Talk:Climate variability and change

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate variability and change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' personal beliefs about climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' personal beliefs about climate change at the Reference desk.

Climate variability and change was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 23, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 8, 2018.

Current status: Delisted good article

This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Environment Top‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Geography Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sanitation Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Globalization High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Climate / General High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as High-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Situs GK bayar

Situs gakbayar 182.3.71.33 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Climate change" versus "Global warming"

These two terms GW and CC are not identical. The ongoing debate is whether GW causes CC, or whether GW is a part of CC that causes other parts of CC (see diagram). The terms are not interchangeable, even though there has been confusion about them--confusion that we should not prolong.
I've just deleted from the terminology section, the unsourced, antiquated and scientifically incorrect statement that "In this sense, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming." The terms are not synonymous. It is simply wrong to say CC is "commonly known as" or "also known as" GW. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source indicates "global warming" is synonymous in popular usage.

I'll remind you that WP is geared to the general reader, not the technical specialist. Crescent77 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful you're not here to WP:rightgreatwrongs. It's not our place here to end confusion, it's our place to summarize the reliable sources, even if that may prolong existing confusion. Crescent77 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA source says that some scientific sources have used GW, so it's not merely "popular". I'm not trying to right great wrongs, but conform to how science, and Wikipedia's own CC article, and increasingly the public, are using CC rather than GW (see second chart). —RCraig09 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source specifically says "dominant popular". Crescent77 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anywhere in the UNFCC or NASA source that said the terms are "synonymous". —RCraig09 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lede sentence sin question says "also known as". Crescent77 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "popular" in the (2008!) NASA source had to do with the 1980s. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Became popular in 1988. Do you have a source saying it is no longer popular? We could add that to address the history of the term. Crescent77 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) A statement about a term used 35 years ago is stale. The 2008 NASA source explains why GW was an undesirable term, even then in 2008. Google search hits (right) support this recognition. The burden is on the editor who wants to include an assertion, not on other editors to prove what is "not" popular any more. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a source states it can be included in WP. Your claims of "stale" are not relevant. Notably, the material is 15 years old, you claims of 35 are a gross misrepresentation of the material. Crescent77 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a medieval source says the earth is flat, can we use in Wikipedia? Obviously not.

My "a term used 35 years ago" quote, refers specifically to the term's usage, not to the 2008 source. Obviously. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. The 2008 article indicated it became popular in 1988, nowhere did it say it fell out of popularity. Do you have a source that does?

If a mediaval source indicated the earth is flat, we would (and have) included in WP. We also include more modern sources refuting it. Crescent77 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a usage is stale, it must be placed in time-context, such as by using past tense. It does not have to be disproven with a later source given the difficulty of proving a negative. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, though reasonable, your assertions of "stale" have no weight in WP.

Please provide a reliable source indicating it is no longer the popular usage. Crescent77 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below: "As I have stated multiple times, the 2008 NASA source itself contradicts the (problematic) use of GW even in a scientific source (Union of Concerned Scientists), and the Google Trends chart as a primary source dramatically proves the waning "popular"ity of GW." 20:32, 9 Sept . . . I'm OK with wording now, since it places the 1988 usage in context. Obviously stale circumstances must be placed in context, in Wikipedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we're good with where this articlr currently stands, but for the sake of the future (as we've discussed this very issue before, and I'm sure we will again):

Just because you state it, doesn't make it true. If you restate what you already stated, that doesn't give it any more weight

Claiming you have a "primary source" indicating as much also doesn't make it true, you need to provide the source.

Be careful labeling 15 year old sources as "stale". By that standard, most of the Causes section would be invalidated. Crescent77 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is on the chart's File Description Page on Wikimedia, but, as I just explained, sourcing on waning popularity of GW is not needed here, given the current wording.

And, as I just explained, I didn't label a 2008 source as stale. I said the 1988 situation was stale. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From above : "A statement about a term used 35 years ago is stale". That statement was made in 2008. Watch your grammar.Crescent77 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the lede sentence to make it clearer they are not absolute synonyms. Do you find that more acceptable? Crescent77 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the lead. That leaves the gross problem in the Terminology section. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sourced material from the terminology section and replacing with your unsourced assertions. Crescent77 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the wrong content from the first sentence, and put it in context later in the paragraph. I didn't "remove" it. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you changed the context away from what the source indicated and put in more in line with your unsourced assertion. Crescent77 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated multiple times, the 2008 NASA source itself contradicts the (problematic) use of GW even in a scientific source (Union of Concerned Scientists), and the Google Trends chart as a primary source dramatically proves the waning "popular"ity of GW. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA source indicates the UCS also uses the term "global warming." How is that a "problematic" "contradiction"? Crescent77 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA source clearly distinguishes GW and CC. It's problematic to interchange or confuse usage of two terms that do not mean the same thing, or imply they mean the same thing. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the reliable source to the article so it can be updated as appropriate. Crescent77 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to Google Trends. Since the article now states GW was popular in 1988, but (rightfully) doesn't try to imply it's still popular, it's not necessary to prove it's no longer popular (popular being an ambiguous term: does it mean "non-scientific" or does it mean "used by a lot of people"). I think the article text is acceptable now, unless there are new developments. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Graph from NOAA

I'm thinking of introducing an easy to read graph from a NOAA November 23 article with some background from same.

We have much stuff but nothing that gives such a clear long term (500 million year) illustration.

What do you think folks? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noodellle (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]