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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Describe the difference between human and natural forces at the start of Factors affecting Earth's climate.
The chart does support that structure, but it is hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page. Move it up!
Rename "Greenhouse gases" to "Human forces"
Rename "Potential causes that have been ruled out" to "Natural variability"
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

I've boldly renamed the chapters as a first step. Please have a look and see how that works out. Reverse if you don't like it. Or move on and work on text? Uwappa (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take one or two steps back. This draft is only here because the other editors active in the WikiProject have effectively decided that they want to rename Attribution of recent climate change. I was the last one to (semi)-support that idea, and my support is conditional on the implementation of changes that are being drafted here. Nevertheless, it is clear that what is going with this sandbox is currently adjacent to the discussion on Talk:Attribution of recent climate change. Even if you can get me to agree to these changes to text you proposed above, it wouldn't really matter if the other editors active in that discussion do not like them and would move to reverse them, so why not bring those arguments to a place where all of them will see it now?

I'll also say that I'm not really in favour of that rename right now. Firstly, "Potential causes that have been ruled out" was probably rather clumsy, but I think it made the point that natural variability does not cause climate change a lot clearer. Secondly, carbon sinks are not a human force, and neither are the feedbacks. To be fair, they are not greenhouse gases either: the heading/subheading naming and order in this draft was probably never ideal - I simply combined the attribution article with the material from Climate change to do the best we could. Thus, I am not really going to revert it (yet). I do urge you to take these concerns to the attribution talk page first. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on getting the text right. That is just work to be done. So I would like to postpone text changes until the structure is stable.

Agree, the chapter heading "Natural variability" does make it clear that it is not a cause. The text further clarifies that point. Any idea for an even better chapter heading?

Also agree with your implicitly suggested next step: move subchapters. If carbon sinks and feedbacks are not human caused, where should they go to? And... are they really not human caused? Should those subchapters be in a new main chapter 'human amplified', 'human triggered', 'ripple effects'?

I will make a bold change again, move those two subchapters. And we take it from there? Uwappa (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]