User talk:InformationToKnowledge/sandbox

Split causes into chapters?

Would it be OK to split causes into chapters:

• Natural variability

• Human forces

Uwappa (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, in this draft, I decided to largely stick to what I considered to be the simpler framing of the Attribution article. That is, a list of the actual causes, all human-related, and then the two most important forms of variability - solar and volcanic - are under "Potential causes that have been ruled out" (@EMsmile's chosen wording), which is a separate heading already.

For now, I am not convinced that this article needs to discuss natural variability in any more detail. Yes, there could be a lot more details about ENSO and the other patterns, but I think it might be a better idea to cover that in the actual attribution science article - that is, to explain how the scientists can now separate out the human impact on climate from the impact of this variability. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a structure based on human-related versus non-human-related. But the current chapter heading and text do not support that structure.

The current "Factors affecting Earth's climate" makes a distinction between forcings, feedbacks and internal variations. Those terms are confusing, overlap, raise questions:

• if forcings, feedbacks and internal variations are so important, why don't I see subchapters with those names?
• Aren't all factors forcing? Would a non forcing factor be irrelevant, not worth mentioning?
• Are feedbacks a causing factor? Wouldn't the factor that starts a feedback be a causing factor?
• If internal variations, how about external variations?
• Overlap: A feedback can be forcing. A feedback can be an internal variation. An internal variation can be forcing.

To get a simple, clear structure, with mutually exclusive terms, stick to natural versus human.

1. Describe the difference between human and natural forces at the start of Factors affecting Earth's climate.
2. The chart does support that structure, but it is hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page. Move it up!
3. Rename "Greenhouse gases" to "Human forces"
4. Rename "Potential causes that have been ruled out" to "Natural variability"
5. Check that subchapters are in the right main chapter, either Human or Natural.

I am not proposing to discuss natural variability in more detail. Uwappa (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, all of this text was taken directly from the corresponding section in Attribution of recent climate change. I didn't see any controversy about this phrasing, so I chose not to modify it, and focus on the other paragraphs. You should probably bring up these concerns on the talk page of that article? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, this article is about the causes of climate change. This is the place to get a clear structure for those causes. Without a clear structure working on text is like wandering in a misty maze. When the structure is clear, it will be easy to move text to the right chapters, write new text, remove old text. I prefer to postpone working on text, work top-down, get a clear structure first.

What do you think about a main structure, based on mutually exclusive terms:

• Natural variability
• Human forces

I am not sure yet about the best sequence. It may be good to describe natural variability first. Get that clear so it is clear that human causes are a different story.

The alternative is to start with the main causes, the human ones.

Would it be OK for you if I rename the chapters as a first step and see how that works out? Shall I just boldly do so and if you don't like it, you just reverse it? Uwappa (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)