Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
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)
Editors:
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 LeviBailey Gabaix | 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 | ||
___ | |||||
___ |
Proposed article name | Policy "FOR" Be CONCISE! |
Policy "AGAINST" Be CONCISE! |
---|---|---|
Global warming (no change) |
-WP:NATURAL (searches and int. links) |
-RS usage of "GW" less than half "CC" and waning |
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" |
Fork into separate Global warming and climate change articles |
-WP:Concise |
-Practically inextricable WP:OVERLAP of substantive GW and CC content: |
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 - Preferred by GW deniers. |
-"CC" also has broad definition: WP:PRECISION issue |
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. |
___ | ||
___ |
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)
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)
[C]oncentrates the major applicable policies/guidelines ..."? This page is not the place to concentrate policies, etc., but perhaps you meant something like "succinct links to policy-based arguments developed elsewhere". Which would be fine with me (as a meaningful statement), except that we have neither such linkage in the table, nor developed arguments to link to. To be clear: by developed I mean with objections addressed, loose-ends tied down, key premises identified, etc. For all the verbiage that you seem to think counts for something, we have not resolved these arguments that this table supposedly "concentrates". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
... 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)
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)
build up of excess heat energy in the Earth system." I will of course provide more sources, when I have evaluated them.
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)
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
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
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. |
Replying to Efbrazil's question above the outdent...
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)
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)
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)
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.
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: , where Q stands for heat and CV stands for the heat capacity. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:27, 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)
Discussion moved here from immediately after "Reasoning chart"
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)
References
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)"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)
- 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)
Thanks for your creativity. Unfortunately, climate change (human-caused) suffers from many above objections of previous names PLUS one extra big one.
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)
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[1]
- 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.[2]
- (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,[3]
References
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)The ". 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.scientific literature" you referred to is not the science of climate, but of communication
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[1] | Ngram (books)[2] | Google results | News[3] | News old[4] | Scholar[5] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
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.
@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)
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)[7]:
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)
morally or politically rightpart of the policy, which would mean we're not meant to take the argument into account at all.
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.)
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)
commented on in scientific literature" could you perhaps cite that literature? Thank you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
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.[8]
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.[9]
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.)
over the last ten years" by non-experts is not controlling.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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[10] 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.
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)
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. 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)
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
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help)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)
Why is this skipped in the History of Global Warming section? It's in the main History of climate change science article, but that's not good enough. She was really the first person to experiment directly with CO2 and sunlight and specifically propose that a planet full of CO2 would be become much hotter.
120.17.36.10 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
References
{{cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (help)
For a topic as controversial as this, it is essential objectivity be maintained to the point of being overly-cautious. As one example, the following sentence "Many regions have probably already seen increases in warm spells and heat waves, and it is virtually certain that these changes will continue over the 21st century" cites to the 2012 IPCC Report's "Summary for Policymakers," ("Report Summary") pages 9-13.
There are several blatant objectivity issues with such an assertion: 1. Most importantly, it is not even supported by the citation itself, as the Report Summary assigned "virtually certain" to the "frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and cold daily temperature extremes," then clearly assigned "very likely" to the "length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heat spells (p.9)". 2. The heading of this contained the caveat "Models project (p.9)". 3. Moreover, at its outset, the Summary noted these conclusions arose from its own "assess[ment of] the scientific literature (p.2) 4. This passage in the Summary made no references to "regions" which had "already seen increases in warm spells in heat waves" (see generally pp. 9-13).
It is extremely inadvisable to parrot such an assessment without any of these necessary caveats to at least provide the illusion of objectivity that is presented in the reference itself, but if this is to be done, it should at least be done accurately. It certainly should not be done to reach an unrelated and unsupported conclusion, then connect this purported support to an assertion entirely absent.
There are further examples throughout the page where the sin of objectivity is first made by not including any of the caveats explicit in the reference, then, second, exponentially amplified by connecting it to, at best, both unrelated assertions, and an entirely subjective and unsupported magnification of what the cited reference could plausibly be read to suggest.
I can understand the first sin, but not the second. It gives the clear illusion of the page resulting from authors' ulterior, subjective motivations and conclusions which help nobody. Do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.35.225 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the number of warm spells or heat waves has increased since the middle of the 20th century (Table 3-2)." [p. 135]), or the summary to section 3.3.1 (p. 141). Please feel free to revise the questioned sentence as you think appropriate, with the citation revised to show the proper page number. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I have only taken a few environmental science classes, but I’m pretty sure the ‘formal’ term for this is “global climate change.” This is partially because, if the ice caps melt, scientist theorize that Europe will go through an ice age. MaddiPH (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@RCraig09: I very much like the idea of the graphic (currently third in the article), but that means I need to pick it apart because that's how wikipedia works, right? So, here's a few thoughts: Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Background: I generated the diagram because I realize people find it easier to absorb images than text (even though the diagram has little boxes of text boxes of short text). I wanted to summarize the causes and effects in one place, so it's easier for laymen to see the scope expressed in thousands of sources. I chose what I thought were the most dominant issues found in references, and organized them. I also wanted to keep the overall "look and feel" of the diagram organized and uncrowded and visually balanced, as not to "turn off" lay readers. —23:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC) updated RCraig09 (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Critically, one goal is to portray, in one spot, and quickly and easily appreciated by viewers, the fact that GW and CC have few causes but many wide-ranging effects. This goal is achieved by looking at the thumbnail-sized image with readable labels (Causes, Effects, Feedback); readers can quickly investigate details with a single tap on the thumbnail. I've long felt that people should see elements of "the big picture", all together in perspective. —20:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Strikethrough added RCraig09 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Replying to Ebrazil's items, point by point:
1. Ocean acidification should be under "effects" and should clearly point towards the issue with coral reefs. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
2. I'd cut "Invasive species movement"- almost all of that issue is caused by people moving stuff around, not by greenhouse gases. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
3. I would talk about "desertification" as an effect, in particular how it will impact human migration and crops. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Water vapor increase is often categorized as a negative feedback, because more clouds are generated which reflect sunlight, but it's captured here as a positive feedback. I think I would just cut water vapor increase (or stuff it into the weather effects). Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Human migration and conflict should probably be categorized as a feedback since it exacerbates our impacts. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
6. I think I would try to split effects into "Ecosystem" and "Human" categories, then have the categories include sub headers that talk about "Habitat destruction" as the umbrella ecosystem impact and "Human migration and conflict" as the umbrella human impact. Habitat destruction is really the ecosystem evil twin of "Human migration and conflict"- it is both a first and second order effect of a lot of these little boxes. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
7. I would work to boost the smallest font size - most people look at wikipedia on smartphones, and I think the font size here is too small for powerpoints as well. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
8. I'd have a white or transparent background so the graphic could easily be inserted into presentations without clashing. Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Efbrazil (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
9-13: Further suggested outline wording tweaks These (9-13) are all fairly minor tweaks to wording. Take them or leave them. Efbrazil (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Again, thanks for your good work here! Efbrazil (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Change "Atmospheric warming" to "Increased evaporation". Atmospheric warming is synonymous with global warming so having it called out is a bit weird. Increased evaporation is the key that leads to more atmospheric moisture. Efbrazil (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
This request is purely about form and presentation, not substantive content:
Could you opt for a modern colour scheme? Powerpoint default options now are not as offensive and bright as the colours chosen in this graph, so I suspect that that should doable. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
While not every little detail should be included, yet I think there should be a box for "Deep ocean" (as an alternate reservoir of heat). That is the essential explanation for the "hiatus" and other instances where surface temperature doesn't always track with GHGs. And while it can be argued (as I have) that "global warming" really includes both GMST and deep ocean warming, the strong association of "warming" with the surface temperature record, and the need to show how deep ocean warming fits in, warrants separate boxes. (In my chart I considered having "surface warming" and "deep ocean warming" as separate boxes within the dashed "warming" outline, but thought that might be too complicated.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
probably should have sources for each element", so that the synthesis we need to do to assemble all these elements will be seen as solidly based. My point is about how to mitigate any objection of "synthesis".
In your chart the middlemost box is the key element, but there is a problem with calling it "Global warming and resultant Climate change". It has been extensively argued here that CC is the superset of all these topics, and that "GW" and "CC" are interchangeable. Having the whole as an element of itself leads to infinite regression. That box is more sensibly the warming of the climate system. (As evidenced, in part, by GMST rise.)
As a demonstration of a better way to organize essentially the same material (with the addition of the very important "Deep ocean warming") I offer a demo graphic. Key points: 1) The central theme – "Global-scale warming of Earth's climate" – is made more prominent and central. 2) Top-down flow. (More efficient when the elements tend to be horizontal, and can more readily accommodate additional "Effects" without disturbing the "Causes".) 3) The causes are distinguished by color from the effects, with sidebars to indicate grouping. 4) The title is simplified. (Could also be "Human-caused Climate Change: ..."; I haven't worked out what difference this might make.) 5) I also removed "feedbacks" from the title (don't think is especially useful), and changed the "feedback" connections to dashed lines.
I have also shown how "Effects" can be further distinguished between direct Climatic effects, and indirect Economic, Societal, etc. effects. This chart is not optimized for maximum space efficiency, and both charts could be more accurate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
eviscerate" the focus of the chart.
Alrighty then! I've incorporated many of Efbrazil's suggestions (exceptions discussed above) and adopted J. Johnson's model orienting the flow vertically and color-coding blocks. The vertical orientation allows it to extend downward more than leftward in WP articles, allowing the fonts to be more easily read. The result is a diagram that shows the organization of causes and now-categorized effects, and in a glance better achieves the goal of conveying the (few) causes and (many wide-ranging) effects of GW & CC.
Thanks to all for helping me streamline the process: now Powerpoint --> scalable PDF --> yuge PNG. The new chart has no "title" at all, but has a dominant central block "GW and resultant CC" which accommodates both definitions of "CC" (in which GW either causes, or is a part of, CC). Misc: I'm thinking of enlarging the smallest fonts a bit, and making other suggested changes that seem appropriate. I think this graph should immediately replace the January 1 diagram having "horizontal" flow, but I'll wait a day or two. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
|upright=2.0
, but this is likely to cause another problem: some editors object to such a large graphic. But text that can't be read is useless, so a position has to be worked out as to what size the display graphic should be, which will in turn impact how much text can be fitted in.Thanks very much for the continued work here Craig! I like the vertical arrangement. Here's stuff that sticks out to me when looking at the new vertical graphic...--Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Earth has many ecosystems. Also, the text isn't bold, while "feedback" and "effects on humans" are- make it bold to match.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I would just make everything above the feedback box Black / grey except for Ocean acidification. Also, please only use the light red font color for "Feedback"- not designery to have light red and dark red kind of randomly mixed up like that. Having it only on the background color means it's pointing out what the color means.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please use the the same font size you use for "(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, ...). When I click the image once I should be able to read everything.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
"Fossil fuel combustion" should all be the same font size and color, only subheadings should be a smaller font size. Similarly, replace the mini italic "and" between Global warming "and" climate change with a "/" that's normal font size. General designer rule is one line of text needs to be consistent for readability unless clearly calling out something contextual like "this is a title".--Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Related issue: while subtitles are often reduced in height to emphasize they are subtitles, it is usually only two points or so (e.g., 16 pt/14 pt). (Or perhaps 1/8th? It's been a few years.) Any way, "causes and effects" should be only slightly smaller than the main title. And capitalized. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
"Ecosystem collapse (great barrier reef, arctic, ...)" captures a key concern- that places like the great barrier reef will simply cease to exist and cannot be recovered. You could also cut the box entirely and shift everything up. Also, if subheadings are a different font size, you can eliminate the parenthesis around them. --Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that's important enough to call out- right now a lot of effects on humans other than "Infrastructure and crop failure" are fairly abstract.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
You already have "Direct physical harm to humans", which sounds very similar. I think it's a better abstraction to have "Disease carrier and pest propagation" point towards the same effects the "Extreme weather event intensification" has. Pests cause crop failure and direct harm to humans is already in there.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@RCraig09: I don't think it's just wording. In general, I think dedicating 2 of the 5 boxes in the "Effects on humans" area to "disease carrier and propagation" and only 1 to the merged idea of coastal city flooding / desertification is the wrong emphasis. Ideally each box would be laying out the critical things people need to be conceptually concerned with. Direct harm is one thing, whether from hurricanes or tropical diseases. Flooding from sea level rise is another, and is clearly going to be the major issue in places like bangladesh, miami, and so on. Loss of agricultural land and expansion of deserts is a third.
Maybe this works better for the boxes in the "effects on humans" area?
--Efbrazil (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The arrows going to "Feedback" are shorter than the arrows going to "Effects on the ecosystem" for no reason. Also, don't have multiple arrows along a line (Effects on the ecosystem leading to Effects on humans).Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Having one little green box on the left is weird and having "effects on humans" under it's content is also a bit weird. You could try moving "Coral bleaching..." to the right next to "Extreme weather..." and put the "Effects on humans" header in it's place, extending the blue box up on the left. That way headers are above their content and the boxes are more consistent. --Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@RCraig09: The current title is a real mouthful and minimizes the focus of the chart, which is causes and effects. I think someone coming in and seeing this chart will immediately be struck by the title "Global Warming and Climate Change (causes and effects)" and begin wondering about the differences between GW/CC and why you are calling them both out and what a union of the terms means. I realize we're struggling with naming here on Wikipedia, but no reason to let that confusion bleed into our graphics. It's the IPCC, no the IPGWACC, and thank god for that!
On the flip side, I think it's good to keep your subheading block called "Global Warming and Climate Change" unchanged. It works with the technical definitions of the terms and helps people understand you're talking about how GGE impact temperature and is inclusive of the term "Global Warming". Efbrazil (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@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)
The full citations for the SROCC and the SRCCL (at WP:IPCC_citations/SR) have been revised to be in accordance with the "FINAL" versions of those reports issued last December. All instances of the "DRAFT" versions in article space should be replaced, and the short-cites upgraded (i.e., remove the "DRAFT"). Upgrading should include verification of the content to the source, and adding the appropriate page number(s). As some of these documents have different versions available, I recommend adding section numbers in case there is a future problem with the pagination. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.