Jump to content

Talk:Climate variability and change/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Climate variability and change
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 14 July 2018 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Talk:Climate change) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Under: Human Influences Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

Another human influence to global warming is the general public's misconception of the percentage of scientists that agree that humans are causing global warming. The reality is that 97% of scientists agree that humans are the cause, although the general public on average perceives a highly decreased percentage. There are real-world consequences to the consensus gap. If the general public would understand that climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, they would be more likely to support policy to mitigate global warming. The consensus gap is directly linked to a lack of public support for climate action. This underscores the importance of clearly communicating the consensus and closing the consensus gap

File:Http://icons-ak.wxug.com/graphics/earthweek/climate-change-consensus-gap-in-united-states.png
Public perception of consensus (red bars) versus the 97% consensus measured by Doran & Zimmermann 2009 and Anderegg et al 2010 (green dotted line). Data from U.S. representative sample by John Cook.

</ref>http://www.wunderground.com/earth-day/2013/closing-the-climate-change-consensus-gap</ref> Skrakov (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposed as this article is about the generic idea of climate change, which includes, for example, the PETM millions of years ago. We already linked to the main article for the contemporary warming (the article "global warming", and we discuss that there in brief, and then link to various sub articles such as Politics of global warming and Public opinion on global warming and Climate change denial. Adding this social-science/public-policy influenced on the physical mechanics that influence the current climate change is..... too much. And it sorta disses the dinosaurs, who's era is also part of this article's generic subject. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Semi protected edit requests are meant for non-controversial, simple edits. However, I do encourage further discussion about this proposed edit and it seems another editor is happy to engage in that discussion with you. Cannolis (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Denier section

This was posted on my talk page after I left a note on another ed's talk page. I am moving here to document consensus for deletion of the section, at least at this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC) At first I didn't understand your first message, but I realized after I reverted it again what you meant. I've been looking at financial data for climate change denial and noticed that there wasn't much info on that page so I added to the denier section. But again, I now see why you preferred to keep current events out of that page, so it's okay to take my edit out if you insist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyscarr (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Video

Maybe this is useful?

A Year In The Life Of Earth's CO2 Jan. 1, 2006 - Dec. 31, 2006

Victor Grigas (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at this article. See Attribution_of_recent_climate_change NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a section or article on popular myths, misunderstandings or misinformation

Hi, I'd like to contribute to an article or section of an article on popular myths, misunderstandings or misinformation about climate change, I had assumed there would be a mention of it on this article, maybe I'm just looking for the wrong phrase? Thanks Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely what myths, misunderstandings or misinformation do you have in mind? HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 asks a good question... on other hand, if you just have the general topic in mind, see Global warming and from there the various sub-articles. Don't just read the current threads in talk pages - study the talk page archives. Links to the archives are usually in the yellow-orange section at top of each article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change Affects Everyone and Everything

Climate change affects everyone because temperatures are predicted to rise between two to six degrees Celsius (Cunningham, Mary Ann, and William P. Cunningham). As a result, climate change affects agriculture, wildlife, and the economy. To begin, warmer temperatures will affect agriculture by impacting crops and livestock. Climate change will reduce crop yields, and increase an animal's vulnerability to disease and reduce fertility (“Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply”). In addition, climate change will affect wildlife. By raising temperatures of habitats, animals that are intolerant to the heat will go extinct. Finally, the rising temperatures will affect the economy by increasing the amount of natural disasters. Having to repair the community after a natural disaster is financially draining. For instance, in 2011 alone, weather disasters cost the economy $53 billion in damage (“Extreme Weather: Impacts of Climate Change”). In conclusion, climate change affects everyone and everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.43.86 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Update spheres affected by climate change

The following section may require updating: "Internal forcing mechanisms

Scientists generally define the five components of earth's climate system to include atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere (restricted to the surface soils, rocks, and sediments), and biosphere.[6]"

I would recommend updating this to read: "Internal forcing mechanisms

Scientists generally define the five components of earth's climate system to include atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, regolith (the soils, rocks, and sediments), and biosphere.[6] However, recent studies have shown that these components extend into the solid Earth to include the lithosphere and asthenosphere (magma). [1]"

The reason for replacing "lithosphere" with "regolith" is that until recently, the majority of the lithosphere was not recognised as being included in climate change responses. However, there are now multiple review papers and books describing movement of the magma in response to the mass shift associated with glacial and ice sheet melt, and with mass shifts due to changed movement of sediments. The review paper used as a reference cites most of these papers, but also brings together feedback mechanisms from multiple disciplines and includes discussion on all of the climate change affected spheres.

Clim8prim8 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If this "sticks" in the literature, then by all means... but that is yet to be known. IPCC's recent AR5 WG1 glossary has this entry, quoted in full

Climate system - The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere, and the biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations and anthropogenic forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land use change.

— IPCC AR5 WG1 Glossary - "climate system"
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The use of the word "lithosphere" although stated by the IPCC is not what they actually refer to. The lithosphere is far deeper than the processes assessed by the IPCC. The term "regiolith" refers to that component of the lithosphere that has been affected by erosion and the biosphere, and that is very shallow. As to the "stickiness" of this paper, the cited paper has only been available electronically since May 2014, but has already had over 44,000 downloads on ResearchGate in under 6 months, yet alone from other repositories. Clim8prim8 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"The use of the word "lithosphere" although stated by the IPCC is not what they actually refer to. " That may be, but we can't cite your own expert knowledge and the readership over 6 months isn't the determining factor for "stick" on this point. The real question is what do other scientists say when describing the climate system? Will they adopt anything for that paper, or stick with "lithosphere". For that matter, there's also research about how the thinning of the ice sheets is effecting earth's crust. For example, increased isostatic rebound involves more than the regolith, does it not? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I take your point. Your last comment that increased isostatic rebound involves more than the regolith is a major component of the paper suggested here. Anthropogenic climate change is causing rapid changes to ice loss and therefore isostatic rebound. This is very well documented. Clim8prim8 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Refs for this thread

References

  1. ^ Allen, C. (2014) "Anthropogenic Earth-Change: We are on a Slippery Slope, Breaking New Ground and It’s Our Fault—A Multi-Disciplinary Review and New Unified Earth-System Hypothesis" Journal of Earth Science and Engineering 01/2014; 4:1-53.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015

Please can you add to Further reading: Stacey, F.D. and Hodgkinson, J.H. (2013). The Earth as a Cradle for Life, The origin, evolution and future of the environment. World Scientific Press, Singapore, 301pp ISBN: 978-981-4508-32-2 http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8807

JHHodgkinson (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You appear to be trying to promote your own book - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015

climate change is a significant change in climate SuperDupie (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Could an internal link to Climate be added to the lead in whatever is the correct place? Thank you,Jcardazzi (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Keep trying your own bold edits! When I started, I only learned by being reverted. In any case, I linked that word in paragraph 2. There is also a climate category in the liltte box on the right. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Arctic sea ice loss

This section is written as though its part of the GW article. Remember, this *isn't* the current-climate-change article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for noticing; I had just assumed the deleted text belonged there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ocean currents and Jet streams

Arctic researchers reports and statements now suggest the following scenario: The Arctic Ocean will likely be essentially ice free for most of the month of Sept. That frigid Ocean will warm some due to sun exposure, so that next year one might expect two or three (best est 3) of ice free summer. Do the math (energy absorbed) and the Arctic Ocean will be ice free (year around) in maybe 5 years.

Weather patterns are primarily a function of ocean currents and the jet streams, the power of which in turn driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the more temperate latitudes. The rules of the game are changing. Farming will be severely impacted.

Not much to write, because none of it is in journal reviews. Here's the problem with climate models ... they missed balls of soot pollution on the ice surface absorbing solar radiation FAST [[1]].32cllou (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

When you find an RS on this topic, try Climate change in the Arctic or Arctic sea ice. If you don't have any RS, then see WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Statements and published reports from Arctic researchers affiliated with accredited universities, govt funded research data, and fairly straight forward math likely meets RS. You didn't read that article. Black soot from fires. Forest fires particularly, are significantly a function of climate change (natural or man influenced), and are a positive feedback factor for climate change. Climate change, such as a change in the difference between temperatures in the Arctic circle and lower latitudes. Additional facts should be here too, and thanks for the additional topic links.32cllou (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The information/research on soot and other particulat pollutants 32cllou mentioned are wholly reliably sourced, I have to agree with NewsAndEventsGuy suggestion about that. Just a quick look at the reference provided seems to me it's legitimate and useful. Damotclese (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
But not in this article, unless they are supporting generic text rather than text about the current episode. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Reading the article, I find much that requires, but lacks, source material. Much of what is properly here is dated! 2010 for ice loss, for example. The article (s, as you note) should go to the current level tracking, thus including the crash in 2012, rebound in 2013 and 2014, and now tracking to a worse (than 2012) crash in 2015.32cllou (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This article, climate change, is for talking about the abstract concept, even when the dinosaurs were around. For the specific warming trend of today see global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes in mean vs. changes in spread

Would it help to have a focused section distinguishing between changes in mean (e.g., rising temperatures) vs. changes in spread (e.g., rising temperature standard deviation)? Is the physical evidence well separated that way? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

During recent global warming, there have been few changes in large-scale temperature spreads. For most seasons / locations, the variance is consistent with unchanged. The only pretty clear exception is that high Northern latitude spreads in late fall / winter have declined, probably as a result of declining snow fall. Beyond that, I'm not sure what is really known about variance changes over longer time periods. Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy and editing

Here's something the Gizmodo folks noticed about controversial topics, such as climate change, and Wikipedia. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 23:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (11/12/2015@12noon/et/usa) - "Global warming-related" News Briefing.

IF Interested => NASA-TV/ustream and/or NASA-Audio (Thursday, November 12, 2015@12noon/et/usa)[1] - NASA will detail the Role of Carbon on the Future Climate of the Earth - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.[2][3][4][5]

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere if half of global-warming emissions[4][5] are not absorbed.
(NASA simulation; November 9, 2015)

References

  1. ^ Buis, Alan; Cole, Steve (November 9, 2015). "NASA Holds Media Briefing on Carbon's Role in Earth's Future Climate". NASA. Retrieved November 10, 2015.
  2. ^ a b Staff (November 12, 2015). "Audio (66:01) - NASA News Conference - Carbon & Climate Telecon". NASA. Retrieved November 12, 2015.
  3. ^ a b Buis, Alan; Ramsayer, Kate; Rasmussen, Carol (November 12, 2015). "A Breathing Planet, Off Balance". NASA. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
  4. ^ a b St. Fleur, Nicholas (November 10, 2015). "Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says". New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2015.
  5. ^ a b Ritter, Karl (November 9, 2015). "UK: In 1st, global temps average could be 1 degree C higher". AP News. Retrieved November 11, 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2015

Certain human activities have also been identified as significant causes of recent climate change, often referred to as "global warming". CORRECTED: Certain human activities have also been hypothesized as having possible significant causes of recent climate change, often referred to as "global warming".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntsean92 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 November 2015‎

It's much more than just a hypothesis as the note in the citation explains. SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015

Ajay790505 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Climate change is majorly caused by Human activity such as burning of fossil fuels by Cars, vehicles etc, coal based Power plants, factories and deforestation.

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ" - and the article basically states that already.
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Threshold Factor

The link to threshold factor goes to an unrelated topic. I'm not sure where it is supposed to be pointing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.101.12 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it by dropping the "s", its now not totally wrong, just useless... William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Climate Change page is misleading and does not accurately reflect the current use of the term "Climate Change"

The wiki page for "Climate Change" takes a rather literal meaning of these two words together and talks about changing climate through time. In English, the term "climate change" refers to the recent warming of the planet at an accelerated rate - the concept originating when scientists began predicting that the climate would continue to warm as humans emitted more carbon dioxide into the air. Early well presented positions were in the public view in the 1980's (though the subject matter has a longer history - see Wikipedia page on History of Climate Change). The concept of looking at how climate changes over long periods of time is called "paleoclimatology", and there is a separate wiki page for "paleoclimatology". The discussions about plate tectonics, orbital variations, and solar output do not belong on the wiki-page that people are directed to for a discussion of climate change unless these topics discuss how current scientific evaluations show that these factors can not explain the warming that has been observed over the last 30 years. I suggest that people who search Wikipedia for "Climate Change" should be directed to the current "Global Warming" page which addresses the current use of the term "climate change" and not to a incomplete discussion of paleoclimatology that appears to be designed to present other reasons the climate can change over geologic time (not the general use of the term "climate change" in English usage). 9Questions (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9Questions (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The term "climate change" (originally "climatic change") has been in use for decades to refer to changes in climate on a variety of timescales. This google ngram result shows the evolution well. If you look into the "climate change" results for 2008 say, you find a subset that refers to changes to climate in the geological past, showing that the term is not only used as an equivalent to "global warming". With the hatnote and lead section and further information elsewhere in the article I don't personally see the problem with the current set-up - I don't think that anyone is being misled. Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
should be directed to the current "Global Warming" page - but people already are. The article begins "For current and future climatological effects of human influences, see global warming. For the study of past climate change, see paleoclimatology. For temperatures on the longest time scales, see geologic temperature record."William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks topical . . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit

I would like to propose that the title of the article be change to "Climate Change Theory" as opposed to "Climate Change" The current title assumes a certain political position that impedes knowledge and the pursuit of useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingoutagain (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Will probably not happen. By the way, article and section titles use sentence case, not all caps. - DVdm (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this article is primarily about the general phenomenon (which is an observed and undisputed fact even among most so-called climate change sceptics/deniers), not about the anthropogenic climate change theory. I fail to see how this assumes or implies a political position. Also, of course, not every scientific theory that has political implications assumes a political position - in fact, it is usually the other way round. The theory that the Earth is spherical has the politically relevant implication that you can get to China by sailing west from Spain, but it does not assume that position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Edit on Terminology

I have done research on the terminology of global climate change, and I feel that I could contribute to the "terminology" section of this article. I propose to add more of an introduction to this section, stating that the terminology is important to understanding global climate change. I feel that it would make the section a bit clearer. Lucille Carnation (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is currently locked but could I suggest someone puts a link to Attribution of recent climate change right at the top of the page? Most people interested in climate change -- like me -- are mostly interested in the (contraversial) science of what it is caused by rather than than the (uncontraversial) change itself, and the human causes vs non-human cause theories. It took me ages to find that attribution page otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.235.227 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem here. The very first sentence (italics in the hatnote) points people to Global warming if they are interested in the current global warming. Once there, the first sentence of second paragraph in our lead section has the text "human (anthropogenic) activities" wikilinked, and points to the article you were looking for. Maybe it would take you less time to find what you want if you actually read the top level articles, or at least their LEADs, table of contents, and see alsos. Note too any categories listed at the bottom of the page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Terminology for human vs natural causes

Close per WP:MULTI see other talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There seems to be a wikipedia consensus that "climate change" refers to the general (and uncontraversial) changes in global temperature over millions of years, while "global warming" refers specificially to human-caused temperature changes over the last century. I was just wondering where this naming convention has come from, is it standard outside of wikipedia or was it set up here? I'm no expert in the field but I searched for "climate change" as that's what the media seem to use for the human-caused version, and I was a bit surprised to be referred to "global warming" which I vaguely though was a slightly outdated 1980s term ? (Wasn't there a "global cooling" scarce at one point too, and if so was that supposed to human-causes in the same way?) Might it be better to have one new page called "human-caused climate change" or something ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.234.255 (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Answered at talk page for global warming article 12:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

Taking into account of the anthropogenic heat released by humanity and related domestic animals and employing the conservative estimate of the heat released by world energy consumption, the total heat from humanity is about 19.7 TW [92,93]. This quantity is about 5 percent of the heat imbalance gained by the planet [92,93].

[92] Kaufui Vincent Wong, Yading Dai, Brian Paul, “Anthropogenic Heat Release Into the Environment”, ASME J.Energy Resour. Technol, Dec 2012, Vol 134, Issue 4, 041602 (5 pages). [93] Kaufui Vincent Wong, Climate Change, Momentum Press, NYC, 2016, ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-848-0.

Energy Tzar111 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 21:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides that, this is the wrong article for details about the current warming episode. Instead, see Global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

Azzballz (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC) pooo
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Leaving timestamp. QEDK (愛) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

OSU class project

Student from Global Climate Change class-Ohio State

Hello, my name is Brady Harris, a student from Ohio State. Below are my answers to two questions posed by my instructor.

Overall, this article was written very well and covers the topic of climate change very thoroughly. Where the article lacks a bit is it's one sided coverage of the physical evidence for human made global warming. Granted, there is a significantly greater body of evidence that points to humans contributing to global climate change, but this article never references a point of evidence against human caused climate change. By not sharing the complete picture, I believe this article is not completely neutral. In terms of the information, most of it is very current coming from sources dated in the past decade. One piece of information that could be updated is the figure at citation 70. This past year 2016, was actually warmer than 2015, meaning this chart could be updated to include the more significant piece of data.Bradycat130 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brady, thanks for your feedback. However, I think you need to read a little bit deeper. This article only has one small section on recent anthropogenic influences. If you want to see a discussion of current global warming, that is the article to see. Also check Attribution of recent climate change and Global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll add a bit... this article talks about the general concept which might be now, 2B years agom, when the next supereruption happens... just the idea in genearl, either cooling or warming. At Stephen said, the main article about the current climate change is Global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Global Climate Change- Sydney Speakman OSU

I have to agree that this is a very well written article. It provides many examples as to how the earth is reacting to changing climate as well as the forcings making it do so. However, this article is one-sided and doesn't show the opposite viewpoint that maybe climate change isn't caused by humans, but it is just a cycle this earth goes through? Two questions that I do have: 1) In the terminology section you talk about an event of climate occurring over 10 years or longer, but I thought that a "normal period" was considered to be 30 years? 2) Will you be adding any changes/updates to this article now knowing that 2016 was the hottest year on record? Syd speak (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

On the "viewpoint that maybe climate change isn't caused by humans, but it is just a cycle this earth goes through", my limited understanding is that it's both. The cycles are currently trending slightly downwards, but are being overwhelmed by human caused forcings, mostly up but also some down, the net of which is in line with the observed global warming. This is discussed in Attribution of recent climate change, but rather out of date as it still needs to incorporate the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report findings, so plenty of changes/updates to be done! . . dave souza, talk 06:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Syd, also this article is about the concept of climate change, and is equally applicable to PETM (warming ~55M years ago) and past glacial periods during earth's history, in addition to the current warming. The top-level article for the current episode of warming is Global warming. If your interest is re cause, I'll echo Dave's point to Attribution of recent climate change; see also Earth's energy budget. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Global Climate Change Critique - Malcolm Guy OSU

My name is Malcolm Guy. I am a student at The Ohio State University. I am critiquing this article for an assignment in my class on climate change.

The majority of the statements in the article are cited with appropriate factual articles. There are 99 sources cited in the article, which seems more than sufficient. The article seems fully relevant given the complex nature of climate change, with the associated articles on more specific aspects of climate change properly linked. This article does not discuss the possibility that climate change isn't caused by humans, however, doing so would be contrary to the science we have. Furthermore, doing so on this article would be inappropriate because there are other articles dedicated to the debate such as Global warming controversy. I have two questions. One, is it necessary to even briefly touch on the fact that this science is a highly political issue, and present evidence to make it more balanced? As I said earlier, I understand there are other articles devoted to doing so. Two, will we be adding any data showing that 2016 was the hottest year on record? I feel doing so would be a welcome addition to the article. MGUY10 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Malcolm Guy

Maybe I'm dense, but the "External forcing mechanisms" subsection of the "Causes" section has 5 subsections, only the last of which deals with human influences. There has been and is plenty of climate change that is not caused by humans, and I think the article adequately cover that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
MGuy
(A) Click and read this link... WP:HATNOTE
(B) Then read the hatnote at the top of this article.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Global Climate Change Class - OSU - Chandler Adamaitis

I think this is a well-written article and it does a good job of giving an overview of the subject while providing links to many other subtopics if people want to read more in depth. However, some of the sources could be considered slightly outdated -- some dating back to 1972, 1989, etc. Although this information may still be factual, I'm sure there is more up-to-date information available that could be more relevant to the current status of climate change. Also, I think there should be more information on proxies considering all of our prehistoric climate information comes from proxies. Currently, I think the subtopic is underrepresented in the article and it does not do the best job of indicating how proxies are interpreted and how exactly the paleoclimate information is derived from them. Cjadamaitis (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(A) Click and read this link... WP:HATNOTE
(B) Then read the hatnote at the top of this article.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OSU Article Critique-Andrew Peralta

My name is Andrew Peralta and I am currently a student at The Ohio State University, this critique is a class assignment.

This appears to be a very well composed article as evidence of its numerous sources from reliable researchers. However one thing that was distracting was, there was no mention of the denial of climate change. Perhaps to make this entry even stronger there could be a subsection in the "Human influences" section that addresses this. It could possibly go into detail about the both the scientific denial- or more appropriately its skepticism- and even address how politicized climate change has become leading to identity politics, and maybe even touch on the far that some politicians simply deny it because their campaign donations tell them too. Obviously it would have to be way less biased sounding than what I just said, but references to what coal companies contribute to certain politicians who are also deniers would certainly be a start. Furthermore, even though I disagree with many climate deniers, a future reader may need to be aware of both sides of the argument to be able to address them for arguments sake. Addressing the rebuttal and counterpoints is very important in climate science and should be here as well in order to maintain a stance of neutrality and reliability. Other than that, the information seems up to date and the sources as well seem up today the and reliable, just the fact that there is no section addressing skepticism leads one to believe that the sources themselves are not neutral. Peralta.21 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is far more information on external causes than internal causes of climate change. It could go more in depth into how the carbon and water cycles affect climate change rather than just how past life affected it. It does not really relate albedo, evapotranspiration, cloud formation, and relation to internal causes rather just mentions them.


This page is semi-locked. Users editing must be a member and the account must be older than 4 days and they must have edited at least 10 times. This is in place to try to prevent edits that would not improve the article. This is good so that people trying to play a joke or be malicious aren't able to change the article. But this could be bad because some articles that are at full protection may not be updated as regularly.

Matricardi.3 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(A) Click and read this link... WP:HATNOTE
(B) Then read the hatnote at the top of this article.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OSU Web Critique of Climate Change-Andrew Bollenbacher

Hi my name is Andrew Bollenbacher and I am writing this section in order to complete part of my assignment for GEOG 3900. Overall, this is a great article when the reader is searching purely for the science behind global climate change, yet it neglects to delve into the political controversy associated with climate change. I was wondering why there is no section that explains how climate change and politics are intertwined. Also, there is a new evidence I came across that shows that February 2017 has the most CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 10 years; Tans and Keeling, 2017, Higher C02 levels in 2017 vs previous years, with a mean value of about 407 PPM. I think it would be good to keep a record of the increasing CO2 levels with a constantly updating graph like the one I linked above. HIGHTEE (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(A) Click and read this link... WP:HATNOTE
(B) Then read the hatnote at the top of this article.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki individual assignment

1.) Does the climate change effect the re-productivity of the beetles and fishes causing the population to be altered? 2.) Does climate change increase/decrease pollen or just change the type of pollen found? Sasu21 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Sagul

1.) You probably mean affect, not effect. Don't think "re-productivity" is right, better to say reproductive success, which does commonly relate to environmental conditions, and so will be affected by climate change.
2.) Similarly, plants will respond to the environment in releasing pollen, the response will vary with species. dave souza, talk 22:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Geog 3900 Wikipedia Critique

The Climate Change Wikipedia page is locked. This is good because climate change is a very controversial subject. Since it is a topic that a lot of people probably look up, having it protected seems like the better option because a lot of people have strong biases that would incentivize them to make false claims on the page. Since the article is on climate change and not global warming, I was surprised to see that it did not include the viewpoint that humans do not have a significant effect on Climate Change. Upon looking at the sources, most seemed like scholarly articles, except for source #69, which was a New York Times article. Since it is not a scholarly article, it could be viewed as a biased source. Overall the article was well-written and informative with a few confusing aspects. Deliarandolph (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Two redirects to two different articles

I notice that a wikipedia search on two nearly identical terms lead to redirects to different articles:

It seems that these two redirects should go to the same page; having them go to different pages is more confusing than informative. --there is also an article Human impact on the environment which is also the target of some redirects.

To try to make this a little clearer, I added a subheading "Anthropogenic Climate Change" under terminology, with a clear pointer to the Global warming article, the intent of this is to direct the people who are actually searching for that to be directed as quickly as possible to what they are interested in, so that this article can focus on the more general topic of climate change, anthropogenic or not. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


e/c

A- you are edit warring by re-reverting the new section heading without any discussion.
  • "without any discussion"??? Sorry, but you have that precisely backwards. Quite obviously-- from the fact that you're reading it now-- I did put in a comment explaining what I did and why. You, on the other hand, did a revert without discussion (it is only on your second revert that you read or replied to the discussion I started.)
To your credit you started this thread but you have to let people actually reply in order to have the "Discussion" part of the WP:BRD cycle.
Thanks.
B- Section heading hurts because we already steer people "as quickly as possible" to the global warming article via the italicized hatnote at the top of the article. The problem with the subheading that the main section is "Terminology". By making a big bold heading about AGW some readers will inevitably not realize we're only talking vocabularly and they will expect a discussion about global warming itself right here. That would backfire from your very worthy goal of helping people navigate.
That's why wikipedia implements a "main" tag at the beginning of a subsection.
C- Thanks for catching the erroneous "Anthropogenic climate variability" redir, which I have since sent to "global warming".
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Good. I think that's a better place to redirect it. That addresses some, but not all, of the problem.
The difficulty is that, while logically the phrase "climate change" seems like it should to refer to any source of climate change, since the mid 1980s this has been used as the main phrase to refer to anthropogenic climate change due to global warming, and the vast majority of people finding this article are will be looking for information on that. It does make sense to have an article, this one, about all sources of climate change, but the article must be written with the understanding that almost all of the people who are reading it did not intend to get to this article, but were looking for global warming. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017

I would like to add the following sentence to the opening statement.

"Climate change, not to be mistaken by 'Global 'Warming', .......(continues opening statement here)..." Ejerb (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is already covered in the hatnote at the very top of the page and at the end of the first paragraph. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Orbital variation and solar variation...

...should obviously be combined into a single section. Orbital variation changes the distance from the Sun to Earth and the portions of the Earth exposed to the sun and the lengths of time of that exposure. All of that results in variation in the amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth and the intensity and duration of that energy exposure. The two are completely interrelated. And because the amount of energy the Sun can and does radiate is at least partially dependent on how much energy is being absorbed by the planets and their moons vs. what is being reflected back by them toward the sun, even "solar variation" is somewhat dependent on orbital mechanics.

Simultaneously, "geothermal" energy on and in Earth are also related to and dependent on how much energy the Earth absorbs from the Sun. When the surface temperature of the Earth increases and various atmospheric changes take place as a result, geothermal energy radiating through and to the Earth's crust and natural "vents" increases or decreases as a result. Warm, moist air near the surface insulates the surface and reduces the radiation of geothermal heat into the atmosphere. Cool, dry air is a poorer insulator and more geothermal heat can radiate from the Earth's crust in areas with cooler air temperatures and lower humidity levels. In fact, since the primary principal of all thermodynamics is that heat moves from a warmer location to a colder location, geothermal activity and radiation is in part caused and encouraged by cold, dry air. Other factors such as the "soil" or lack thereof in areas where the "soil" is mainly or entirely rock or stone result in increased "geothermal activity" when combined with colder, drier air because stone and rock are better substances for heat storage and the slow release of heat than finer and/or "organic" soils.

Altitude plays another key role, but again it comes back to atmospheric condition changes as altitude/elevation increases and the reduced atmospheric shielding/diffusion of the sun's energy. The majority of very "geothermic" areas of Earth are found where ambient temperature and humidity levels are relatively low so that geothermal energy can radiate from the Earth most efficiently. The exception would seem to be the "Ring of Fire" of supposedly "high" volcanic activity", but volcanic activity is actually not the result of efficient geothermal conductivity to the atmosphere. It's precisely the opposite, and the majority of volcanic activity occurs where heat withing the Earth has difficulty radiating to and through the crust because of atmospheric conditions at the surface. Especially in areas where consistently warm ocean temperatures insulate the crust on the sea floor and prevent heat from radiating away.

Ultimately its pointless to try to separate out "causes" of "climate changes" on Earth since they're all the result of a basically endless variety of factors with only the Sun's energy being the CURRENT and CONTINUOUS source of energy present on and in the Earth. Earth itself is slowly cooling and slowing both in orbital and rotational speed and the only "internal heat source" is residual heat left over from the planet's initial formation/creation, whenever that occurred. And as it cools, it cools more quickly because as with any other cooling substance, the more it cools the less heat it contains and the less it has to lose.

Interestingly, all the "global warming/climate change" focus when it comes to "temperature data" has been on ATMOSPHERIC DATA rather than SOIL TEMPERATURE DATA. Of course as more and more surface area is developed, paved over and covered with buildings and other structures and bodies of water such as swimming pools, fountains, ponds, lakes and reservoirs, the ability of the Earth to radiate geothermal heat is reduced or at the very least the rate it can be radiated is reduced. Eventually the heat will make its way through artificial "insulation" on the surface but it will take a larger quantity of heat and a longer length of time to do so as first the "insulation" itself must be heated to a point where IT can radiate heat away and act as a "radiator". Artificial cooling such as refrigeration (for food, air-conditioning, cooling mechanical and electrical infrastructure, etc) adds to the heat load and atmospheric heat in those areas during the warm months not only due to cooling of air and objects but because of the increased humidity that results when refrigeration dehumidifies the refrigerated air.

But in areas where there are significant periods of "cold" temperatures and/or significant winds capable of blowing heat out over the "countryside" etc, the heat retention is attenuated somewhat. However, in more "temperate" areas, even where "average temperatures" don't require air-conditioning, the net result can be more severe because infrastructure in those areas typically has no air conditioning and heat and humidity accumulate in underground and above ground structures for long periods of time with little or no radiation or removal possible. The high and steadily increasing temperatures in the London subway system aren't so much the result of increased heat generation from braking, electrical components radiating heat etc from increased traffic as they are the result of increasing ground temperatures around the subway tunnels because the "temperate" climate of London doesn't permit radiation of geothermal AND artificial heat up through the ground and into the atmosphere.

The same holds true of the Earth itself. When solar activity is increased, the amount of energy reaching the Earth is increased and temperatures throughout the atmosphere and crust increase. Geothermal heat loss via radiation is reduced and heat accumulates until solar activity declines. For a period of time following such a decline, surface and atmospheric temperatures will CONTINUE to increase simply because geothermal heat radiation is a 24-7-365 process while heating due to solar radiation stops during the night time hours once the atmosphere "settles" and an "equlibrium" between atmospheric and surface temps is established. In areas with very little artificial "insulation", long periods of daylight part of the year and long periods of dark AND true "seasonal" climates rather than "temperate" climates and with soil/surface water and groundwater/atmospheric conditions very conducive to plant life and agriculture have very little "geothermal activity" such as hot springs, geysers, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.139 (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

[2] - William M. Connolley, Not to be nosy, but your edit summary was somewhat vague. Why did you remove this link? DN (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

I think it would be good to include "climate change denial" in the "see also" section. This-is-name (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see the navigation box templates at the bottom of the article, you should find this link twice already. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Chem bonds

I think adding the chemical bonds and the way chemicals impact climate change. Its important to show how little things can add up! (144.89.230.235 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC))

I think the page should include the chemicals bonds that impact climate change and also where the chemical bonds come from! It's important to state the small things!(Harriscj (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)).

Homework assignments for UW Bothell B WRIT 135

Suggestion

On the topic of climate change I was thinking it might be a good idea to include criticisms about climate change or climate change deniers just so readers can understand the other viewpoint, or at least a link to the climate change denial wiki page. WingRiddenAngel (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

See global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible Edits

In the Dendroclimatology section, relating back to climate change as a whole would be useful. Right now, it only specifies what dendroclimatology is.

In the Arctic sea ice loss, the information regards rate of decline per decade. Adding information on yearly decline would show the variability of how sea ice may in fact increase, but still show the overall decline downward.

Also in the Arctic sea ice loss, the information given is not about climate change as a whole, but rather argues that climate change is happening rapidly. It appears a little biased, and the “further evidence for rapid climate change” part should be edited or removed.

Continuing in the Arctic sea ice loss, it comes from an article by NASA which is making the argument that climate change is occurring now. It is a biased article, which might have caused the slightly biased sounding information given, so the bias should be mentioned.

It may not be necessary, but in the Sea level change section, the articles used are biased to make an argument for rapid climate change today. Although the information given in the section seems properly unbiased, mentioning the bias in the sources may be worth mentioning. Cattroms (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Since you are doing a class assignment and there is no indication you plan to work on the text, I for one am going to treat the above suggestions as a general discussion and ignore them pursuant to the talk page guidelines. I'm not mad... welcome to Wiki and you did exactly what you were assigned to do in the course instructions. I'm just saying if you want to participate and pursue these ideas for real, then by all means, say so! Otherwise, if you are only here to complete the assignment and are WP:NOTHERE to improve the article, then congrats, your homework is done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Forest genetic resources Section, move out of evidence

This section provides little or no evidence so I propose to move it. Any ideas as to where? Raggz (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A note: Please do not delete sources that you find to have broken links. Just because the link is currently unclickable does not render the source invalid or nonexistent. It just means we need to fix the link. Either fix the link yourself, or note that the link is broken. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Could we reduce archive frequency?

I came to this talk page and was surprised to find it empty. It took me a little while to find the archives. You really have to look for them carefully. How about we change the archive frequency? I find archiving after just 30 days is very fast. Could we change that to 3 months or so? EMsmile (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as this talk page is not busy 90 days and minimum thread number=3 would work for me, however, we should allow people to manually archive the driveby noise that is frequently posted here before the 90 days and even when the thread count is three or less. The type of thing I'm talking about is when someone posts something and then does not particpate in followup, or when someone posts POV/FORUM type stuff or naked links to other sources but doesn't talk about them. I'd rather see an empty page than the drive by soap box and spam type thing so often left here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I don't know how to change the archive frequency or to set up a manual archive. Any totally unsuitable comments on the talk page could also be directly deleted, rather than archiving them. EMsmile (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Impact on developing countries

It is often said that climate change effects will affect developing countries more than others, e.g. more droughts, floods (coupled with lower resiliance and infrastructure). I was surprised to see nothing about that in the article, or maybe I missed it? Could anyone please add some information about this? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article You're reading the generic "climate change" article. This article applies equally well to 2018 as it does to the PETM millions of years ago. This is about when climate changes (either warming or cooling). What you're talking about is specifically related to the current climate change. The top article in that series is Global warming, and then there are many sub articles, of which one of the higher-up ones in the tree is Effects of global warming. Does that help? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this. But I wonder if that matches up with how the term "climate change" is nowadays mostly used and understood. If I go to the article on global warming, the first thing I read is "Global warming, also referred to as climate change,". For me, I wouldn't have thought that the main article nowadays is "global warming". While technically correct, I think it is misleading because some parts of the world may not warm up at all (think Great Britain and the golf stream). I think in the popular press and media, the term "climate change" is more common now. Perhaps one could clarify this in the climate change article. Would it help to have a disambiguation page? Should we say that we have "climate change (man made)" and "climate change (not man made)". I see this sentence here in the article "In this sense, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming." I also see some overlap between the two articles, e.g. section 2.2.5 on human influences. I guess it is really hard to delineate the two more clearly, but if it could be achieved, that would be great. I am probably not the only one who heads to the article on climate change when theoretically I should have gone to "global warming".... Note also how other Wikipedia articles link to this article. Many of them will be linking to climate change rather than linking to global warming, even though they should... (e.g. the article on developing countries. EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Have been doing more reading on talk pages and found that similar discussions have taken place (sorry, you must be sick and tired of having to discuss the same things again and again...). But that issue about the first senctence "Global warming, also referred to as climate change," was brought up again just recently on the talk page of global warming... I might add a comment over there now.EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

In the sub-section "solar output", a paragraph begins with the text "In an Aug 2011 Press Release ...". A suggestion is to correct that to "In an August 2011 press release ...". 140.198.167.182 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed moving of that quote about human influences

I had suggested to remove the long quote that is currently in the section on human influences but User:Vsmith reverted my edits. We have a main article about this topic called "global warming" which is linked to. This is where people should go to when they get to this section. For this reason, I don't think it is necessary to have this lengthy quote here but rather a short intro about "human influences" aka global warming and if people want to know more about it they should go there. Apart from that, take a look at that quote and you'll see that it has a low readability score, with long and complex sentences. Not easy to understand for laypersons. As the hatnote says, this article is not primarily about the recent man-made changes in climate anyhow. - See also what I put about this on the talk page of global warming. EMsmile (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The quote is relevant and if readers find the "low readability" bit troublesome they are welcome to A: learn a bit or b: skip it and roll on. Vsmith (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion the quote goes into too much detail, given that a) we have a sub-article on this topic that people should turn to and b) this article is about long term climate change and not those climate changes that are man-made. You have not addressed these two arguments of mine which I already raised previously. You only repeated that it is "relevant" (in your opinion). There could be many other "relevant" quotes too, that is not the point here. About the readability, I do think this is important in general for all Wikipedia articles and think many Wikipedians have in the past paid far too little attention to improving readability of articles. Think of people for whom English is not the first language or people without a university degree. Wikipedia is about public education, and just saying "people should learn or skip the text" is a bit of an arrogant attitude in my opinion. - Anyway, let's hear also from others who are watching the page if they think the quote must stay or can go, e.g. User:NewsAndEventsGuy EMsmile (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Compared to how busy I am, its a low priority and I don't care that much either way.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
How is it not relevant? It is about climate change and the current changing climate is real. The quote is a rather concise statement of the current situation and a lead in to the linked article. This is not simple wikipedia and readers can handle a big word or two. No, Wikipedia is not about "public education" - it is about providing information - and that quote does just that in clear language. Vsmith (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You find that quote a concise statement? I think there are better ones - to be found in the article on global warming which is where it belongs, not here. Anyhow, We seem to not be able to reach a consensus. May I ask any of the other people who are watching this page for their opinion? I am of the opinion that whenever there is a separate article on a topic, see the "Main|Global warming" note, then the text needs to be very short and only provide a quick overview but no unnecessary detail. This quote is unnecessary detailed at this point. And of course current climate change is real, you don't need to covince me of that. And Wikipedia is also about public education; we are providing encyclopedic information so that people can learn and understand stuff. Anyway, if nobody else has an opinion on this quote that they are willing to share then I give up at this point. EMsmile (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The goal should be to entice people to go to Global warming. Vsmith, you advocate for the quote saying it is "a lead in to the linked article". .... Bbut wait.... the other article already a WP:Lead section. Are you saying we should start using WP:Lead ins to the Lead Section of linked articles? In my opinion, our writing has a lot more oompf if we make effective use of the article tree structure, and a vigorous discipline favoring brevity and flow. And I know, I said I don't care much either way and I don't. I just added a followup to express appreciation for EMsmile's good faith efforts to improve this article grouping. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Compromise idea: I have removed the first two sentences of the quote and made it start with the sentence that is at the core of this quote. As far as I am concerned, we might also delete the last sentence of the quote but for now I have left it here. Good? EMsmile (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Aerosols and climate change

A piece to consider for inclusion as a reference: Samset, Bjørn Hallvard (13 April 2018). "How cleaner air changes the climate". Science. 360: 148–150.Open access icon --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

Would like to add a new discovery at the end of section of "Causes"

 Not done: Unclear what changes need to be made. If it's the section below, that has already been declined. ToThAc (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Pepa12lol (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Global warming which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please contribute there. In short: the proposal on the table would mean that the title of this article would have to be changed, so that the existing article called global warming could be renamed to "climate change". EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed improvements June 2018

Swap order: external forcings first, then internal forcings

I would like to swap the order and start with the external forcings, then the internal forcings. Does anyone object? I don't see why internal forcings would need to be listed first. If we swapped the order then this would bring the human-induced external forcings to appear earlier in the article, which I think is important. Why? Because I think the majority of people these days would come to an article on "climate change" looking to the topic of the human-induced climate change. Or is there a reason why the internal forcings need to come first? EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose; You have clearly stated a desire that this articles title "climate change" be assigned the scope of the human-caused phenomena, but as we have argued endlessly at Talk:Global warming this articles scope is currently assigned to the overall concepts of climate change which includes but is certainly not limited to humans. This article's current scope is not tied to a time period of earths history either. So the move you want to make is to bubble up the importance of contemporary anthropogenic factors before we resolve the appropriate scope of these articles in the other discussion. Further, I am opposed to shuffling people instantly into a focus on the human side, because the reader can't really undersrtand this issue without understanding the five parts of the Climate system and how they interact along with other external forcings. All of that is necessary context for understanding what people are doing. So I also kinda view this change as encouraging readers takie a shortcut and just blip over this all important background & context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "shortcut", it is helping people find what they are looking for more easily. The way "climate change" is used in the media and science today is mainly to refer to the human-made climate change. I think a lot of people look for that first and if they want to know more then they can go deeper into the general climate science behind it. We are writing here for the interested layperson not for other scientists. Anyway, is there a reason why the internal forcings must be described first? Are they important for the logical flow? If so, then fine. I thought they are on an equal basis to the external ones, in which case the external ones might as well come first. EMsmile (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I know this is in good faith here, but it is sort of thin ice, in my opinion. Please review
For others arriving here unawares... the underlying conceptual consensus has to do with "global warming" vs "climate change" and is currently being debated at Talk:Global_warming#Requested_move_3_June_2018. You are welcome to join the discussion over there.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not my intention to do anything "dodgy" but I see your point. Will tread more carefully. Have just made a suggestion to use the TOC limit 3 which I think would be better for this kind of overview article. What do you and others think about that? EMsmile (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC) See also here. EMsmile (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Aren't we missing some sections of the article?

So if this article is about climate change in any time frames, i.e. long ones AND more recent ones, then why do we have no information at all about topics such as: "Effects of climate change", responses and discourse? Shouldn't we have that at least very briefly and then refer across to "global warming" or the other suitable sub-articles? I think we have to decide: (A) is this article about all types of climate change (i.e. ALSO about the human-induced part)? Or (B) is it only about the non-human induced part. I think (A) is correct. If (A) is correct then we need to very briefly touch on those things relating to the human-made climate change, namely, effects, responses and discourse. Just really briefly and then refer to the other sub-articles. Do you agree? EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. is it OK that I add that here or should I rather put this on the talk page of global warming, into our existing discussion? I assume the people watching both pages are quite similar, and it really is about this article here.EMsmile (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems like yet another bite of the apple despite feedback offered in another thread on this page, which I offered earlier today in this diff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought about it, and that's why I put the P.S. there (just above), but I concluded that if we are discussing details of the existing article on "climate change" then it ought to go onto the talk page of climate change. After all, these are two different articles at this stage and perhaps forever. So why not discuss the issue of potentially missing sections here? Also, if the move proposal is rejected, then we anyway have to come back to this talk page to discuss possible improvements of this article. By the way, the quality class of this article is only B, so it really does need improvement. EMsmile (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
One can only have a meaingful discussion of "the issue of potentially missing sections" once everyone is on the same page about the scope of the article, and you seem to be trying to change that in the other thread. I didn't say "no" I just said "not yet". Going on a trip it makes little sense to ask "Gee, I think I forgot something" if you don't know if you're going to spend a week at Broadway or a week deep sea fishing. First come to peace with the article title/scope issues then ask questions of this sort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that my title change proposal for global warming will be unsuccessful, as many people are aruging against it and only few have supported it so far. However, nearly everyone in the discussion has pointed out that climate change is the overarching article, and that it includes climate change at ANY time and for ANY reason. Therefore, I thought it was reasonable to return to climate change and see what needs to be done to make it into a better article. But I'll try to be more patient and hang back for a while.EMsmile (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
You and I were the only vigorous debaters in favor of either (or both) articles being renamed. There was at least one (maybe more) "support" not-votes. If those other supporters agree, is it alright with you for the rename discussion at Talk global warming be closed and the rename tags removed? I like tending to such things as a matter of housekeeping and documenting consensus, so we don't go back and forth. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Why the rush? The tag has only been up since 3 June, so barely a week. If someone was on holidays they would miss out. Couldn't we leave it up for another couple of weeks and see if new people join the debate? (you had originally suggested an RfC but changed your mind on that; would that not still be useful?) Or is there a guideline that such a move tag needs to be taken down fast? And I don't think concensus has been reached. Overruled, maybe, but I think the main arguments for changing have not really been addressed, i.e. as per WP:COMMONAME. Also compromise ideas were not really discussed by those opposing it. The opposition mainly stems from a) let's just keep the status quo, b) climate change and global warming both exist as terms and as wikipedia articles, c) the term global warming is (also) used in the literature and sources, and d) it would be too messy to change. A compromise idea in my opinion would be to rename it to global warming and climate change and to broaden climate change to make it into a true overview article (like top of the tree), i.e. including all information necessary to lead people off in the right direction to find out more about a) currenty climate change as well as b) past climate change. (would it be useful if I put the same content on the talk page of global warming or even move it to there?) EMsmile (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Why the rush? Seems like you want to edit under one big picture framework while the discussion of changing the big picture (which you started) is still underway. I'm opposed to the editing you want to do in this thread at this time though it may make sense later. In other words, it makes little sense and is even a bit disrespectful to your dinner guests, if you add lots of curry while still asking your guests whether they want Indian or Italian for supper. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Curry? For goodness sake don't mention Curry in this context, as Major Bloodnok might have said. . . dave souza, talk 15:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
oh my.... at myself I say

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait then. Do you have any suggestions on how to progress/revitalise the discussion at the global warming talk page? Would an RfC make sense? If so, where? To make it more palatable I would probably put Alternative D forward in the RfC question, as otherwise the first reaction might be "you cannot move "global warming" to "climate change" because that page exists already". EMsmile (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've already imparted all my words of wisdom. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I see someone has already closed the move discussion now. People have no patience. Whatever. So, can I now start discussing whether this article here needs the additional sections like I have proposed above? EMsmile (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

sentence move and GW bolding

Re this edit which I reverted... in the Manual of Style, bold might be used for alternative names, see WP:BOLDSYN and for links that redirect back to the same article, see WP:BOLDLEAD. The other thing is moving the sentence at all. See WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. We are supposed to describe the subject and you are already trying to do a backdoor redirect from this article so people read the text you want them to read when they search "climate change" but is currently located at Global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

the first sentence of the global warming article says "Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects.". So why can the first or second sentence of this article not also say something equivalent like what I had proposed? If you don't like the bolding, we can remove that, but in terms of the ordering, I can't see anything wrong with moving this information forward. Just like on the global warming article we tell people upfront that climate change is a synonymous term, so we could do the same at the climate change article? Why not? Is it mainly the bolding that you didn't like or the ordering of the sentences?EMsmile (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Regrettably, in common usage the words are synonyms in one context but not in the other. Think pizza. If you are talking about the general concept of pizza, the only phrase in common usages is "climate change". If, however, you are talking about the specific slice of pizza now on the table, then in common usage the words are indeed synonyms, and so the other article starts Global warming, also known as climate change... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Improving readability

This article has a low readability score of only 37 (see here). I plan to work on improving the readability score over the coming week. This should be not controversial. EMsmile (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Go for Featured Article status! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_variability_and_change/Archive_5&oldid=850155145"