than I am aware of. ;-) My next step would be to look up the two Wikipedia articles: on heat and on temperature. :-) EMsmile (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Mu301 and Mikeu? I tend to agree that it is a bit condescending. I would expect that most participants here have more than the average understanding of the two. I decline to participate in this irrelevant and distracting digression. --mikeu ^talk 14:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC) (updated) --mikeu ^talk 22:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• And lurkers?

Femke: You misunderstand. I am not claiming that anthropogenic GWGs are not ultimately the cause of GW/CC. (Of course they are!) But I do claim that most CC effects (such as rising sea level) don't happen just because there is some CO2 in the atmosphere, but via the intermediate step of increased temperatures (or heat), as RCraig09 has illustrated.

I am a bit disappointed you complain about sources not meeting RS standards, yet in your own sources just provided none are from the peer-reviewed climate science literature, one (#3) is an unattributed excerpt from Romm's book (#6) where he quotes a Climate.gov (NASA) webpage. Also, in your count of which term scientists seemingly favor I think your are not recognizing that many sources use these terms in distinctly different ways. I'll try to illustrate this with some examples tomorrow. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As I've said many times before, I agree that surface warming is an intermediate step. Calling an intermediate step a cause is where the problem lies for me. We have had differences in opinion about what constitues a good reliable source, where I put vetted official websites from NASA, NOAA, Met Office that try to explain things to a lay audience (almost) very high for definitions and introductory knowledge. I have not been able to find good peer-reviewed articles after searching for a while, but agree that this would be a good addition. The fact that a lot of research has been done on the differentiated response to GW or CC makes it difficult to find physical scientists saying anything about it. Mu301's overview is a better attempt: User:Mu301/Climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to observe that the cause is neither surface warming nor greenhouse gases. The original cause is human choices. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed! Though that could be taken back further ("In the beginning ..."). Why certain choices were made is (or at least is for me) an intriguing topic, but gets beyond the scope of this topic (however it is framed). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

As this might influence our wording of the first paragraph, I'm going to do some observing as well. I agree with you, but I've not seen it phrased like that. The closest phrasing that is quite common in RSs is that human emissions (not choices) are "The Cause". Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This may be one of those SKYISBLUE things, and related to the past culture of science-speak. IPCC WG1 says its' unequivocal that most of the warming is due to human activities. I suppose one could argue that they didn't say optional activities. Meanwhile "Choice" appears 487 times in IPCC AR5 WG3 full report on mitigation. In 2011, the National Research Council in the US published a then-required report bearing the title "American's Climate Choices". But we're drifting 'way off from the discourse on heat vs temperature which to me has no obvious connection to the original discussion of article title. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 and NewsAndEventsGuy: you seem to be interested in how easy people can find the article via a search engine. I've been noticing that a 'global warming' search for me mostly gives pages named 'climate change', but that might be because Google knows more about me than me and prefers European searches. Just did one of these 'unbiased' Google searches for a random loc in the US and UK. It seems that Google is using CC as a synonym for GW (twoway), so that the Wikipedia page is actually showing up already for both searches for a 'typical' user. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my thinking is that lay readers who search (internally or through Google) for "GW", and lay readers who search for "CC", should both be immediately reassured they have reached the intended destination; this reassurance is more easily accomplished in the title than in the lead. Scientifically, I know "GW" is waning, and "CC" is dominant and scientifically more correct, but on the other hand, substantively, GW is the cause of the effects of CC even though RSs consider GW a subset of CC. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Femke, good but not enough though. Incidentally DuckDuckGo behaves similarly.

Alas, we can't assume a real noob, particularly in the US, will necessarily click on the search engine hit for our article after searching for the other term. If BOTH terms are in the title, this particular problem is completely vaporized

A new thought... think about longterm article maintenance. A large (total?) percentage of participants in this thread seem to agree we should explain both the narrow technical meaning and the lay speech synonymity of these terms. If we ever decide to stop doing that, we can have a discussion and decide to stop doing that. But over the longterm, the next crop of editors (or some like me with rapidly aging braincells) may lose track of this current objective. By having both terms in the title we won't need to remember it! If we later decide we have outgrown this approach we always have an intentional discussion about leaving that article text and compound title behind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion moved here from immediately after "Reasoning chart"

@RCraig09:: I've deleted and modified the statement about -Internal searches "GW" and "CC" lead here a few times. I really don't understand why this would be unique for that specific title. Could you elaborate? Nobody is suggesting that we would do it differently for any other title, right? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the most likely >>>wp:commonname<<< searches to find this subject matter are "GW" and "CC": the title "GW & CC" is the only destination title that captures what each searcher is searching for, instantly assuring both searchers they have arrived at their intended destination. The "Policy Against" column notes that the title as a whole does not fulfill WP:COMMONNAME; both sides are presented. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} External and internal searches will land on whichever title we settle on. We can create numerous redirects that will steer traffic to the chosen name. No title has an advantage in this sense. The search engines will figure it all out, that's what they do. (The discussion about which search phrase is historically or more recently popular is an entirely different question.) I agree with Femke Nijsse on the point above. I find the arguments by RCraig09 to be unpersuasive. That's just not how search works. --mikeu ^talk 21:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

My point, more an observation than an argument, was not about searching per se. I understand we can steer people here. My point is about the human factor: whether most humans who do arrive here, immediately see what they expect. You are correct: it is "an entirely different question". —RCraig09 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

In short: the entry relates to avoiding WP:SURPRISE. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

First, why are we turning the table section into a discussion section? Second, @Mu301 we all agree (I think) that a search engine will produce our article whether the user searches Bing or DuckDuckGo or Google and whether they input "climate change" or instead input "global warming". So then our article (whatever its called) appears. Hooray! But wait.... we are assuming the searcher will realize the (whatever our article is called title) is the one they want even though they input the other term. No search engine can connect the dots in the users mind. I'll admit that most searchers will probably figure it out. But can you admit that some noobs who look up "global warming" might not know enough to click on a Wikipedia article called "climate change"? Yet another thought.... For 17.5 years we have taught readers that our article "climate change" was about the general concept. So take someone who learned that, is not a regular, does not know about this overhaul, and they want to refer back to our article. So they go to their search engine and input "global warming". If we simply rename this to "climate change", that reader is going to see the right article but it will be called "climate change". And they may say to their self, "Dammit I know Wikipedia's climate change article is about the generic climate change, where's the damn global warming article?" In short, yes we all agree (I think) the search engines will return our article, whether its "climate change" or "global warming and climate change". But we can't be certain users will click the "climate change" only hit if they input "global warming". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I think that bolding both in the first paragraph, like we do in all other articles with multiple names, makes it perfectly clear for everybody they landed on the right page.

@NEAG: I very much doubt a substantial percentage of people will remember what we named our articles before. People will see a snippet of the page on Google, including the bolding that we apply to the page (both GW and CC bolded). I find arguments like this rather unconvincing and would very much like to stick to Wikipedia's policies with regards to article naming. If we look at the discussion at climate change (general concept), where there was a very strong policy reason to move away from the old title, substantial opposition came from two WP:CRITERIA that weren't met well: naturalness and possibly precision. Here we have the second-most WP:COMMONNAME that works okayish with most policies, which makes that we have to have a very clear case based on policy. Fixing internal links and waiting some time for readers to notice this change before proposing the RM may mitigate these concerns further. Please halp? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@NEAG: I changed my vote on "global warming and climate change" to modest support. I hope you will also revisit the chart and reconsider your votes. You are strongly opposed to all the options except what you prefer. There are good arguments for several titles in there, and strong arguments against leaving the title as-is. I think the most constructive bar to use in considering your vote is how that relates to leaving the article title as-is, vs comparing the title to your preferred choice. Do you think it would be helpful to redo the chart as a "ranked choice voting" chart? Other thoughts on getting to consensus? Efbrazil (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, Maybe you missed Efbrazil's question, but as I respect your opinion and experience here, I would also like to know what you think of climate change only with respect to global warming. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I am happy with either climate change or global warming and climate change. Since I have started an indefinite wikibreak, I'd give greater weight to the opinion of folks doing the work. Thanks everyone! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Climate change

• with Global warming as a section in that article: Don't you think wikipedia needs an article on "Climate change"? We have one, but we're calling it Global warming. Global warming technically means surface temperature changes only, so we can create a section named Global warming underneath the "Observed temperature changes" section of this article. The redirect for the search term Global warming would go to that new section. The content of the section would be about global surface temperatures, and a subsection of that section could be about the historical use of the term (for instance in "an inconvenient truth"). Since the redirect target for Global warming would exist in the context of all of Climate change, the redirect will also work for people that are interested in the larger issues of Climate change and not the limited issue of just surface temperature. Win-win idea, right? Efbrazil (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Efbrazil, those are specific details for an idea based on reasoning you've already put forward.... namely, you want to really hammer on the technical usage of these terms to create this argument while just ignoring the equally valid "They mean the same thing" useage by a lot of lay public. However you package that reasoning into a details about execution I'm probably going to oppose the idea, and I oppose this one for reasons previously stated. Moving on to a new aspect, just a few minutes ago (21:33 1 November 2019) you said "We will be successful only when people can look up "climate change" and see an article entitled "climate change" on Wikipedia" QUESTION - How are you measuring "success"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: @Efbrazil: @Dave souza: @UnitedStatesian: I urge all of you to enter your username into the Table above, to solidly clarify our basic positions. You can change later, of course. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging and red seems redundant (and hard to read). I'm not in any big rush, personally, and would like to wait to hear what latecomers ideas might be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 I added this to the chart in the hopes of winning you over to the idea of a "Climate change" article. @NewsAndEventsGuy I am not wanting to "hammer on the technical usage of these terms". I originally proposed "Climate change (global warming)" and still like that, but people complained that that was not technically correct because the terms mean different things. I'm trying to satisfy those that want to see the terms meaning the same thing and those that want a clear technical definition separated out. That differs from the proposal by UnitedStatesian. Regarding what is "success". Success means that people looking up "Climate change" will find an article entitled "Climate change" because it's concise, it's technically what the article is covering, and it's the preferred terminology by more than 2:1 among the public (and entirely in the scientific / educational community). I added this proposal to the end of the chart and put my name in the chart. Efbrazil (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A "CC" article would a tolerable result, but it subverts^{by your own "2:1" estimate} expectations of one-third of the public which is WP's main audience, and obscures the critical cause-and-effect GW-->CC relationship. You may not have seen my 01:14, 2 Nov post, above (please read); readers seek substantive content, not article titles per se. P.S. With respect, I will "comment out" your nearly-duplicative entry in the Table, because the Table's purpose is to concisely simplify editors' positions on article naming. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Climate change with Global warming as a redirect to it. Global warming is a superset that includes climate change Climate change is a superset that includes global warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification, etc. The article includes both topics but the more generic phrase should be the title. Climate change is now the accepted term for what was once more commonly called global warming. This is seen in authoritative sources that journalists rely on[3], the style guides of news organizations[4], scientific societies[5], and the United Nations[6][7]. The public might use the terms interchangeable but that is not how subject experts use the term. The article clarifies this point early on. --mikeu ^talk 23:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

mikeu: Excellent refs! (though the United Nations link is a repeat of the CarbonBrief/BBC link). I think you may have mis-written your second sentence: did you in fact mean CC is the superset containing GW? (Actually, I think GW causes CC is most correct, so that both terms should be in the title ("GW and CC") for as long as numerous readers, and some sources, still search for both terms GW and for CC.) —RCraig09 (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed excellent refs. @RCraig09, thanks for driving this, but.. I think you're view that global warming causes climate change is, in essense, incorrect. The most important (reported on) aspect of climate is temperature. Strictly speaking, climate change is only about the state of the atmosphere, so climate change = (temperature rise (global warming) + precipitation change + wind pattern change}. More loosely speaking it also includes other changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise. Ocean acidification is not part of climate change, but is an environmental issue with the same cause. To see whether it's a common misconception, I Googled global warming causes climate change. Even explicitly looking for sources that might say that global warming causes climate change, I came up with no results. Mu301's description is correct: global warming is (the most important) subset of climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Femki, for your (as always) thoughtful response. I think there is some vagueness in trying to distinguish GW from CC, and distinguishing each from their effects. Yes, temperature is part of climate, but GW's 1°C temperature increase per se is barely noticeable compared to its effects. Symbolically:

GHGs --> GW --> CC --> SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW/etc . . . . (CC may include some of SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW.)

Even if (as you seem to say) CC includes GW, then modern GW is still the necessary precursor to the rest of CC and SLR/OA/GR/ASID/EW effects. My own scholar.google.com search for "global warming causes climate change" (with quotes) turned up only 56 results (google.com search ~4200 results), so some have a similar interpretation, leading me to favor a "GW & CC" title for now (2019). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate on my reasoning: all of those references use the standalone phrase "climate change" in the title or header as the subject of the page. Additional terms like anthropogenic or mention of global warming are relagated to mentions or clarifications lower down after declaring the title of the topic at top. My opinion is that we should follow this practice. Yes, there is confusion amongst the public about the difference between global warming and climate change that experts endeavor to correct[8] but they don't include top level topic pages about global warming[9] even if they do discuss study of the phenomenon[10]. I've seen no refs similar to the ones that I've given that use clunky combination titles like CC&GW or other varients listed above, which I strongly object to. It is simply "climate change" and the rest of the words and phrases are concepts to be elaborated further along in the body of the work. (work meaning the refs above or this WP article which should be like a mirror of the RSs we include in our footnotes) Thanks for pointing out the typos. I struck and corrected above. --mikeu ^talk 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well said, mikeu. I agree with your reasoning. EMsmile (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Climate change is a superset that includes global warming, ice ages, holocene decline in temperatures, and regional climate changes such as the little ice age and the medieval warm period as well as more local climate changes. Global warming or heating is a subset, and generally refers to an aspect of climate change since the industrial revolution. . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Slight correction - whereas climate change (the general concept) is the superset, among ordinary people "climate change" = "global warming" = "climate change" = "global warming". And we all know ordinary people are talking about the present. I think, Dave, you compared the technical definition of climate change to the lay persons definition of global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As said in another place, Metro is for lay persons, the lay person on the Clapham omnibus or any other form of public transport in the UK, and when they publish Hamill, Jasper (29 October 2019). "Climate change caused mass extinction apocalypse and killed 75% of life on Earth". Metro. Retrieved 29 October 2019. they expect their lay readers to have heard of climate changes before the industrial revolution. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "superset", it's the same thing. Sea level rise, ocean acidification etc. are all caused by global warming. François Robere (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: please show the sources in which you say ocean acidification is "caused" by "global warming". I've seen them described as "evil twins" (example [11]) but never as one causing the other. Rather, in sources I've read the two have the same cause (increasing atmospheric CO2). If you burn your dinner, you're hunger is left unsatisfied and your house is full of smoke. They share a common causation, but does the smokey house make you hungry? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll clarify: All of these effects are part of the same cluster of phenomena and follow the same trends, which means "global warming" (or "global heating"), "climate change" and "rise in greenhouse gasses levels in the atmosphere" are practically synonymous. Article titles aren't granular enough to address these differences - that should be done in article bodies. François Robere (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Many of the numerous comments throughout this discussion page are important considerations for the substance of this article. This thread, however, is not about the content of the article it is about the title. The suggestions of including all of these nuanced ideas and concepts in the name of the page are misguided and a distraction from the task that we are considering. The phrase "climate change" has overtaken "global warming" as the de facto[12][13][14] catch all term for the subject of this article. A meta-analysis of RS coverage of the ideas described here tracks both CC and GW mentions in the news but the title of the project is Media and Climate Change Observatory[15] (emphasis added) indicating a clear preference for CC as the definitive descriptive term for the idea. If you disagree with this common sense interpretation of the title suggestion I am more than willing to provide copious references that support[16][17][18][19][20][21] this assertion despite my feeling that continuing the debate is futile. I honestly don't understand why there is reluctance to accept the obvious observation that "climate change" is the canonical term for the concept described in the article. --mikeu ^talk 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

But not exclusively for the particular concept: it is also th canonical term for all climate change, including earlier non-warming changes – usage is context dependent. Note the UN source also mentions global warming, relating to the recent SR on the topic . . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is not exclusively used in this sense but it is "often" and "in particular" "especially, in current use" referring to contemporary global warming. This is the most common interpretation unless someone is writing about an obscure topic like ~30,000 year old sea turtles - a subject that rarely makes the front page above the fold. A wide circulation news magazine that has devoted entire issues[22] to the title hardly needs to clarify that it is not about an ancient apocalypse. There are no significant efforts to survey public attitudes about the general concept.[23] Reliable sources overwhelming use the simple two word phrase specifically for recent. I don't understand your last statement, SR? --mikeu ^talk 00:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Mu301 for your thoroughness in convincing me how far "CC" has overtaken "GW" in sources^{(330M hits for "CC" vs 78 for "GW" in today's Google search)}, especially (as @Femke notes) outside the U.S. and in proper technical sources. As another option: to distinguish the content of this article from Climate change (general concept), are you open to my proposal ("Anthropogenic CC") in the next sub-sub-section? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Lengthy explanatory article titles are contrary to WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and just plain WP:COMMONSENSE. It is an attempt to cram MOS:LEAD material into a page name. I've given a lengthy list of highly notable references that refrain from doing this. We should emulate these examples. Note: I'm currently a resident of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations but I used to reside in the Commonwealth of Massachusets. It would be absurd to use those phrases is any context except the title of a court case. --mikeu ^talk 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeu: reply given in following section: RCraig09 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• re "climate change" comment by NAEG reasons I do not want to use just "climate change" can be found in the section for Global warming and climate change. With thanks to Efbrazil who reminded me I hadn't addressed this point, my reasoning is in this specific diff. BTW there are 5 criteria to be used for deciding an article WP:TITLE. I have yet to study those five points and craft pro/con arguments accordingly, so there will probably be more to say later.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmm, one of today's news headlines is: "Billionaire Buys 'Climate Change' on Google". Okay, he's just buying placement of ads in search results for that and similar search terms. Probably shouldn't affect us. :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Anthropogenic climate change (or) Human-caused climate change (or) Climate change (human-caused) etc.

- This title best describes the content (subject matter) of this article (why did I not see it earlier?). A bare-bones "Climate change" title gives the incorrect impression that the content of this article is about as broad as Climate change (general concept)—which it is not.
- Separately: As a Yank I'm still seeing much use of the term "GW",^{(6 "CC" and 4 "GW" uses in this Nov 5 WashPost article)} but I acknowledge that "GW" is being supplanted by "CC" as many editors correctly describe above.
- By implication: If "GW"—the most direct cause of CC's effects and the cause of CC itself by some definitions—is eliminated from this article's title, then the essence of this subject matter—that humans, if not GW, have caused recent climate change—should be reflected in the title. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The word anthropogenic is a more difficult synonym for human-caused and is a big no-go for me. I'm also opposed to human-caused. In the previous renaming discussion, the closer determined that there was overly clear consensus that climate change's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is human-caused climate change. Therefore, the WP:CONCISE redirect or title will nót give the impression that it's about climatic changes in general. That's why so many of our RSs use climate change without any further specification in the title. I think I agree with mikeu that we'd be putting article content into the title if we insist on spelling out the human-causedness. If we want a further specification, I prefer modern as it is a bit more concise, and doesn't specify the article's content but only the topic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument is an artefact of common usage: most articles about CC cover post-industrial revolution changes, and in that context most change is related to GW, but not all CC is GW and so equating the two is misleading. It's a way of causing confusion: readers are being led to expect that the medieval warm period changes were not climate change, for example, or ice age glaciation wasn't climate change. That's reasonably well clarified if we refer here to modern climate change, not sure how well that covers continuing expected warming. . . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I favor Global warming and climate change, with lead text that explains both the technical distinction and lay synonymity.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that most articles are about current GW & CC means that we should follow those sources, right? Past global warming (f.i. PETM) and other past climate change is always described in sources with some extra context (past tense in title, climatic change, explicitly stating past global warming). I don't think that using the common terminology is confusing. If lay people want to read about current climate change, we don't have to put front and center that within the scientific community, we sometimes (in my experience rarely) use climate change in the broader definition. We should put front and center the on-topic distinction between current climate change and current global warming. I'm not in favour of explaining four definitions in the first paragraphs of the lede (current global warming, difference with current climate change, different with past global warming, difference with past climate change), when instead we should be talking about all the different things about what is happening now (causes, physical effects, effects on life, what we can do, what we're doing). I think putting the scientific definitions of global warmings and climatic changes in the lede will lead high school students to stop reading, and fit better in the terminology section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

First: Thanks to all for thoughtful consideration!

Two considerations conflict: ● Issue 1: Scientific source usage, and ● Issue 2: popular usage (including popular press and non-scientist WP readers searching). . . . . . . . Ours is a unique situation and simple policy/guideline rules don't lead to clean results. I see that, especially internationally and scientifically, "CC" is well on the way to supplanting "GW" (Issue 1, above). However, outside sources don't have to consider how the substantive subject matter of WP articles inter-relates ("Issue 2", above), especially to distinguish "CC" from "CC(GenCon)" which, misleadingly, seem equally broad (incoming readers won't appreciate wiki-concepts like WP:primarytopic-ness). Bottomline, I think we should distinguish this article's substantive subject matter in the title (not the lead) so readers instantly understand which subject matter they have reached. Conciseness is a formal consideration, not substantive, and I think 1-3 extra words are warranted in our unique situation: either "GW &..." or "Human-caused..." though I think "Modern..." is vague. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that scientific and popular usage conflict of the word climate change. Sure, many sources copy IPCC's technical/general definition into their glossaries (which in its latest report, is explicitly stated as a definition only used FOR that report), but they use climate change like anybody else. Furthermore, in choosing an article name, we should be considering the general public, not the expert audience. As such, our desire to want to distinguish from the general definition is, in my eyes, somewhat moot. As many outside sources (NASA) also study past climate change, they do have to consider how to distinguish CC from CC(GenCon), and they often go for the distinction in title 'CC' and 'past CC'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed: focus on general public & popular press for article name. The public and popular press (U.S. more than other countries, as I understand it) still regularly use "GW".^{(6 "CC" and 4 "GW" uses in this Nov 5 WashPost article)} which is why also favor "GW&CC". Conciseness is a formal WP goal, but, here, "Human-caused CC" (or new suggestion "CC (human-caused)") best describes this substantive subject matter and, further, neatly disambiguates it from "CC(GenCon)". P.S. I'm ~"OK" with a bare "CC", but it sounds comparably broad to "CC(GenCon)". —RCraig09 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your creativity. Unfortunately, climate change (human-caused) suffers from many above objections of previous names PLUS one extra big one.

• It's not concise
• It used parentheses (if a good natural title exists, avoid: from WP:PARENDIS: {{tq: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.}} (emphasis mine)
• It uses an adjective in these parentheses. Our WP:Disambiguation guidelines states: rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, as in Vector (spatial), but it is usually better to rephrase such a title to avoid parentheses (for instance, Vector (spatial) was renamed to Euclidean vector).. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Femke, I think this section's proposals are as precise as possible while still capturing the substantive scope of the subject matter... and also disambiguating. Your second and third observations are WP formal guidelines, which don't deal cleanly with the substance of this subject's unique situation. But please add to the "Reasoning" chart, above. You are uniquely qualified to appreciate both the substance and WP formal guidelines. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

In our discussion on climate change (general concept) we determied that climate change's primary topic is very very clearly our current climate change. This is the bar against which "substantative scope" is typically measured, not making it air-tight. I think it's somewhat bad form to delete the precision argument from the table because you disagree. There is so much literal support for them in our sources, for instance in the sources that Mu301 collected (CC preferred because more accurate is what many sources state). I'm not deleting any arguments I find weak, only arguments I consider off-topic or nonsensical. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I have reverted my earlier edit. It wasn't that I disagreed; it's just that "CC" is ambiguous, even in scientific sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but that disadvantage is also mentioned. Many scientific sources explicitly state climate change is the more accurate term for current warming compared to GW. Therefore both sides must be mentioned in the table. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I've been meaning to ask: which scientific sources (preferably peer-reviewed) explicitly state that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A collection of two-and-a-half papers that explicitly state this:

• natural scientists have advocated shifting from talking about global warming to talking about climate change, because the latter is more technically accurate
• The terminology showed changes in use over time with global warming starting as the more well-known term, and then its use decreased over time. At the same time, the more definitive term climate change had less exposure early on; however, with the increase of press exposure, the public became increasingly aware of the term and its more accurate definition.
• (and partially) “Global climate change” has become a more fitting moniker than“global warming” because it more accurately describes the range of possible predicted changes,

References

As I said earlier in the following section: The "scientific literature" you referred to is not the science of climate, but of communication. Your first source [Villar & Krosnick 2011] was a survey of how the public perceives these terms, the second [Lineman et al. 2015] assessed public "knowledge and awareness of these terms", and the third [Wilson 2000] analyzed reporter's "understanding of climate change". What I would like to see is how climate scientists use these terms. And not relative usage, but what they are referring to. The papers you cite here do not do that.

Saying that CC – or any term – is "more accurate" is meaningful only by reference to what it is supposed to be referring to. If you extend the scope and intended meaning of CC wide enough then it covers EVERYTHING, including all of these alternative titles. And then it really needs to be a disambiguation page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Those three papers are indeed about the public/reporters usage of the term, but comment on physical scientists' use of the term. These papers were clearly about human-caused climate change, so that's what that statement was about. There is really no ambiguity there.

While we were discussing a name change for climate change (general concept) I analyzed the first 100 papers that came up when typing climate change in Google Scholar (and Web). Only one of them used it to refer to climatic change not caused by humans. As such, a disambiguation page would be against policy per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If you don't agree with that decision, the closer is the one you should be discussing it with. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Information with Google Tests to establish COMMONNAMES

The policy on wikipedia titles gives us some leeway to nót go for the most common title. It states: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Above, we have identified problems with all names below. In a few days time, I'd like to summarize very concisely all of the identified problems and connect all of them to one of the WP:CRITERIA for title names, if possible.

Proposed article name	Google Trend	Ngram (books)	Google results	News	News old	Scholar
Global warming	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Global warming and climate change plus reverse	3.3%	2.2%	2.48%	~0%		11 %
Climate change	175%	190%	243%	260%	35%	314%
Human-caused climate change	?	?	0.05%	?	?	1.15%
Anthropogenic climate change	?	?	?

Conclusion: more reliable sources (Google scholar, and Books) have a bigger preference for CC over GW than less reliable sources (News, Google searches). The combination global warming and climate change is mostly single-digit. Whether this is fairly common, is up for discussion.

Correction: "more reliable sources" do NOT "have a bigger preference for CC over GW" as a term, as the comparison does not necessarily reflect a preference of terms. More likely it reflects a choice of subjects, which have different names. The physics and reality of global warming is established; science is moving on to study the current and forthcoming changes in climate.

Buried in a note: The Google Trend and News data is only for the last twelve months. If a longer period is used, such as the last 15 years, CC never exceeds a third of peak GW usage. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to find out the same values for "anthropogenic climate change", and found that at least Google Trends has a number of parameters (e.g. geographical scope, and time period). Can you clarify what you used? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Specified further in notes. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Either I can't operate it, or ACC comes in below the rounding down bar on trends. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Many of the question marks are indeed because Google Trends doesn't show results when it's below a certain threshold. The passive Google Tests (Scholar, Results), do capture smaller percentages. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the string "global warming" and "climate change" would direct a reader to an article titled "Global warming and climate change", so we might as well capture both leading terms. François Robere (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I plan to add a separate chart with "Pro" and "Con" columns, to summarize concise arguments for each proposal. Would that help? —RCraig09 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to do it, be my guest. I do think it's extremely important to link arguments to actual policy and to either leave out arguments that cannot be linked to any criterion, or make them small. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave the "reasoning" column mostly blank, to start. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@F, could you please add the search url to the notes? Maybe pipe the link to not clutter up the screen. The metric I'd most like to see is not in this table but is probably impossible to code into a url. I would most like to know the count limited only to sources which explain the technical distinction as well as the lay speech synonimity of these terms. It's a good bet the hit rate for the both-term searches would go up substantially. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have the motivation/time to redo all of the tests. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the exact url used for the table above, but here are some links that I found useful if you'd like to try modifying the search terms or date range. I used an arbitrarily longer range of time than above based on the length of each dataset.

• Google Books Ngram (1980 - 2008)
• Google News Search Trends (2008 - now)
• Google Web Search Trends (2004 - now)
• ICE CaPs (2004 - now, showing total "CC" .OR. "GW" for comparison to above. More at [24])

--mikeu ^talk 19:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I find this use of "Google Tests" quite dubious. In the first place, please note the nutshell summary at WP:Search_engine_test (a.k.a WP:Google): "Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring and what your measurement can mean." See also (under Neutrality): Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity."

Very definitely, we do not know what all those Google hits are measuring. In particular, we have no context of how those terms are being used, or how the authors may have qualified them. (As an illustration: suppose a debate on which of two terms is more meaningful. Side "A" might use term "B" a lot [and vice-a-versa] to describe their argument against, and a mere count of the use of the terms in the debate would be meaningless, saying nothing about how either term should be used or what it means.) Nor do such counts informs of what people are using for search terms, let alone the precise topic they are looking for.

Hit counts are crude statistics that carry no information on how those terms are used, or defined. Which goes to my second point: WP:COMMONNAMES presumes multiple names for a (singular) topic. The case here is not at all a simple case of whether a certain common object should be called a "bucket" or a "pail". When I looked at a sample of scholarly papers since 2015 that used both "global warming" and "climate change" I found that in many cases those terms were being used differently, to refer to related but different concepts.

Perhaps most illustrative for our purposes is the following from Hulme (2009):

In the English language, the terms most often used to describe the physical transformation of global climate through human modification of the atmosphere have varied over time. The 'greenhouse effect' or 'enhanced greenhouse effect' were terms widely used in the early scientific framing of the issue in the 1980s and early 1990s (see Chapter 2: The Discovery of Climate Change). These have subsequently been largely replaced by either the more generic term 'climate change' or the more evocative expression 'global warming'.

The proposed "Global warming and climate change" formulation reflects that both terms are in common use (even as synonyms, though that is not correct). If these terms are to be ranked, then the compound term should be considered a superset that covers both individual cases. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

A bit of an intimidating wall of text for the early Saturday morning. I explicitly stated that I was using using the GoogleTest to determine the WP:COMMONNAME, not to cover the other goals for the best title, yet you still claim my use of the GoogleTest to be dubious because it doesn't tell anything about neutrality. The second reason you give is that the GoogleTests doesn't show us how the terms are being used. Remember that I spent hours working myself through hundreds of links in Scholar and normal search to tally how climate change was being used when WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of climate change was being determined. Please regard this part of the evidence in light of that as well. The one percent of pages about climate change in other contexts is negligible for this test.

There has been a change in the use of climate change versus global warming over the last 10 years (as clear from these tests and commented on in scientific literature). While I don't disagree entirely with your source, it's ten years old, completely before that shift took place. With the climate movement using terms like climate crisis, climate emergency and not things like global warming crisis or warming crisis, it's quite likely there has been a shift in evocativeness of the term climate change. I still very much doubt whether these arguments fall under the neutrality heading instead of the morally or politically right part of the policy, which would mean we're not meant to take the argument into account at all.

That Google hit counts don't show us how the terms are being used is actually my primary point. Your claim that "climate change" is used consistently (the "one percent ... in other contexts") is not persuasive because (a) I don't know how expansively you defined the term, and (b) my point is not whether (under some broad definition) "climate change" is used consistently, but whether is used differently from "global warming". In the thirty or so articles I sampled from Google Scholar since 2015 that use both terms it appeared they were used for distinct and differing ways. (Unfortunately, as tested by an earlier examination of about 60 articles, it appears that in the primary literature most scientists don't define their terms, so there is little to no connection from distinct use to explicit definition.)

Please note: my claim is not that hit counts don't tell us anything about neutrality, only that they don't tell us anything about usage, and the intended meaning.

Your reference to "the "morally or politically right" part of the policy" would be to the "Considering changes" section (shortcut WP:TITLECHANGES) of WP:TITLE. The actual bit of policy there is about strongly discouraging changing a controversial title without consensus. The "moral or political" bit is an aside, that "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right"" in either sense. It does NOT "mean we're not meant to take the argument into account at all." Being "not dependent on" does not preclude consideration. However, the "political" argument is not relevant to my objection to relying on hit counts. (I will make that argument later.) Perhaps you missed (insufficient caffeination? :-]) the essence of what I quoted: ""Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity."" [Italicization added.] ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. (I forgot this). @Femkemilene: I have provided a reliable (and authoritative) source about previous usage. If there has been a notable change in use in the last 10 years "commented on in scientific literature" could you perhaps cite that literature? Thank you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course I can give an example again :). From the list made by User:Mu301/Climate_change:

Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The term 'global warming' is included to capture documents, particularly those in the early years of the dataset, that still used this term over 'climate change.

The terms “greenhouse effect” and “global warming” were commonly used from the 1980s but have been largely replaced, since the late 1990s, by “climate change”. More recently, terms such as “climate crisis” have entered use in parliament.

Femke, I am quite disappointed. The "scientific literature" you referred to is not the science of climate, but of communication, and the two references you provided here are about the use of these terms by politicians (in the Congressional Record, and in Parliament). Allow me to remind you that we generally go by expert opinion, not as used by shills, clowns, or ignorami, and certainly not popular opinion. (I allow we should make some accommodation for common terms [even when incorrect], but that is what redirects are for.)

The sources on Mu301's list appear to all be either surveys of usage by the public, politicians, or "news" sources, or studies of framing. I have not read all of them (nor am inclined to do so), but they don't seem to cover expert usage, and any change of usage "over the last ten years" by non-experts is not controlling.

But do look at Leiserowitz et al. 2014 ("what's in a Name", from the Project on Climate Change Communication). That starts off with: "This report provides results from three studies that collectively find that global warming and climate change are often not synonymous...". They also presented findings that 1) "Americans have historically used global warming as a search term much more frequently than climate change" (see also the graph), and 2) Americans say they hear "global warming" more often than "climate change" in public discourse, and use it more often in their own conversations.

As I (and others) have been saying: distinct terms used in distinct ways. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's another explicit statement from 2014: "Consequently, the trend toward increasing use of the term climate change over global warming by the scientific community is..."[25] --mikeu ^talk 16:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

mikeu: Your quote from the Guardian's guest commentary mischaracterizes the sense of the piece. Let's look at the lead paragraph (emphasis added):

In recent years, there has been debate over whether the public responds to the terms "global warming" and "climate change" similarly, seeing them as essentially equivalent or regarding them as separate phenomena. The former refers to the overall warming of the Earth's atmosphere, which most scientists attribute to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that stem from human actions such as burning fossil fuels. The latter refers to the changing climatic conditions and their effects that result from this warming -- including major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns that occur over several decades or longer.

Note the distinction between "overall warming of the Earth's atmosphere" by GHG, and "changing climatic conditions and their effects that result from this warming". Distinct topics, and any increasing usage of CC in the scientific community quite likely reflects the unequivocal acceptance of the "carbon dioxide theory", and now they are moving on to study the resulting effects of climatic change and how to mitigate them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've stated many times before, I agree that the two terms, while often used interchangeably, have slightly distinct meanings. I'm happy we now agree that CC's use in increasing in scientific literature and that this is because aspects of CC not captured in the word GW are more prominent. Those aspects are also covered in this article, and therefore we should reflect that in the title. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Reacting to a previous point. We showed that the US lags behind the rest in the world in changing terminology to CC, with the change happening as late as 2014 in that one country. Your 2014 Leiserowitch paper just confirms the old usage, but has been superceded by recent change: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=global%20warming,climate%20change. It uses the same techniques that we are using, but with old data. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think these are "slightly distinct" meanings. If we make allowance for misusage, or use of CC as a catch-all term, they are distinct. It seems you are still missing my main point: your numbers don't show what these terms were applied to (that is, their implied meaning). Your basic presumption seems to be that both terms (GW and CC) apply to a (largely) single topic, and the difference here is "just" terminological. I say there is an underlying difference in what is being referred to (i.e., they apply to different topics), and any change in usage in the scientific literature more likely reflects a change in research direction than in terminology.

Unfortunately I am not able to access Google Trends, so I can't get to that data. But I am a little concerned about one seeming trend. When I cited Hulme 2009 you said there was a change in usage starting just about then. When I cited Leiserowitz 2014 (which in some respects refutes your claim of a change starting ten years ago) you now claim a "change happening as late as 2014". And so I wonder: if I cite a source from 2016 will you then claim a change starting in 2017?

BTW: please remind me of your basis for claiming that U.S. usage lags. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

How come you don't have access to Google Trends? It's a completely free website, and not heavy on bandwidth either..?

Insofar they correspond to different topics, my perception is that GW is most often used in its broad meaning (temperature rise entire climate system), whereas climate change is most often/almost exclusively used in its limited meaning (heating + physical effects of that). The latter corresponds best to the content of this article, so we'd be correcting usage here.

As you can't access the wealth of information behind Google Trends, let me clarify it: in the US, the relative use of GW compared to CC peaked before 2007, with GW used 10x as much as CC. Around 2010 it was 2x, point of approx the same in 2014 and you're now using CC 3.5x as much as GW. Worldwide, GW was only used 3x as much as CC around 2007, and the cross-over point happened in 2013. Please assume good faith on my part. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not your good faith I question but some of your methods and interpretations. Like where you say the cross-over point of GW use relative to CC happened in 2013. What I see of the Google Trends graph in Leiserowitiz is GW use dropping down to the same level as CC for about for two months, and then rising. Any cross-over is minute and inconsequential, and therefore use of that term is misleading. And your earlier statement that there has been "a change in use ... over the last 10 years" appears incorrect, as any change that has occurred more recently does not extend back 10 years.

I have no idea why my computer won't access Google Trends. Two different browsers display – just an empty page. My best guess is that Trends runs some process not normally used on most webpages, which then either fails, or times out, without any error indication. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Four trends for global warming vs climate change use.
[Anchor: Four trends chart]

Hmm.. Some Googling shows you're not the only one with this problem. Apparently, people have been able to access it only if they changed device (so switching to phone for instance). Hope that works, but to prevent further delay in discussion, I've screenshotted some of the data as well. I hope you can now agree that cross-over has indeed taken place across Web searches and News searches and both in the US and the UK. The trend in relative use of the two terms (their ratio) does extent back to 2007. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Firefox has a very impressive debugger "facility" which shows all kinds of error messages, but I don't really want to dive down that rabbit hole. Google doesn't pay me enough to debug their code.

When you create these graphs, is there an option to add a tick mark (or line) for each year? Preferably at the beginning of each year? It would make them easier to parse.

Your cross-over is hardly (as you called it) a point, as both trend lines run pretty nearly even from roughly 2013 through 2018. With finer resolution I suspect you could find multiple "cross-overs", but with differences that are statistically insignificant. The dominance of CC over GW is only in the last (approx.) two years. And while you note the relative difference for the past month (I presume several decimal places have been knocked off, yes?), yet at the left end the red bar is still higher than the blue bar for each chart. You could object that that is old history, but I could as well object that extrapolation of a two year trend into the future amounts to prediction (see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL).

But all that really misses my point, that these numbers are not entirely meaningful. E.g., even though these trends converge around 2013 (and arguably earlier), yet the survey by Leiserowitz et al. show that in 2014 Americans were 4 times more likely to say they hear GW more often than CC in public discourse, and twice as likely to personally use GW. I suspect this discrepancy is due to some peculiarity of search behavior, perhaps in how Google recommends search terms.

And: I still maintain that (at least in the climate science literature) GW and CC are used for different concepts. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no option to turn on ticks available.

I noticed I only gave you web search in my graphs. I now included news search as well, as this gives good supplementary information in my view. For news, the cross-over years are earlier for some reason. In this graph, CC has been significantly more used since 2015. I concur that waiting a bit longer might benefit this discussion, which is why I still prefer the review of this article to take place first. The current hightened attention for climate with the COP can show at least to me whether this trend has been concilidated.

I deem self-reported hearing and using quite unreliable. An example from a different field (study is relatively old and only US, can't find cite): after having been shown a movie in which women talked 15% of the time, participants had to rate the men/female speaking ratio. Their perception was that women and men talked equally long. A similar thing may be the case here. We know that in that period in the US, the term global warming was more emotion-inducing than climate change. In that sense, it would only be logical if people remembers hearing and using the term for often than they do in reality.

And: I still agree with you that the terms are used for slightly different concepts, with climate change being the broader description that fits the content of our article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

[I finally got into Trends, using a box (not mine!) running an unmaintained copy of (!!) XP. And I see there aren't many options. So I downloaded the data (and scanned for lice), and spent the rest of the morning playing with software. Nothing presentable yet.]

Well, I deem Google hit-counts quite unreliable. If the methods used by Leiserowitiz et al. are defective than I would expect there would have been some comment. In that they were published in a presumably peer-reviewed journal their result has some authority.

I don't know whether "global warming" is (was?) in fact "more emotion-inducing than climate change", or not, but that is not the point here. (Villar & Krosnick, that you cited in the preceding section, seem to think it doesn't make that much difference.) Indeed, that is a bit of a strawman argument, as I don't recall anyone invoking "emotion-inducing" as a factor to consider here. As I just said in the preceding section, if you make the meaning broad enough then "climate change" covers everything, and it really ought to be a disambiguation page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Google hit-counts are also used extensively in scientific literature for this purpose, so if you think peer-reviewed is the ultimate bar of reliability, you'd have to trust those as well :P.

It seems quite clear from all the sources we've cited that GW is the more polarized term of the two. Hulme (2009) describes more evocative expression 'global warming'. This agrees with V&K as well. The fact you call my argument a strawman means my point hasn't come across. I'm not claiming here you want GW because it's more emotion-inducing. I'm claiming there are grounds to explain the small discrepancy between the hard Google Trend data and the self-reported data in the previous study, and argue why hard data is more reliable here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen Google hit-counts used in the physical ("hard") sciences to determine either the science or scientific consensus. In the social sciences it seems they are used as weak proxies for what people are thinking. However (to paraphrase the summary at WP:GOOGLETEST), just because you count something doesn't mean you understand it.

I take your point to be that any numbers for GW usage should be discounted on because "it's more emotion-inducing", and therefore more memorable, and over-counted. But as the V&K article was (presumably) peer-reviewed certainly you have to trust their conclusion that (overall) GW and CC were considered equally "serious". Note that a recent study suggests that not only does the US public (mainly Republicans) distinguish these two terms, but also that the sensitivity to "GW" arises from the underlying issue (however labeled) of whether such an effect actually exists. See also the conclusion of Lineman et. al. that: "Thus having awareness or knowledge of a topic is strongly related to its public exposure in the media, and the emotional context of this relationship is dependent on the context in which the relationship was originally established." But even if there is a "more memorable" effect, I think that makes a term more significant than a less memorable term.

You previously argued: "We should not try to find the article name that gives readers what we believe is the most accurate emotion or reaction[emphasized]to the topic." Again, I don't recall that anyone has suggested that. But your concern re "more polarized", "more evocative expression", and "more emotion-inducing" suggests this is a consideration with you. Why? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course you've never seen physical scientists study terminology. Per definition. And we're not arguing Google Trends help us determine something about science, but about terminology. The question before us is what is the most used term for the TOPIC of human-caused changes in temperature, rainfall, wind, its consequences and its solutions". And of course we're not just counting, we're strolling over hundreds and hundreds of pages, sometimes citing lines, sometimes citing statistics (f.i. that 99% of pages that mention CC are about human-caused CC). To imply otherwise is a strawman arguement.

My arguments about disregarding emotion-inducing argumentation when determining neutrality were in direct response to your arguments, as I felt you were using that type of argumentation. If you disagree, let's drop it. I'm not going to go through our entire set of discussions here + in past to establish where this started. We're not getting any closer anymore, so I'm considering this discussion as finished. I'm very busy now, but I see no further obstacles to starting the move request soon(ish). Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the list that I compiled. My motivation was that I had been seeing a number of claims in this discussion about what readers "expect" or will be "surprised" by without an attribution of those expectations to independent sources. To me that just looks like an unconfirmed personal opinion. In compiling the list I was seeking a more object means of assessing current usage in RSs. (A similar motivation is why I looked at Google Trands and Ngram.) Also, I did not compile the list with an agenda to push a particular title that I prefered and then seek out only sources to support that choice. I followed the sources where the searching led me. FWIW, I initially leaned toward GW due to the early refs, but then noticed the recent shift. If we had this discussion about 10 years ago when the crossover point occured I probably would have flipped a coin and said it didn't matter.

The second list does indeed contain a wide variety of perspectives including science communication, public policy, journalism, and more. This is as it should be. Our consideration should take into account per WP:COMMONNAME: Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. (emphasis added) I would argue that CC is now the most common terminology for the topic used by experts. (See the 2009 statement on climate change signed by 18 scientific societies.[26] CC is used 8 times, but GW does not even appear once in the statement.) But, we also need to consider common usage among all relevant sources that we might cite in the article. Our readers follow the news and listen to politicians debate these issues. The layperson's understanding of the meaning of these terms will be shaped more by exposure to that usage by non-experts. --mikeu ^talk 20:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As I have said before: GW and CC are different concepts. It is not a matter of which term "is now the most common terminology for the topic", as these are different topics, despite their conflation by non-experts. See my new comment at the top of this section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

References

What falls under neutrality and what fall under "not politically right"?

Continuing from previous section, which veered from WP:COMMONNAME argumentation into neutrality argumentation. One of the cruxes of this discussion is how to evaluate the neutrality argument. I asked for some more clarification a few weeks ago, but alas no response. I completely concur that neutrality is extremely important and trumps popularity. My reading of the neutrality policy is that we follow reliable neutral sources' use of the term. If all major scientific institutions in their public communication use global warming AND climate change, and neither ever with inverted commas, as they would do for controversial titles, they have a very solid claim to be neutral. To me, arguments about what emotions our choice of title invokes for certain political groups falls into the category of Wikipedia:Advocacy, which is part of another important Wikipedia policy. We should not try to find the article name that gives readers what we believe is the most accurate emotion or reaction to the topic. In that context, I believe that the comment about "moral or political right" is not an aside, but a vital expression of the policy against advocacy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Current citation work (November, 2019)

The way I have set up the IPCC citations has one little anomaly: because the editors of the work (i.e., the WG report) are not cited at the level of the chapter, the cs1|2 software omits the "in:" that signals that the chapter is part of a larger work. There is a simple way to fix that, which I have requested. But one editor does not like it, so has refused to make that change. I have worked long and hard to convince him, but no way. At this point matters are at a stand-off, and my request will just wither away unless others join in. So I put to everyone here that might want to make this article as good as possible: are the IPCC citations currently "good enough" without the normal and expected "in:"? Alternately, would any one join me in pushing for this fix? I think two or three additional voices might be enough to carry matter through. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have the expertise, nor time for this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have the time for this, either, but I think it is necessary. The basic "expertise" needed would be: in your experience as a "consumer" of citations, is including "in:" important, or not? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation standards reminder?

@François Robere and Cosmicseeds: in your recent edits did you two perhaps forget about our agreed upon Talk:Global_warming/Citation_standards? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Re your last edit: are we abandoning our citation standards? If you won't set a good example how can we get anyone else to follow them? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, just adding them in small steps, currently busy with life and work. If you have energy/time, please put in into the standard again. (I am regretting the complicated scheme we agreed on, but there's no turning back). Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the only complicated part is setting |ref=, and only for periodicals. (The IPCC cites are prepackaged (just copy), and for the rest just set |ref=harv.) But the important part is setting a good example, and if experienced editors like you and I don't can't be bothered with this then no one else will, and we might as well get used to crappy citations. Which rather undercuts trying for FA. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For many of our colleagues, it requires them to (a) fail trying with the visual editor (b) learn source editing first (c) and only then having to figure out how our source editing is different from the normal (in your words sloppy?) way of referencing. I regret having put that burden on our co-editors, but I will abide by our standards. Please don't complain if I do it in small steps, first adding the sentence and later switching to source editing, I am but human with limited energy. I don't think we're in any danger of losing our FA and I've never noticed people at TFA complaining about references, except for when there's dead links in them. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I know. Thank you. As to Visual Editor: yeah, well, there are reasons many of us dislike it, one of them being that it's part of the problem of why citation practice on WP is so difficult. I strongly recommend not using VE. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to land use subtopic

Dtetta (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)I wanted to propose the following changes to the “Physical drivers of recent climate change” > “Land use change” sub topic. I’m trying to get the following ideas communicated by the edits I propose: 1)describe the current global patterns of land use, and the principal land-use changes that are driving the biogeochemical and biophysical processes leading to global warming, 2)clarify how these land use changes affect both global and regional/local conditions, and 3)provide a brief segue to the subsequent subtopic on land use related feedbacks. I realize this new text is more extensive than the paragraph it would replace, and I have attempted to maintain some of the original text from that paragraph where I was able to. I think the significant issues and nuances of this topic merit this additional context and explanation. Apologies to the original contributors for the significant revisions that I’m proposing.

I wasn't certain the extent to which I should follow the citation standards in this talk discussion, so I have simply listed the url for citations I would be using in this proposed text. I would of course follow those standards when actually editing the article.

Below is the proposed text.

Land Use

Today habitable land occupies 71% of the total land surface; land features such as glaciers and deserts constitute the remainder. Agriculture takes up 50% of the world’s habitable land, while 37% is forests.https://ourworldindata.org/land-use As mentioned in the greenhouse gas subtopic above, deforestation is the most significant aspect of land use affecting global warming. Current assessments of deforestation/forest cover changes vary widely; some note a significant decrease in the rate of deforestation https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e026/3e7189cbc7dc9598cf473fc77add52c15965.pdf > Page 11, even a net forest cover increase in recent years https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html, while others emphasize a continued and significant rate of forest destruction https://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/2018/09/one-fourth-of-global-forest-loss-permanent-deforestation-is-not-slowing-down/. The main drivers of global forest loss are: deforestation through permanent land use change for commodity production (27%), forestry (26%), shifting agriculture (24%), and wildfire (23%). Of these, commodity production is most strongly associated with permanent forest loss. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6407/1108/tab-figures-data https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/09/when-tree-falls-it-deforestation

Land use changes such as forest loss affects global warming in a variety of ways. In addition to its role as a source of GHG emissions (described in the previous Greenhouse gases subtopic), current global land use conditions act as a net carbon sink for CO2, resulting in an estimated removal of 11-12 billion tonnes annually. “https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf > Page 9” Soil processes and photosynthesis are the principal means through which this carbon sink functions on land.

Land use also affects global warming through a variety of biophysical dynamics. Changing the type of vegetation in a region impacts temperature by changing how much sunlight gets reflected back into space, called albedo, and how much heat is lost by evaporation. For instance, the change from a dark forest to grassland makes the surface lighter, causing it to reflect more sunlight. Deforestation can also contribute to warming or cooling by affecting the release of aerosols and biogenic volatile organic compounds, which can affect cloud formation; and changing the roughness of Earth’s surface, which can affect wind speed. https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/08/forests-ipcc-special-report-land-use-7-things-know These biophysical effects operate both globally and locally. Globally, they are estimated to have led to a slight cooling, dominated by an increase in surface albedo. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2c.-Chapter-2_FINAL.pdf Page 2-54. Regional/local effects are more variable; in high-latitude boreal regions, the net effect of deforestation is cooling, because the albedo effect dominates—snow cover reflects sunlight; tree cover absorbs it. In temperate zones, forest loss generally causes warming, although the effect is more variable. Deforestation in the tropics clearly leads to warming, with biophysical effects amplifying already-significant emissions effects. https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/08/forests-ipcc-special-report-land-use-7-things-know

Land use change effects on global warming also have a seasonal component. In temperate regions for example, deforestation leads to summer warming and winter cooling.  https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2c.-Chapter-2_FINAL.pdf Page 2-63

Global warming itself produces land cover and land-use changes, which in turn affect the biogeochemical and biophysical effects described above. These feedback effects are discussed in the Climate change feedback topic below. Dtetta (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us. It appears you are a brand new user, so you need to get up to speed on various standards, practices, etc. in the Wikipedia environment. I'll add some links to your Talk page you should check out. Note that we through around a lot of acronyms, generally "wikilinked", with which you should become familiar. E.g. click on WP:TPG to find out about Talk Page Guidelines.

Citation on Wikipedia tends to be more tangled and confused than necessary, so you may want to proceed with care. But is a key element of editing, so you should proceed. You might find it convenient to copy this text to your "sandbox" and work on it there, particularly with the citations. Do ask if you have questions (here, on your talk page, or come to my talk page).

On this particular suggestion: I'm not certain if it going to get a lot of attention. You may have noted we're having a long-running (well, sometimes we run :-) discussion on the proper name for this article, so that is taking most of the energy. Feel free to join that discussion, but perhaps read WP:TPG first. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Firstly, don't feel obliged at all to delve into the talk page guidelines, you're doing exactly what you're supposed to do here. I think I wrote the original and I'm not that much of an expert on land-use change, so there is probably something that can be improved. Note that it's not only land use change that is covered in a WP:SUMMARY style, but the rest of the article as well. The article is already quite long, and the global net effect of LUC not that big, so to me the amount of space dedicated to this section is roughly right. Another thing to keep in mind is the audience. We've been trying to make this article mostly understandable to 16-yr olds, as it's likely they will read this article as well. The word biophysical might be on the difficult side for that audience.

Would you be willing to make a less drastic proposal that is closer in size to what's already there? (And echoing J. Johnson, you might want to leave a comment on the naming discussion that we find ourselves busy with) Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestions. I’ve made some revisions to this original proposal, and wanted to present it to people for consideration using an underline/strikeout approach; underline shows proposed additions while strikeout shows proposed deletions. Reasons for the proposed changes are in italics. You can see how these changes look with all of the citations and references at: User:Dtetta/GlobalWarming-Land-use-change. One change/addition I did not make was to include a couple of sentences about how future population and economic pressures will affect future land-use conditions, and in turn the effect of that on global warming. I think this would be an important addition to round out the subtopic, but for brevity’s sake I decided not to attempt that with these edits.

I realize all this makes the article longer than is being suggested, and I did make a few modifications aimed at brevity and simplicity of language. I guess another way of looking at it is that issues around restorative agriculture and reforestation are going to be a critical part of many countries' commitments in areas like NetZero, so this topic will help support readers who want some background for those issues. Two areas I think I could trim this would be to: 1) eliminate the sentences dealing with rates and causes of deforestation, and 2)eliminate the last two sentences dealing with seasonal/temporal aspects of land use caused global warming. But I thought I would show the complete set of changes with their justification, and then see what people thought. In terms of relative coverage, I do think this deserves as much text as the aerosols and soot subtopic immediately below it, but I admit I am not an expert in either of these areas.

Thanks for your attention to this, I realize you are working on a lot of other things as well.

Humans change the land surface mainly to create more agricultural land.Today habitable land occupies 71% of the total land surface; land features such as glaciers and deserts constitute the remainder. Agriculture takes up 50% of the world’s habitable land, while 37% is forests. Deforestation is the most significant aspect of land use change affecting global warming. Current assessments of deforestation/forest cover changes vary; some highlight a recent decrease in the rate of deforestation, while others emphasize a continued and significant rate of forest destruction. The main drivers of global forest loss are: deforestation through permanent land use change for commodity production (27%), forestry (26%), shifting agriculture (24%), and wildfire (23%). Of these, commodity production is most strongly associated with permanent forest loss. This paragraph was added to introduce current global patterns of land use and land use change, which are important in giving context to how land-use change is affecting Global Warming .

Land use changes such as forest loss affect global warming in a variety of ways. While some cause significant GHG emissions (described above), current global land use conditions also act as a carbon sink for CO2, resulting in an estimated removal of 11-12 billion tonnes annually. Soil processes and photosynthesis are the principal means through which this carbon sink functions on land.This was added to highlight the fact that land use conditions act as a sink as well as a source of GHGs.

In addition to contributing to GHG emissions, lLand use changes also affect global warming through a variety of other chemical and physical dynamics. Changing the type of vegetation in a region impacts temperature by changing how much sunlight gets reflected back into space, called albedo, and how much heat is lost by evaporation. For instance, the change from a dark forest to grassland makes the surface lighter, causing it to reflect more sunlight. Deforestation can also contribute to warming or cooling by affecting the release of aerosols and biogenic volatile organic compounds, which can affect cloud formation; and by changing the roughness of the land surface, which can affect wind speed. Although albedo and evapotranspiration are more significant, this sentence was added to provide a more complete description of the range of biogeochemical and biophysical effects. Since the pre-industrial era, albedo has increased due to land use change, which has a cooling effect on the planet. Other processes linked to land use change however have had the opposite effect, so that the net effect remains unclear.Globally, these effects are estimated to have led to a slight cooling, dominated by an increase in surface albedo. Regional/local effects are more variable; in high-latitude boreal regions, the net effect of deforestation is cooling. In temperate latitudes, forest loss generally causes warming, although the effect is variable. Models show a clear warming effect from tropical deforestation. Land use change effects on global warming can also have a seasonal component. In temperate regions, for example, deforestation leads to summer warming and winter cooling. These three sentences replace the one immediately before in order to provide more updated information along with regional and temporal specifics.

I'll end by saying thanks to J.Johnson, who spent a lot of time helping me with this, particularly in terms of getting the cites and references properly formatted.Dtetta (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Something we didn't get to before: when ever you create notes – the "<ref>" constructs – on a talk page you need to also add "{{reflist-talk}}" at the bottom of the section (as I have done here) to catch those notes. Otherwise they go to the bottom of the page, or in a reflist somewhere else, which can be very confusing when the seem to pop up out of nowhere in a different section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

moved here from different topic by FN Per Femke Nijsse's suggestion., I just wanted to note that I updated my suggestions for edits to the land use change subtopic, and would be interested in reactions to them.Dtetta (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and lending your expertise! I think the biggest improvement in your suggested edit compared to what I wrote before are the drivers of land-use change & the updated science. It's more than only agriculture. I'll go over your suggestions line by line.

• Today habitable land occupies 71% of the total land surface; land features such as glaciers and deserts constitute the remainder. Agriculture takes up 50% of the world’s habitable land, while 37% is forests. --> try keeping the language accessible to non-native speakers and youngsters: consitute the remainder make up the rest. For brevity's sake I think neither sentence is essential, but I won't object to inserting them either.
• Deforestation is the most significant aspect of land use change affecting global warming. Perfect sentence.
• Current assessments of deforestation/forest cover changes vary; some highlight a recent decrease in the rate of deforestation, while others emphasize a continued and significant rate of forest destruction. -> I'd say too detailed.
• The main drivers of global forest loss are: deforestation through permanent land use change for commodity production (27%), forestry (26%), shifting agriculture (24%), and wildfire (23%). Of these, commodity production is most strongly associated with permanent forest loss. --> First sentence is good. Do we have an easier synonym for commodity? Second sentence also alright, but slightly doubting if sufficiently prominent.
• Land use changes such as forest loss affect global warming in a variety of ways. While some cause significant GHG emissions (described above), current global land use conditions also act as a carbon sink for CO2, resulting in an estimated removal of 11-12 billion tonnes annually. --> Remove the term described above, readers have just read this. Working in the world of GW&CC I still don't have a feeling for what a billion ton of CO2 is. Can you use other units? For instance, percentage of human emissions.
• Soil processes and photosynthesis are the principal means through which this carbon sink functions on land. --> I know how important soil processes are for GW, but not sure if to a general reader this comes over as too vague. If we keep it, the sentence could be rephrased as. The land is a carbon sink mainly because of soil processes and increased photosynthesis. This omits the science-speak of principal means
• Land use changes also affect global warming through a variety of other chemical and physical dynamics. -->Yes!
• . Deforestation can also contribute to warming or cooling by affecting the release of aerosols and biogenic volatile organic compounds, which can affect cloud formation; and by changing the roughness of the land surface, which can affect wind speed. --> While completely true, I'd think these are details that don't belong to this article. Our readers won't know what VOCs are, nor what we mean by saying the roughness of a surface has increased. If we want to include something like it, let's simplify. Iirc, VOCs are aerosols, right? No need for introducing new difficult word then. Also, aerosols & all influence clouds in various ways, not only formation, but also persistance and optical depth. Deforestation can also contribute to changing temperatures by affecting the release of aerosols and biogenic volatile organic compounds, which can affect clouds; and can change wind patterns when the surface has different obstacles.
• Globally, these effects are estimated to have led to a slight cooling, dominated by an increase in surface albedo. Important update
• Regional/local effects are more variable; in high-latitude boreal regions, the net effect of deforestation is cooling. In temperate latitudes, forest loss generally causes warming, although the effect is variable. Models show a clear warming effect from tropical deforestation. Land use change effects on global warming can also have a seasonal component. In temperate regions, for example, deforestation leads to summer warming and winter cooling. --> I'd remove both of these sentences as they are too detailed in my opinion. The total effect of LUC isn't that big, so no need to get into the specific patterns.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful suggestions! Really appreciate your taking the time to provide that thoughtful response. I will work on incorporating those ideas; I also have been thinking about ways of further revising the wording to better match the tone you describe for the article in general, as well as your original paragraph on this subtopic. I also want to make sure that a reader gets three main takeways from this section:1) although land use patterns are a significant contributor to GHG emissions, they remains a net GHG sink, 2)other “chemical and physical dynamics” provide a further, although slight, cooling effect on global temperatures, and 3)land use changes, particularly further deforestation, could alter these effects in the future. I will put another underline/strikeout/italics version of my next effort on this page before editing the article itself.Dtetta (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is one last draft of my proposed changes. I hope I have adequately addressed the comments above. As before, you can see how these changes look with all of the citations and references at: User:Dtetta/GlobalWarming-Land-use-change. I will wait for a day or so before I actually post these as edits to the article. Thanks again for you help with improving this.

Humans change the land surface mainly to create more agricultural land. I would suggest deleting this citation/reference; it focuses on modeling efforts to characterize land-use effects, and doesn’t really address the point of this first sentence, which seems to stand fine on its own without a citation.Today agriculture takes up 50% of the world’s habitable land, while 37% is forests,and by most accounts that figure continues to decrease. This deforestation is the most significant aspect of land use change affecting global warming. The main causes are: deforestation through permanent land use change for agricultural products such as beef and palm oil (27%), forestry/forest products (26%), short term agricultural cultivation (24%), and wildfires (23%). This paragraph was added to introduce and detail current global patterns of land use and land use change, which are important in giving context to how land-use change is affecting Global Warming .

Current patterns of land use affect global warming in a variety of ways. While some aspects cause significant GHG emissions, other land use processes act as a significant carbon sink for CO2, more than offsetting these GHG sources. The net result is an estimated removal (sink) of about 6 billion tonnes annually, or about 12% of global GHG emissions. The land acts as a carbon sink via carbon fixation in the soil and increased photosynthesis.This was added to highlight the fact that land use conditions act as a sink as well as a source of GHGs.

In addition to contributing to GHG emissions, lLand use changes also affect global warming through a variety of other chemical and physical dynamics. Changing the type of vegetation in a region impacts temperature by changing how much sunlight gets reflected back into space, called albedo, and how much heat is lost by evaporation. For instance, the change from a dark forest to grassland makes the surface lighter, causing it to reflect more sunlight. Deforestation can also contribute to changing temperatures by affecting the release of aerosols and other chemical compounds, that affect clouds; and by changing wind patterns when the surface has different obstacles. Although albedo and evapotranspiration are more significant, this sentence was added to provide a more complete description of the range of biogeochemical and biophysical effects. Since the pre-industrial era, albedo has increased due to land use change, which has a cooling effect on the planet. Other processes linked to land use change however have had the opposite effect, so that the net effect remains unclear.Globally, these effects are estimated to have led to a slight cooling, dominated by an increase in surface albedo. But there is significant geographic variation in how this works. In the tropics the net effect is to produce a significant warming, while at latitudes closer to the poles a loss of albedo leads to an overall cooling effect. These two sentences replace the one immediately before in order to provide more updated information, along with regional specifics.

^Dtetta (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the paragraphs are ready for insertion now. I might tweak them later in the light of the entire text, but in essence an they are an improvement to what was there before :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Second discussion on titles for potential move request

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

Links to summary information, above:

• Consensus-gauging table
• Reasoning table

Climate change

Should we propose moving Global warming to Climate change?

User:Mu301

• Strong support: this is the term used in statements adopted by numerous scientific societies.[27] This shift in usage from GW to CC by the scientific community is recognized by public opinion pollsters.[28] The phrase is used by education professionals to communicate the subject.[29] News organization have adopted it.[30] It is the most common current usage by public officials.[31] The phrase "climate change" has overtaken "global warming" as the de facto[32][33][34] catch all term for the subject of this article. This is the current and common usage per dictionary definitions.[35][36] which is reflected in the reliable sources that we rely on.[37]

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

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

RCraig09

"GW" fraction of "CC" usage in Google searches since 2004 (worldwide).

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

Femkemilene

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

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

efbrazil

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

J. Johnson

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

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

Dtetta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"CC" General discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anchor: Gtrends chart 01]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is one point I agree with JJ that we haven't addressed at all. JJ states that the destabilisation of climate patterns isn't evident until 1970 and later, whereas temperature rise would be visible before. To translate this into sciency terms: you could possibly say that the time of emergence[38] for changes in variables like precipitation (whether it's stabilizing change or not) that are not surface temperature. While I haven't found a study investigating this, it is a very questionable hypothesis with respect to the water cycle. Water vapour responds to temperature within a time-scale of about three days, and it responds strongly as well. Therefore, it's difficult to defend the hypothesis that these two changes would start in different decades. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dtetta's comment that he favors a term is hardly advocacy for the term. By such a standard your previous statements "I favor "GW & CC"" (23:38, 4 Nov, [39]) and "I favor "GW & CC" so readers immediately confront the two terms" (21:36, 3 Dec, [40]) are equally advocacy, so you are being hypocritical in accusing him of doing the very thing you have done.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not "trying" to contradict you; I dearly wish I could spend less time contradicting your misrepresentations of what I write, but that's in your hands. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Global warming and climate change

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

User:Mu301

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

RCraig09

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

User:Femkemilene

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

efbrazil

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

J. Johnson

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

"GW and CC" General discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Retain “Global warming” title

User:Danopticon

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

User:RCraig09

"GW" fraction of "CC" usage in Google searches since 2004 (worldwide).

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

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

User:Mu301

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

efbrazil

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

J. Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Retain GW title" General discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anchor: GW_variation_chart]

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

Regarding the Google search data assembled in support for a title change being referred to as “research”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fraction of the term "climate change" versus "global warming" in different types of documents as and a search term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding whether fads in nomenclature bear on an encyclopedia’s science article titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fork the current article into 2 articles: "Global Warming" and "Climate Change"

efbrazil

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

RCraig09

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

Mu301

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

J. Johnson

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

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

user:Danopticon

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

Femkemilene

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

"Fork" General discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About efforts over the last year and about dispute resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to reevaluate in one or two years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SROCC and SRCCL

@J. Johnson: The final versions are online :). If you update the overall citation, I'll update the page numbers? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

My source has not informed me! Okay, thanks for the notice, and I'll put that onto the schedule. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There may be a delay on this, as there seems to be problem with the report files. (Oh my.) I'm looking into the matter. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Any luck? I'm using the new reports alot, so really grateful for what you've done here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not yet, but, yes, I do need to get on that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

In the first time the scientists said that the commitments are enough to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees

If take not only countries NDC but also the pledges of cities, regions, bussines and most important big international coalitions. This is the first time that I hear such declaration and I think this is enough important for put it here and even in the head of the page. I explain it in the talk page because it may surprise people - it very different from what was said before.

The link to the press release of the authors.

The link to the press release of the unfccc.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

And I have reverted your addition of whatever this is about because I can't quite make out what you are talking about. Perhaps you could explain more? Do note that Wikipeida is not a newspaper; we do not do "breaking news". Also please regard the standards we have established for citations. Perhaps you missed the notice at the top of your editing window? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the lede is a summary of the article. It doesn't make sense at all to include completely new information in the lede that isn't further discussed in the text. If you believe this to be important, work on the relevant sections first. See if it sticks, and if it does whether there is consensus to put it in de lede. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a newspaper but an encyclopedia therfore the information should be correct. And right now it is not, so, I try to make it correct. The information that I writed is not new: it is from september.

I explain more. It is very simple: In 18 of september this year a report made by NewClimate Institute, Data-Driven Lab, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, German Development Institute/ Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, was presented to the United Nations saying that while the pledges in the Paris agreement are not enough to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degree and even to 2 degrees, if you add to this all the other pledges made by countries, cities, bussinesses and most important, international coalitions, it is enough to limit it to 2 degrees.

Even more than that: in the september summit more than 70 others commitments were added (see here) and in december many others (see here). So, maybe now the picture is even more optimistic but for some reason, the world completely miss this type of news. Yes of course it do not say that the work have finished but it say that there are some achievments and that people should turn more attention to check what of it is done. This is one of the main reasons why I want to write it in this page.

Now about citation. I have not missed the standart but when I try to work by the standarts it have not worked. In "sources" in the sections of reports there is a template refbegin|30em. What does it mean? It limit the number of sources to 30 so for adding I have to change it to refbegin|31em? Exept I se that even in the lede of the page there are in linecitations so I tought that it is not so important. If you that it is important I will cite by the instructions but I ask for some help in it.

About writing firstly in the relevant sections. This is at some degree right. I will do it.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest, strongly, that you not edit this (or any) article directly. In the first place, your command of English is not up to the level where we can understand what you mean, let alone to the level expected for the article. Your inexperience and lack of knowledge also indicate a great liklihood of technical errors. It would be much better that you make suggestions here of any possible improvements you have in mind, where we can work out what you have in mind. And when we understand them, and if they are agreed to, someone else can do the actual writing.

I also suggest that for any content you propose adding you prepare a full citation (using one of the {cite} templates) with all the bibliographic details.

It seems you have missed the significance of WP:NOTNEWS, which is not all a matter of being correct, but more of timeliness. Note also that we do not include every possible bit of information, and merely being correct (or true) is not a criterion for inclusion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the added content should be there or not but I have done some small copyedits on it which I hope has made it a little clearer. Not sure if any cites in it still need fixing? If you or anyone else has any new content agreed on the talk page but is not a native English speaker feel free to contact me if you need and if I have time I will copy edit it before it is added. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

evidence based lede???

So this is in the lede:

But more accurately, global warming is the mainly human-caused increase in global surface temperatures

But one goes to the footnote and there is nothing in the source about "mainly human-caused". I thought WP was supposed to be neutral, and fact-based?

Was a bit shocked to see my search for "climate change" redirected to "global warming" frankly, given the politically loaded nature of that term.174.0.48.147 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to know about climate change throughout Earth's history, the article climate change (general concept) is what you're looking for. You might want to look at the source again: it say (we quoted the source in the footnote): "Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions". We used human-caused instead of anthropogenic because we want people without a science background to understand this as well.

When, in the past, climate change pointed to a page about other instances of climate change, we got a lot of complaints about that as well. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"I thought WP was supposed to be neutral, and fact-based?"

I once thought that as well. But people are not neutral, nor always fact based in their views. So Wikipedia can't actually be. Fxmastermind (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. As an encyclopedia we let the experts decide what the "facts" are. If you find an error of fact in an article please mention that on the talk page. But note: your own, personal sense of what is factual has no sway here; you need to cite reliable sources. If you are simply griping because you don't agree with any part of the article, sorry, but as it says at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think following guidelines and policies would help here. Too many editors seem to ignore guidelines and get caught up in discussions about material that should clearly not be included because they ignore guidelines. Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)