User:NewsAndEventsGuy/000 Partial Evolution of articles Global Warming and Climate Change

"Global warming" or "climate change"? How did Wikipedia get here? This is an incomplete chronology of all the major edits and discussions that have established the status quo of putting generic climate change at Climate change and human caused climate change at global warming.

2019 notes.... I last really worked on this 4 1/2 years ago and then abandoned the project. I should have made better notes. As I recall......When name changes came up before, there was a bunch of I-just-dont-wanna pushback but also technical complaints that things were just so tangled up that we couldn't proceed. In 2014 I quit working on this mainly because of the Don't-wanna-deal-with-it brick wall

When it came up later, I realized the tangled chaos needed to be cleaned up no matter what we do, and since tangled chaos was cited as an obstacle to a real discussion of name reform, a good approach would be to untangle the chaos and then have a discussion about name reform. The wikiproject is starting to play with categories and banners, which is really really easy to do. What is needed is time for the wikiproject to learn that there is a big divide between playing with categories and banners and designing them to efficiently serve editing goals, once the editing goals are defined. <<<<< This is the big bad ass tool box for untangling chaos in the climate pages. The project members need time to experience them and then to evaluate whether they are serving our goals

But there is interest again so, for what it is worth, here is my half-begun work from five years ago.

To do

I had almost no not notes at all, but in 2019, this is my best guess as to what they should have said

FIRST FORMAT

• Finish formatting the work assembled in this list so far. Especially sort by date if needed and collapse and indent talk threads
• Not to be funny, but first finish the first bullet. That will provide a record to help double check this to do list, since I didn't expect this project to go dormant and my notes are thin.

WHAT IS DONE AND LEFT TO DO

• This chronology collects changes to Global warming paragraph 1. I think I have a complete picture 2006 into 2014 and then stopped.

Do some quality review to see if that's probably true

Include in quality review that I probably captured changes to the hatnote

• This list also tries to interweave discssions about "global warming" vs "climate change" from the talk archives at Global warming. I think I have copied all the threads from archives 23-41 and threads from 0-22 and 43 and above are still missing

Below there are many threads that were copied but have not yet been sorted, or formatted (collapsed and indented witht the collapse ribbon annotated like the others) Do that sorting and formatting first to help with the quality and completeness review

• Consider adding changes to Global warming paragraph 1 (and hatnote) after I stopped (in 2014)
• Consider adding changes to Global warming terminology section and related archived talk threads, which I haven't even started
• Consider adding changes to Climate change and related archived talk threads, which I haven't even started

• Pars pro toto (I no longer remember why I listed this)

In the beginning

• Global warming (talk · edit · history)
• Climate change (talk · edit · history)

• October 30, 2001‎ Oldest version of Global warming article available in version history, but it obviously isn't the oldest version that ever existed. In this diff, user Zundark deleted over 80,000 bytes of a pre-existing article (apparently lost in the digital black hole). User Zundark is still editing, so.... @Zundark:, it's only been 18 years. Do you remember anything about the history we're trying to document?

• From Dec 2001-April 2002, version history at Global warming sees a lot of skeptic and/or denier editing at Global Warming, but edit sums do not really shed light on the bifurcation of the two articles

• April 3, 2002, the article Climate change was created as a stub article.

• May 16, 2003 Oldest post in in Version history at Talk:Climate change and that comment is also the oldest one in the archives. Interesting, it is by WMC and mentions the "purpose of the article", as stated in its "head". WMC was refering to these edits, and apparently this versions "head"

• March 3, 2004 Oldest post (with a real comment) in Version history at Talk:Global warming. This remark was archived in volume 4. There are three earlier archives, but their individual posts are not catalogued in version history. TO DO, read and maqybe incorproate comments from Talk:GW Archive 1-3.

Global warming FAQ

18:15, July 8, 2010 (series of two) Stephan Schulz (Add one on naming)

Q- Why does the article define "global warming" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planed warmed and cooled before?

A- Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "global warming" has lost most of its generic meaning and is used nearly exclusively to refer to the recent episode, often even directly connected with the greenhouse effect. See e.g. Meriam-Webster, Encarta, OED. Similarly, "global warming" is used nearly exclusively to refer to the current episode in the academic literature.[1]. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. Climate change deals with the more general concept.

unchanged since addition

Global warming lead and hatnote

• Bold = surface temp only vs broader meaning
• Green = Current episode, or anytime
• red = my more important comments
• Wikilinks may or may not have been omitted,
• If this list omitted tweaks you think are important, please call 'em to my attention. I skipped over some seemingly minor wordsmithing, and may have missed something.

Before 2006

Lead Para 1

17:25, October 30, 2001 Zundark (millenium -> millennium, CO2 -> CO₂). [article created?]

Global warming is a world-wide climatic phenomenon--the average global surface temperature increased over the last 150 years.

Lead Para 1

14:44, January 30, 2002‎ Ed Poor [Series w/ other intervening edits; best edit sum in bunch said] (new introduction explains three usages of term "global warming" * * *) [surface deleted]

Global warming in general refers to any rise in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere. Climate scientists agree that the earth's temperature has fluctuated throughout history by about 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit). When this warming is attributed to man-made causes, it is called anthropogenic global warming. In public policy discussions, global warming usually means excessive and harmful warming. This article uses global warming in the latter sense and explains its scientific basis and steps proposed to combat it.

Lead Para 1

18:59, January 4, 2003 62.104.214.78 no edit summary but marked MINOR

Global warming is an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, particularly such an increase leading to a worldwide harm to the environment and damage to agriculture (see global warming hypothesis).

Not sure when it was added, but this versions lead also includes

Some global warming is caused by natural factors like solar activity. The balance is attributed to the action of humans (see anthropogenic global warming and greenhouse gases).

Lead Para 1

21:48, January 24, 2003 142.177.103.17 [series of two edits, this is the substantive edit summary] - (intro now makes clear causality, impact and response issues which make the science so complicated, mentions insurance vs. oil standoff) [truncated]

Global warming is the observed increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. It is not very seriously disputed as a phenomena. Its cause, impact, and the appropriate human response are very much disputed. * * * If warming continues at the present rate...

2006

03:26, May 17, 2006 Featured article template added

2007

Lead Para 1

Text at start of 2007 (the result of minor tweaks I omitted from this play-by-play)

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 ° Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 ° Fahrenheit) in the 20th century.[1]

Lead Para 1/Sentence 1

03:24, March 7, 2007 WikiDine no edit summary [series of two edits]

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near surface air temperature and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

User's only talk page comment (from a few months earlier?) touches on ocean temps

11:28, December 16, 2007 WikiDine TalkThread: Wikipedia: An Embarrassment to Science, underline added

I don't suspect skeptics will be convinced based on polar see ice anytime soon. Polar sea ice levels INCREASED from 14.5 million square kilometers in 2006 to 14.7 million square kilometers in 2007 according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Atmospheric carbon dioxode would be expected to grow 1.65 PPM (NOAA recent averages) in 2007. Sea ice up AND Carbon dioxide both up, now that is an inconvenient truth! How does FACTUAL sea ice level data reconcile with the unsupported assertion on the main page that the Global Warming definition includes rising ocean temperatures? Antartic sea ice data is as flat as a pancake, but maybe we should ask the opinion of the global warming tourists who's ship (MV Explorer - owned by friend of AlGore) recently sunk (and they nearly froze to death) due to hitting an antartic sea iceberg? [bold added]

April 21-25, 2007 Thread "Core problem #1 with the article"

Extended content

The article's guiding philosophy as presented in its first sentence (the definition of the concept) is where the article goes wrong relative to pov. From there on, it never recovers. The philosophy is this: Global warming is a contemporary issue, hence the only history that is relevant is recent history. In itself, this is a non-neutral point of view. However, it leads to other pov problems and is contrary to wikipedia policies. The article should start with the the recognition that Global Warming is a phenomenon that is believed to have occurred throughout the measured history of the earth's atmosphere. This definition does not deny it is happening now. It does not deny that mankind may be involved. But it also recognizes a fact of history that may have a bearing on the way that readers interpret the information in the article. It sets the tone for how the article should proceed. In my opinion, without this change in the basic definition (which is easily attributable to many reliable sources) the article will remain fundamentally flawed. --Blue Tie 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Global warming, as it is used, however, implies only the recent warming. At least, that's my understanding of how it's been used in contemporary literature. ~ UBeR 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC) GW, indeed, implies the recent warming. Thats what everyone means by it. Just a little lower down in terminology we explain that it could mean other periods but usually doesn't. And of course the article has sections on pre-ind and pre-human GW. Getting hung up on the definition is not useful. The articles present focus is the obvious one, and you can't shift that by shifting the defn William M. Connolley 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC) That it is frequently used that way, does not mean that we have to be limited to the popular notion. This is an encyclopedia and should be encyclopedic. To my mind that means factually oriented and typically more broad than the average reader -- it should help expand horizons if appropriate and reasonable. I think that the notion that it "implies" recent warming is not the same thing as it meaning that it is the same thing. The notion that "everyone means" it is original research. And most importantly, limiting it this way, also creates an automatic point of view. If we describe global warming as something that has happened in the past, and something that will happen in the future, it takes it out of the context of something odd or abnormal in the geological age. Then the question is: is it odd in the period of human history? In other words, it puts the whole idea of "Global Warming" in perspective. Perspective is always important in covering any topic but I would think that it is especially important for something "Global", measured over decades or centuries at a minimum, and affecting all weather and climate systems. I am surprised that it is not an important consideration for the article. I also point out that I am not negating the sense that it popularly means recent history. Indeed I believe that should also be included in the first or second sentence, because it should be expressed as a contrast. This is how other sources actually do it. And excluding the long term from the definition as this article does, is a mistake. Finally, I have previously detailed numerous definitions of the term global warming and validated that the long-term , repeated aspect is a part of a plurality of the definitions, including one that was from a dictionary specifically devoted to scientific terms. On the other hand, the current definition in this article includes the word "observed" which is not found in any but one slightly obscure definition. That it is found in even one definition might be cause to include it (I think there are reasons to debate that), but under that rule then the sense of global warming as a long-term, repeated phenomenon should definitely be included because it is found far more frequently. (I also object to the word "observed" because global warming may or may not occur whether observed or not observed. It is irrelevant to the concept. It would, however, be relevant, in my opinion, to an article titled The Science of Global Warming. But that is not this article.) I am not sure that I have done so, but I hope I have made my points clearly so that my view is understood. I think the problem of perspective is most important but I also think that the fact that the plurality of definitions also includes this concept should enlighten our editing. --Blue Tie 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, I don't think anyone denies that climate has always been changing and always will (which is why I don't understand why we use the word "equilibrium" in this article). What's being disputed, I think, is that the term "global warming" applies to these previous climate variations. ~ UBeR 21:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I can demonstrate its use in that context if that would make a difference to your views. --Blue Tie 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, you've previously suggested changing the defn and got nowhere with it. You're using the same arguments as before and I doubt you'll get any further this time. All this stuff about broadening the average reader is irrelevant - as I've pointed out, its already in the article William M. Connolley 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC) You are right, it got me nowhere. But I do not attribute that to rationality. I attribute it to a failure to deliberate. Ignoring my points is not the same thing as addressing them and ignoratio elenchi is a logical fallacy. Moreover, if it is already in the article, it should certainly be in the summary. --Blue Tie 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC) The article you want is called climate change as it covers the changes thru time. Global warming is about the current (post industrial revolution) increase in temperature due to the greenhouse gases belched into the atmosphere by human activity. Climate change covers the natural cycles through time - both the ups and downs and periods of stasis, a global warming article as you would want only applies to the upswings in that cycle and would thus be a misnomer. It isn't popular usage rather it is the scientific usage of the term which is the focus of the current article - and it should remain that way, with the popular press and political blathering relegated to the sub-articles. Vsmith 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC) If I understand correctly, you are not in agreement with William and UBeR that the popular usage governs, but rather the Scientific Usage, is that correct? --Blue Tie 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC) That's probably a false dichotomy. :-) Of course, what Vsmith is suggesting in the latter part is little more than POV forks. ~ UBeR 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC) I am confused by your reference to false dichotomy. It seems to me that you and William are saying the article should abide by popular press and popular culture definitions and Vsmith is saying it should abide by scientific definitions. What Vsmith says is a reasonable approach for an article focused on science. Perhaps you are saying that the popular press and the scientific views are the same and that is why it is a false dichotomy? But Vsmith says that they are different and should be handled differently. So, somehow Vsmith is not in agreement with you and probably not with William. Anyway, I have made several points above and no one has addressed them.--Blue Tie 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, the false dichotomy is that in this case the popular and scientific usages are the same, Vsmith's implication to the contrary notwithstanding. People have addressed your point; it's just that they don't see things your way. It's deeply troubling that when people don't see things your way, you find that evidence of irrationality and "failure to deliberate" as you say above. Raymond Arritt 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC) So you see it as I do, that Vsmith was not in agreement with UBeR and William. You are right that people have said that they do not see things my way (except apparently that some people see it my way on what Vsmith said). But that is not what I was talking about. I said that they did not address the points I raised. To simply wave a hand and dismiss is ignoratio elenchi. Furthermore, some of the points I raise are about following wikipedia guidelines. If a person disagrees about following wikipedia guidelines and policy this is probably not the place to edit. I repeat: The points I raise have not been address. All that has been done is to arm wave denials. --Blue Tie 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC) As an aside, if the term "Global Warming" is used the same way by the popular press and by science, then this article should not just be about the science area, since it addresses a larger venue of topics. --Blue Tie 16:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Not at all convincing. There is an article (Global warming controversy) for the unscientific aspects of this subject. We've been over this too many times with you. --Skyemoor 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Arm waving. POV Fork. You have never been over it with me before. --Blue Tie 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC) CR. Good grief, the popular usage follows the scientific. Was that all just to avoid responding to the main point I was making. The article you want is climate change for global cooling and warming cycles through geologic time due to non-anthropogenic causes. The current global warming is exceptional and a departure from the natural cycles. Now Blue tie, can you address that - rather than endless talk about who I supposedly disagree with? Vsmith 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, to respond directly: No. You are wrong. The article I want is this one. This one is about Global Warming. Global warming (according to scientists and according to non-scientific literature) includes BOTH current and ancient times. This is true, even if you do not choose to believe it. This is one of the problems with this article. It does not properly define global warming. From that bad definition comes other problems. Would it make any difference to you if I could prove my point from a host of reliable, neutral sources? Perhaps even peer reviewed articles? Or is your mind made up regardless of the evidence and you just will not change your mind? --Blue Tie 05:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Just a quick check at Google scholar tells us that the scholarly definition is primarily the recent warming - you have to go beyond page 10 in the search results (i didn't check further) to find a paper that goes beyond the current warming. --Kim D. Petersen 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Agree completely with Blue Tie. There is no reason this article should not have the scope he describes. As a good-faith suggestion from a good-faith editor, there is no reason we cannot adopt this. This is a good idea, actually. (My note previously cited the wrong user. Sorry) --Sm8900 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Sure there is a reason it should not have that scope: the reason is that it is a non-neutral pov. --Blue Tie 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I agree, redefining the term away from its most common use (i.e., the recent warming) would reflect a non-neutral pov. Raymond Arritt 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Not if global warming has basically been defined as anthropogenic climate change. In which case pointing out that there are other theories is legit but one need not waste time talking at length about paleo-climate (though it should be mentioned.)Ken 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC) If it is really so important to you then create a page for Global warming (paleoclimatology) and provide a disambiguation link at the top of this article. If you can make a strong case that the resulting Global warming (paleoclimatology) is what people expect to be looking for when they search for "Global warming" then you cna get things reversed and have that page be the global warming page with a disambiguation link to this one. I suspect, however, that you will simply end up with the created page being merged into Climate change. -- Leland McInnes 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I think that NPOV requires that all eras be covered, although more focus should be given to recent events. --Childhood's End 15:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Which is precisely the situation we have at present -- the article focuses on recent warming, with a "history" section for the more distant past and links to sub-articles. Raymond Arritt 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I see no problem with that. As a sidenote though, I dont see why, among all the opinions available about climate history, we should give mention of Ruddimans'. --Childhood's End 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I think there is a legitimate question here about POV. If term global warming is defined as anthropogenic climate change then that should be clearly stated. Ken 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I think the terminology section lays it out pretty well. I think Blue Tie's problem right now is the lack of sources that define "global warming" in the way he does. And I think it's going to take a bit more than Merriam-Webster definition too. ~ UBeR 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC) You are right. The terminology section makes that quite clear. There is no argument here. Ken 14:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

July 5-10, 2007 Thread "Intro Definition"

Extended content

First of all, I believe that global warming is being aided by human activity. However, I am concerned that the definition in the intro of the article is not correct, or misleading. "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." I call into question the "in recent decades" part of the definition. Since global warming has in the past occurred, and since the scope of this article isn't limited to recent decades, why is the definition itself limited? It is a definition to "Current Global Warming Trend" and not a good overview of Global Warming in general. DPK99 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)DPK99 7-5-07 4:39PM ET We have discussed this before, although that discussion has vanished into the archives. The term "global warming" has become a standing phrase that is used overwhelmingly to describe the current episode of warming. Also see WP:COMMONNAME. --Stephan Schulz 21:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC) I wasn't involved for the debates, but I would have to disagree about the term global warming being used overwhelmingly to describe the current trend. Even if it were, I don't think that warrants the introduction on its wiki to only limit the term to the current trend. This only leads people to believe the wikipedia is ignoring global warming as part of a natural occurrance, and plays right into the hands of those who dispute the human activity is the current primary cause. 68.162.151.157 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)DPK99 Well, back then several people did Google counts both on the web as a whole, and on Scholar only. The result was not remotely close. We do have the section on terminology explaining various terms, though. --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sept 9, 2007 Thread "Climate Change" vs. "Global Warming"

Extended content

In the course of the prior "debate," I came across a couple of references, like this EPA one, to how "according to the National Academy of Sciences, The phrase "climate change" is growing in preferred use to "global warming" because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures." Apparently this is in reference to this National Academies report, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. While the main wiki article is called "Global Warming" and that there is another wiki article called Climate Change, I'm thinking that in the content part of the article, when you can use either the term "global warming" or "climate change," and especially in the context of referring to scientific studies, it might be more appropriate to choose "climate change." But in the context of referring to the other aspects of the topic, most especially public opinion and the surrounding politics, then maybe "global warming" should be the preferred choice. This might be a good way to separate the catch phrase from the somewhat more complex underlying science. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 13:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oct 2007 Thread "Incorrect definition"

Extended content

It is hard to believe the term "in recent decades and its projected continuation" is actually a part of the global warming defintion. The term "global warming" has no temporal connotations, only spatial (i.e., global) and thermal (i.e., warming). However, I guess we will need to continue to settle for the current definition, that sounds as though it was composed by a third grader. Obedium 04:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Prodigy! The sentence seems fine; conveys meaning without verbosity. Brusegadi 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Global warming usually refers to the warming in recent decades, and its projected continuation. What's difficult to understand about that? ~ UBeR 06:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I agree with Obedium and reliable, objective sources agree. The wikipedia article takes this more obscurely sourced and less cited definition because it matches a pov. --Blue Tie 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) The term "global warming" has no temporal connotations.? That's a nonsensical attempt to nitpick imaginary nits -- we're dealing with an active realtime curve of time and amplitude based on plotting many, many data points. At this particular moment, we can't project into the far (The Time Machine) future, but we can certainly estimate within reasonable limits of uncertainty the range of near future temps and their very likely consequences, [7] [8] [9], which are our main concern at the moment. -BC aka Callmebc 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) "Global warming" is descriptive of a physical phenomena, not the time period in which it occurs. One can say "global warming has been detected/measured/quantified in recent decades and based on current models is projected to continue," but the aspect of "recent decades" and "projected continuation" should not be tied directly to the defintion. This is contrasted with "The Ice Age," which has a specific temporal connotation.Obedium 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Obedium has a point - an important point, I would say. Wishy-washy extrapolation (computerized or just verbalized) is not an observed phenomenon. Anything imaginable can be modeled using a computer; such modeling doesn't make it real. Also, speaking just about the first sentence of our precious, over-featured article, the UN report-based numbers (0.74 ± 0.18 °C) are given but "± 0.18 °C" is not a margin of instrumentation error; it is just a root-mean-square error of the data picked to calculate the desired result. The actual margin of error, however, inherent in the equipment used to measure the temperature, where is it? I've read in several other sources that the inaccuracy of such equipment can reach up to 4 °C. If so, quoted numbers scientifically mean nothing. What, then, does "global warming" mean scientifically? --Alexander Feht 06:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) A question better asked at instrumental temperature record William M. Connolley 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC) My question, Mr. Connolley, is specifically about the definition of "global warming" term, and thus pertaining to this discussion page. Will you, please, refrain from unnecessary remarks if you have nothing to say? --Alexander Feht 21:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Actually, he was replying to your claims of measurement error, which are discussed in the article he linked to under the section titled "Uncertainties in the temperature record." He was simply stating your comment would probably get a better response at the talk page of instrumental temperature record, because your question didn't really have anything to do with the definition of GW. ~ UBeR 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I, too, think that Obedium has a point, but I think you completely missed it, Alexander Feht. His point was most definitely not that global warming is not an observed phenomenon, but that it is not necessarily limited to the current time frame. Some scientists talk about global warming only in the last several decades, some since the industrial revolution, and others since the agricultural revolution. There's little doubt that it has been more intense in the last several decades, but there is speculation about whether or not it began recently. Ben Hocking 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Then at the very least, it should read, "Global warming commonly refers to. . ." because, commonly, it refers to the warming in recent decades and its projected continuation. There was warming throughout the multiple interglacials, but no one refers to those as "global warming," especially not in the sense as we discuss it in this article. ~ UBeR 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I endorsed Obedium's point, and then made my own, additional point, which you either misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted. I will not, however, waste my time further explaining the obvious. --Alexander Feht 21:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Based on discussion input, it has been modified to read: "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth may have entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with some climate models projecting its continuation in coming years."Obedium 02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC) No. "Modified, as per discussion" you say? Hmmm, I believe that was not quite the case. Your edits, especially in the context of your contrib history, [10], seem to consist of little beyond vandalistic, POV-pushing nonsense in Global Warming related wikis the past couple of weeks. What's up with that? I would normally post this on your talk page, but you have a strange history of blanking that out [11]. What's up with that as well? -BC aka Callmebc 04:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Yikes. Talk about inaccurate. This would be better, although hardly consensus: Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with almost all climate models projecting its continuation in coming years. Ben Hocking 15:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I think your proposal is pretty good. --Blue Tie 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Why "recent decades"? Why "almost all" models? But I don't see it as better than what we have now, even if corrected William M. Connolley 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC) What would you prefer to "recent decades"? Other suggestions might include "recently" or "in the last century". The "recent decades", of course comes from the current lede. The advantage of this wording over the current lede is that it does not limit global warming to just the recent decades. Perhaps it would be better worded as "Climate observations indicate the Earth has entered a period of increased global warming in recent decades", as there is some debate as to how long the global warming has been going on (as I previously mentioned, and you're no doubt aware). As for "almost all", I suppose you're contrasting to simply "all". However, I'm sure the contrary editors could find models that prevent "all" from being used, so I proactively went with "almost all". Perhaps I'm wrong and there are no climate models that don't project its continuation, but I thought there'd be at least one that didn't. Ben Hocking 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC) In both common and scientific usage, "global warming" when used thusly without further qualification refers to the current phenomenon. Occasionally it's applied to other time periods but only when it's been made explicit that some other period is being referred to. Raymond Arritt 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC) The preponderance of reliable and verifiable cites on the definition of the term do not agree with you. --Blue Tie 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Looks like the editors of the Journal of Climate didn't get the memo.[12] You'd better set them straight. Raymond Arritt 05:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Your reference does not say or hint that they did not get any memo. Incidentally, if you were not aware, the "preponderance of the evidence" about DEFINITIONS, means more than one source that is EXPLICITLY LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM. What you are doing, instead, is called "Original Research". You are synthesizing and extracting a meaning from your readings and not going to a referenced source for the definition.--Blue Tie 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Let me help you with your ironymeter. *SMACK*. There, that should have reset it... --Stephan Schulz 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I'm tempted to say I need another one because I still do not get what you are trying to say. But I don't think its me that actually needs the reset. It appears that you are not noticing that research into how the word is used is Original Research, whereas citing reliable sources is the wikipedia standard. --Blue Tie 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Then cite some. So far, you've only attempted proof by repeated assertion. Raymond Arritt 15:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) False. I cited multiple reliable sources with comments on each. You rejected without much comment. Why would I want to repeat that useless exercise? Unless you now feel more open to accepting cited sources. --Blue Tie 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Diffs? Or give us a hint at the time scale. I can find noting on the current page. --Stephan Schulz 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (Unindent.) Here is a link to one of my attempts to get this thing to use valid references. I think I tried 3 times and it is possible that there is a more detailed list. (I recall one). I would find the others but I have a really narrow bandwidth today and it is hard. Raymond Arritt rejected on the first effort when I quoted a dictionary and refused to join in thereafter. --Blue Tie 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I suggest the following introduction, which leaves room to accomodate the range of viewpoints encountered in this contentious subject, while still reflecting complete technical accuracy at a fairly high level of description. I believe this incorporates most of the recent suggestions: Global warming commonly refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has recently entered a period of global warming, with an abundance of climate models projecting its continuation in coming years. Obedium 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC) That entire second sentence is irrelevant. We're defining the meaning of global warming in the opener, not making a case for or against its existence. I see no problem with the opener we have right now. ~ S0CO 05:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I think you might be right. The current second sentance "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years" really captures things more clearly for the average reader than my suggested edit. It is not what I think that matters, it is really what the layperson who typically visits these sites for information walks away with that matters. And it is clear when they see "0.74 ± 0.18 degrees over the last 100 years," the first impression is "so this is what all of the fuss is about?" Perhaps it is the actual numbers that convey the context of the issue more clearly than further wordsmithing of the intro.Obedium 06:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC) We have been through this discussion a while back. I want to recall two things. First, as far as I am concerned, we are not defining the term. We describe how it is defined in reliable sources. Secondly, back then someone (I thougt Raymond, but may be wrong - it was certainly someone with his calmness and good sense) did an analysis of the use in both Google and Goole Scholar documents, and found that in the far overwhelming number of cases it refered to the current episode, not to any generic warming of Earth. --Stephan Schulz 08:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I prefer Ben Hocking's version. Though Stephan says we are not defining the term, we are in fact, defining the term. To describe how it is used in reliable sources is Synthesis and Original Research. This is particularly true by using Google and Google scholar. The correct way to do it, per wikipedia standards is to use reliable sources that can be cited. These do not all agree on the definition of the term but three approaches can be taken to resolve it: 1) Use the definition that is common to all of them, leaving all specialized instances out, 2) Find and use every element of the all definitions as possible, 3) Use a definition that uses the only the preponderance of different reliable sources. I consider #2 to be nearly unworkable. I am not sure that #1 would be acceptable to anyone.--Blue Tie 14:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I think Blue Tie (I think) has a good point, which was made above. Global warming is considered to have begun in the Industrial Revolution with the release of GHGs at a large scale, which began in the 18th century. Good records of temperature became available in the mid-19th century, where the warming could be quantified. The GHGs have really only begun to overcome natural factors since the mid-20th century, and apparently so since 1980 or so. So I think we have to be a little careful when say global warming applies only to recent decades. ~ UBeR 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC) The problem lies in the fact the first sentence of this article is not really a definition, it is essentially a tautology, devoid of any real content. In the desire to keep things as a simple declarative sentence, it has pushed it in the direction of saying nothing. If a real definition is desired, a new starting point needs to be established, rather than simply trying to re-work the existing one, which is simplistic and empty. A real definition might read: “Global warming is the increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature, likely arising from an enhancement of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Global warming is considered to arise from an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, above historical levels. It is commonly used to describe climate changes observed to occur in the period from the early part of the 20th century to the present, during which time this phenomena has been quantified through widespread surface and remote sensing temperature measurements. Although the specific time in which global warming in the current period was initiated is a source of debate, an abundance of current climate models project its continuation in the near future.”Obedium 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Are theorems in mathematics tautologies within their axiomatic framework? So, I do not see the problem with a statement being tautological. Some tautological statements may be devoid of meaning, but not all. "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." I think this statement does a good job because of the way it is tightly packed. Your proposal, in my view, is too wordy. There is an entire article dedicated to the topic at hand, so there is really no need to tell an entire story in the defining sentence. Furthermore, your proposed definition, by mentioning likely causes (it mentions the greenhouse gases), is bound to become a subject of dispute in the future. That is just to mention one of the problems of being too wordy. The first sentence should be as short and as 'tautological' as possible in order to avoid conflict around it. Brusegadi 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I do not believe it is a tautology. Indeed, I consider it far from that. I believe the opening paragraph is too limited and I think Ben Hocking's version is far better. But, never mind that. Here is the real thing: The current opening is Original Research and is not cited.--Blue Tie 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Just for the record, it is a definition so I do not think calling it a tautology makes any sense, at least in the logical sense of the word, since I don't see propositions to evaluate. Of course, the lack of such propositional variables may make the statement a trivial tautology... I have not yet taken logic, so I may be mistaken. My response above is conditional on the other editor's belief. Hence, the use of 'tautological' and not tautological. According to wikipedia, there is another use of tautology in rhetoric, which is basically saying the same thing twice with different words. Our definition is the opposite of that. Not wordy at all. Brusegadi 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay, and thus should follow an inverted pyramid scheme of putting key details up front, with successive supporting, but less important details added later. You DO want to put details up front, so the reader can quickly get to a meaningful definition, and can fill in this definition with more details later. But, we will be stuck with the current empty phrasing given in the article, since it essentially derived by a committee so as to please the lowest common denominator. This is why Wikipedia will never be suitable as an academic resource. Obedium 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for summarizing my point: "but less important details added later." The current sentence has the right amount of info. The definition is the first three lines of the article. It can be read in under 20 seconds by most English speakers. Reading the intro takes under 5 minutes. The intro provides enough detail for the person who wants to be quickly informed. Also, thank you for your opinion on why wikipedia is not accepted as a source in most academic environments, but that is not the purpose of this talk page. Do take a look at the external review link provided on the top of this talk page about the quality of the article we are discussing. Brusegadi 06:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC) "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." Near surface air? Umm, that's pretty goofy I think. The original made more sense and is closer to defining it accurately in simple, non-vague language. Look at how NASA defines it,[13]: "The term Global Warming describes the observed and projected increase in globally averaged temperatures over time." I would use a modification of the NASA description that goes "The term Global Warming generally refers to the observed and projected increase in global air and ocean average temperatures over time." Well? -BC aka Callmebc 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Near surface may be unclear but the proposed definition is incorrect. The stratosphere is "air", but the physics behind GW says the stratosphere should cool. Likewise we can't say much at all about the deeper parts of the oceans at this point. A strictly correct definition would refer to warming of the troposphere, but that may be too technical for the lead sentence in an article of broad interest. Details are given later on that distinguish the layers where warming is expected. Raymond Arritt 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Near surface air Goofy? Well perhaps but it is the near surface air that is measured most and matters most because that is where people live. However if you envisage statements like global warming will/may cause more floods, droughts, sea level rise ... and these are more important than the temperature change then it should be clear that the definition should have (or at least consider) increase in average temperature .... its associated effects and projected continuation. You could decide to separate effects from what global warming is but I get the impression that lots of things are blamed on global warming not on the effects of global warming so by common usage the effects should be in the definition. crandles 11:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Well, "lower atmosphere" then? If you consider the likely audience for a Wikipedia article on Global Warming, "global air and ocean average temperatures" will probably mean to them exactly what you want it to mean to them. I think it's foolish to try to split hairs at the intro on something with variable definitions and meanings, [14] -- you can be more precise further down when you get more into the details. And if you really want to split hairs, the bulk of the atmosphere is indeed "near surface" by weight. Also I sense that the change to "near surface air" was more a terminology ploy rather than a genuine attempt to actually be more precise -- anti-global warming folks tend to mix localized weather and climate with the bigger picture, and "near surface air" makes it sound like a localized effect and not so "global." But whatever... -BC aka Callmebc 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Over the land, "near surface" is what is measured (nominally 1.5m). Over the oceans, nominally SST is measured. If we're talking about the instrumental record William M. Connolley 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...if we really want to be precise: "The term Global Warming describes the observed and projected increase in globally averaged temperatures of the surface of the oceans and air located 1.5 meters high up over land." So much less confusing, no? -BC aka Callmebc 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

2008

TALK Feb 21-29 2008 Thread "First Sentence"

Extended content

From here, I think some people want to change the first paragraph of the intro. It states, "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." It would be helpful to know what we mean by "global warming." Are we talking about what is mostly attributable to humans (1950-present)? Since the instrumental temperature record, which is linked to, by the way (1850-present)? Since the Industrial Revolution (~1750-present)? ~ UBeR (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC) That sentence (and the one immediately following it) do not speak of the causes of the warming -- only that it (the warming) exists. The fact that it is mostly man-made is established in the 3rd and 4th sentences. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC) OK, if we aren't talking about anthropogenic global warming, but rather a much broader sense of the phrase given observed increase of temperature, does "recent decades" still make sense? What I got from Dr. Arritts page is that he refers to what is "attributable" (to humans I'm guessing). Marskell wants to imply since humans began industry (to avoid trolling). ~ UBeR (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) We've discussed this ad-naseum. Unless it is otherwise clear from the context, "Global warming" refers to the recent (last few decades of) climate change, and its expected continuation in the future. The CO2 production that produced this began with the industrial revolution, but its effects did not become clear until the last few decades. The article - correctly - addresses global warming as a phenomenon whose effects are (a) observable recently and (b) caused by CO2 production (which did not start recently). This article is *not* about the global warming that occured in past geologic eras, or James Inhofe's claim of martian global warming, etc. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Raul nails it. Most definitions from reliable sources emphasize recent warming or anthropogenic forcing; those two criteria are essentially the same, since most of the anthropogenic forcing has occurred since 1970.[17][18][] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) If this decade comes out cooler than the last, how are we going to deal with the Bugsy's of the future? Marskell (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Not gonna happen: the two warmest years of the 90s were 1998 (first warmest) and 1997 (second warmest). 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 were all warmer than 1997. Raul654 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Well we have 2 years (2009 & 2009) left in this decade. The 90s averaged 0.26 C on the anomaly scale, and the 00s so far rate 0.44 C. So, to make the 00s colder than the 90s, you'd need those last two years to average -0.47 C. Good luck with that. Dragons flight (talk) Guys, I was making a rhetorical point. Sheesh. Marskell (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but we're accustomed to people seriously making arguments like that. Stick around here long enough and you too can descend into the depths of cynicism and despair. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and "recent warming" and "anthropogenic forcing" are most emphatically not the same thing. The first has been passively observed (and could briefly plateau or reverse), while the latter is a self-evident mechanism. We should distinguish them. Marskell (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Well, we do distinguish them. We say that global warming per se is the temperature trend, then we go on to discuss causes. If you're still hung up on the "recent decades" bit then let's change that to "past half century" since that's what IPCC uses, or maybe the equivalent "since the mid-20th century." Don't worry about the Bugsys of this world -- they will always find something they can object to. Write the best article we can with the most solid basis in reliable sources and deal with Bugsys as they arise. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I don't like "past half century" because it's unmoored temporally, in the same way "recent decades" is. "Mid-20th century," with a few sources, would be OK, and I suggest we adopt something like that, to at least provide a starting value. I know what you're saying generally, but I still think we may have a cart and horse problem that will invite more Bugsys. It may be more a failure of the lexicon, than a failure of us, however. "Global warming," as used casually, actually conflates "recent warming" and "anthropogenic forcing," when they should be held distinct. We're not really in a position to separate them. Marskell (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Well, my 2 cents is that we are talking about a phenomenon involving global-wide warming that started around the end of the 1800's. Many years of research and increasingly precise data gathering has lead to the now general scientific consensus that the primary cause of this phenomenon is human activity, specifically in its ever increasing emissions of vast amounts of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. So we are not talking specifically about "anthropogenic forcing" as the topic -- we're talking about a "global warming" phenomenon that's best explained by anthropogenic forcing. If an article is about, say, "automobiles," you wouldn't split hairs over whether it's "engine driven" as opposed to something that "naturally" freewheels down a hill. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC) If the globe were to cool for one, two, or ten years in the midst of anthropogenic forcing (not impossible), the trolling would be constant. (A single cold January is enough to produce some trolling.) That's my primary point in suggesting the two should be held distinct. I think the first sentence inadequate. But it's held up so far. *Shrugs.* Marskell (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC) What could cause such a strong cooling effect undoing the warming due to global warming for a period of a few years? This perhaps? :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Climate Change. ;-) rossnixon 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Nope. "A period of a few years" is not "climate change." Otherwise every El Niño / La Niña would be an instance of "climate change," which of course it isn't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Sure Raymond, but the definition doesn't make that clear. That's what I'm saying. Marskell (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC) How about like either "Global warming is the pronounced, overall increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation" or "Global warming is the gradual increase in the overall average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation"? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC) That's excessively wordy. The current sentence works well enough. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Um, each of these only adds two words to the current version. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead Para 1

Text as of 04:46, April 23, 2008 after minor tweaking that I omitted

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.

Lead Para 1

09:12, April 23, 2008 Smith609 "Global warming" is not restricted to the here and now. Periods such as the PETM are still periods of global warming (albeit perhaps outwith the scope of this article.

Global warming is increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Such temperatures have been increasing since the mid-twentieth century, and are projected to continue.

COMMENT - This edit is really interesting; the ed seems to be simultaneously taking the position that any period of increasing surface temps is 'global warming' but nonetheless this article is only tackling the current one.

Lead Para 1/Sentence 1

09:17, April 23, 2008 Stephan Schulz "Sorry, but we had a long discussion about this. The term "global warming" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the current episode, and reliable sources define it thus"

reverted above edit so that text continued to read like the second entry above, which to repeat says-

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.

COMMENT - The edit summary seems to suggest there was a consensus to draft the article to focus on the current episode of 'global warming' without even mentioning the other (pedantic and scientific) definition that makes 'global warming' applicable to any period of increasing temps at any point in earth's history. The reverted edit was trying to make sense of both meanings of the phrase (generic at any time versus the current episode) while still allowing the article to focus just on the current episode.

Our first hatnote (next entry in this chronology) was posted as result of this thread

TALK APRIL 23-24 2008 Thread "Global Warming only refers to the current episode"

Hi, Apparently there's been a long discussion about the wording of the first sentence, which decided that events such as the PETM, in which a rapid worldwide (global) increase in temperature (warming) was observed are not anything to do with global warming. I don't want to dredge that up again, but if the term is defined in a context which restricts it to arthropogenic anthropogenic the current period of global warming, as suggested by recent edit summaries, these "reliable sources" should be provided alongside the definition. Thanks Verisimilus T 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard global warming attributed to Arthropods before? --BozMo talk 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Lol". Thanks. Verisimilus T 11:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though I think the discussion was not that it means Anthropogenic but that it means the current and future phenomena. We should certainly be prepared find the discussion for you but I am not sure about putting in large number of definitions into the initial summary. There are references given further down the article for the meaning of the term. talk 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was not anything to do with whether the current global warming is arthropogenic, anthropogenic or otherwise... the term "global warming" is not restricted to the current phenomenon. I think it's important to note that we're using the "slang" definition of the term as the basis of the article in the first paragraph, so that people used to using terms in their scientific capacity are not confused. I've amended accordingly, hope that is acceptable. Verisimilus T 12:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Back when we discussed this, we checked the scientific literature, and even there the vast majority of uses referred to the current episode. So I don't think your "common parlance" is correct. As often with compound terms, they acquire a meaning beyond the strictly literal reading. The discussion is in the archives somewhere, but I'm as (un-)qualified as you to find it there ;-). Checking Google Scholar, the first 10 papers all seem to refer to current and projected warming, and only one or two qualify the use explicitly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the interpretation depends on the context. No harm in providing some, given that the current introduction misleads and suprises some readers (e.g. me). We don't want skim-readers coming away with the impression that global warming has only happened now, and not in the past, which is the effect the lede gives at present. Besides, most of the top ten articles regard responses which are considered general responses to global warming, using data from the present as its our best dataset. But I bet the modellers would like their models to explain past global warmings... Anyway, I don't see what harm it does to make blatantly explicit what the article concerns itself with in the first sentence - even if some people will find this unnecessary, we may as well cater for those who don't. Verisimilus T 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Alternatively, what about adding a "for other uses" tag at the start of the page? Something along the lines of: This article refers to the current period of global warming. For other global warming events in Earth's history, see Palaeoclimatology and Geologic temperature record. Verisimilus T 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that proposal a lot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, nice one. --BozMo talk 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific sources don't usually use the term global warming at all. So there is no need to worry about confusing science-based people William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

With some tweakage this could be OK. Use of the term "events" for a trend that unfolds over decades (in the present case) to millenia (in paleo cases) doesn't seem quite right. The term "other global warming events" back-constructs the definition of GW from its conventional meaning to a broader one. Maybe something like "for other periods of warming in Earth's history..." Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Arritt's version seems fine. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. Implemented. Verisimilus T 09:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I think it's an improvement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

-- first time we had a hatnote; result of talk thread above

09:13, April 24, 2008‎ Smith609 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (95,372 bytes) (+178)‎ . . (Include "for other uses" as per talk page

This article refers to the current period of global warming. For other periods of warming in Earth's history, see Palaeoclimatology and Geologic temperature record.

Hatnote 16:26, April 27, 2008‎ Raymond arritt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,751 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (avoid temptation to back-construct "global warming")

This article is about the current period of increasing global temperature. For other periods of warming in Earth's history, see Palaeoclimatology and Geologic temperature record

TALK May 2008 Rename article 'global climate change'?

Shouldn't (more) appropriate title go like: global climate change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.76.122 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:COMMONNAME. While GW concentrates on just one effect, it is the name under which the current climate change is best known. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Climate change" a bit like having an article on "sea level change" - except the whole article is about the way the flood is coming and we will all be drowned by what is really a natural phenomena called a tide. No, keep the title and turn the article into a historic commentary on the hysteria that surrounded a miniscule upward swing in global temperatures at the end of the 20th century. 88.111.115.56 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I get the formatting wrong... Let's revisit this... Global Climate Change is becoming the scientific and popularly dominate term, replacing global warming. Additionally, global climate change is a more fitting description since local effects may not include warming on an seasonal or multi-year basis. As the popular rhetoric adjusts so should the heading of Wikipedia's preeminent article on the subject. Let's rename this section to Global Climate Change. It truly is a matter of when we make this adjustment, not if.New comment by 24.21.184.251 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC) advocating rename article

If there was a major change it probably should be renamed yes. But I don't agree there is any. And I don't agree about your suggestion being more fitting either, "global warming" is pretty much what it's about, small variations aside. — Apis (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

TALK Oct 5-6 2008 Thread titled "Verifiability issues in the lead and terminology section"

Extended content

Logicus has explained very clearly that the first sentence in the lead and the first sentence in the terminology section are not properly verified by the sources provided [3]. My only issue is with verifiability (WP:VER). And I have no POV against global warming as suggested in the revert edit summary, I accept the scientific evidence and I am only looking to improve the article. I hope the more knowledgeable editors here will be able to address this. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Just so it's clear, claims in the lead need not be referenced so long as the same claims are substantiated and referenced later in the body of the article. ~ UBeR (talk) I agree. Where in the body of the article is first sentence in the lead properly substantiated and referenced? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Presently in fn 11 & 12, as well as elsewhere. For further definitions, see also, e.g. these definitions. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks Kenosis. Please see this, which demonstrates that footnotes 11 and 12 do not properly verify the first sentence in the lead. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Also, none of these definitions properly verify the definition given in the first sentence of the article lead. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) In what way? What specific part of the definition is in dispute? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC) The answer to your question is found here: [4]. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Buried somewhere in there, perhaps. Progress will require a more concise and focused statement. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC) ""Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation." But the Terminoloy sections says: "The term "global warming" refers to the warming in recent decades and its projected continuation, and implies a human influence.[11][12]" In contrast with the opening definition, this latter definition fails to specify what it is that is warming, and is vaguer about the time period in question and whether it extends as far back as 1950 or not. But more crucially it now only refers to warming in which there has been a human influence, whereby one cannot even sensibly ask the question of whether there has been any human influence on global warming, since on this definition the very notion is of warming in which there is such an influence." "To see further confusion, now turn to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of 'global warming' that is given as the justifying reference for the 'Terminology' section's definition, and which is as follows; "an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution." But this definition does not justify either the opening definition nor that of the Terminology section, for it is crucially different from both at least in the following respects 1) This definition only refers to an increase in temperatures predicted for the future, but not to any past warming as in the two Wikipedia definitions. Thus on this definition we cannot know whether global warming exists until the future. 2) It only refers to whatever portion of warming may be due to the greenhouse effect and especially to pollution, whereas the Wiki definitions refer to the total warming. And it is unclear whether the pollution referred to is purely human, or could include volcanic pollution for example." "But this confusion gets even worse when we turn to the Britannica definition referred to by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reference, as follows: "the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries." This definition crucially differs from the both the Wikipedia and the Merriam-Webster definitions, because [1] it crucially does not include ocean temperatures and [2] it only refers to a past time period and [3] it radically extends the past time period to between one and two centuries, rather than just from 1950." "Now to add further confusion upon confusion upon..., if we turn to the United States Environmental Protection Agency definition given in footnote 12 of the Wikipedia Terminology section definition to justify it, we read: "In common usage, 'global warming' often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities." So this definition differs yet again from the other definitions at least since it only refers to that warming that results from increased human produced emissions of greenhouse gases and over any period rather than just in some specific period. But contrary to the common usage claim of this definition, most media presentations on global warming separate the notion and fact of warming or not from the issue of its possible causes, such as human activity or not." [5] --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC) That wasn't exactly a "concise and focuses statement", but let's move on. Given the fact that there are multiple definitions from reputable sources that disagree in one detail or another, what do you propose that we do? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Just so it's known, these definitions have been discussed and debated in the past, so I suggest you begin looking for that in the archives. That will give you some sense as to how the precise definition was formulated. What I can tell you is that 1950 is the marker given by the IPCC for which we can contribute most of the warming to man's activities. The article actually points this out for you in the lead. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC) The time frame given in the lead was changed from the prior longstanding language "in recent decades" to "since the mid-twentieth century" here, on 19 March 2008, in response to discussion on talk. The consensus among editors of this article has long been to refer in the lead to the current warming trend, which is the way the words "global warming" are most often used, rather than to refer to historical warming trends generally. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

2009

Jan 4, 2009 Thread titled "Disambiguation Language"

Extended content

The disambiguation language at the top of the article is regularly challenged by new (and some long-standing) editors, although it is unchanged since its apparent first insertion [8]. It currently reads This article is about the current period of increasing global temperature. For other periods of warming in Earth's history, see Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record. How about... For past Climate change see Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record. After all, "global warming" is defined as the first sentence of this article: why define it before that? I also think that the climate change article should be linked in disambiguation language if we have any disambiguation language. - Enuja (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I think that would be okay. The repetition seems unnecessary. --TS 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) [Offpoint obvious troll omitted]

Hatnote 15:45, January 5, 2009‎ Enuja (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,875 bytes) (-95)‎ . . (Edited disamibguation link as I suggested on talk page)

For past Climate change, see Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record.

2011

Lead Para 1/Sentence 1

11:55, June 4, 2011 NewsAndEventsGuy (LEDE, first few parpagraphs.... extensive readability edits and insertion of 3 cites about the IPCC models being prone to underestimating warming see TALK:Lede bloating)

Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and atmosphere.

Lead Para 1/Sentence 1

18:30, June 16, 2011 Sailsbystars (previous description is not incorrect, but this description should be more accurate)

Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and atmosphere and its projected continuation.

Lead Para 1/Sentence 1

07:10, July 16, 2011 IanOfNorwich (more succinct (and accurate))

Global warming is the ongoing rise in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and atmosphere.

Lead Para 1/Sentence 1

16:07, July 16, 2011 Dave souza (gr, per talk)

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and atmosphere.

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

As of this version dated 18:54, September 11, 2011 the first full paragraph read

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][A]

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

20:13, September 14, 2011 series NewsAndEventsGuy Best edit summary was (Lead, per talk (section "add 'is believed to be'"); used my version because Udippuys' talk page suggestion does not comport to sources)

Global warming is the unequivocal temperature rise now underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.[2] With greater than 90% certainty,[3] scientists have determined that global warming is caused mostly by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

19:25, September 18, 2011 NewsAndEventsGuy (lead - this is an unequivocal tweak)

Global warming is the temperature rise that is unequivocally underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.[2] With greater than 90% certainty,[3] scientists have determined that global warming is caused mostly by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

series 14:58, September 22, 2011‎ Mikenorton (moving commas to hopefully clarify what is unequivocal and what is >90% certainty) 14:07, September 22, 2011‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (/lead/ revised based on talk comment) 13:35, September 22, 2011‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (/Lead/ See talk "introduction is very bad" and links to prior threads contained therein) (undo) Result Global warming is the current temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2] and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]

Hatnote 22:41, September 29, 2011‎ Nigelj (Adjust hatnotes, and add a word to first line of main text, in response to recent discussions on talk)

For long term variation of weather patterns in general, see climate change

Hatnote 00:22, September 30, 2011‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (Hatnote / current episode is longterm change too/ this text (hopefully) better explains scope of this article vs climate change)

This article is about the current climate change Earth is now experiencing. For general discussion of how Earth's climate either warms or cools and examples from Earth's history, see climate change.

Hatnote 01:03, October 3, 2011‎ Cadiomals (no edit summary)

This article is about the change in climate Earth is currently experiencing. For general discussion of how Earth's climate can change, see Climate change.

minor later tweaks to hatnote omitted

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

16:14, October 4, 2011 NewsAndEventsGuy (lead first paragraph, see talk)

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 1.4°F (0.8°C) with about 2/3 of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6]. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. [7][A]

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

19:49, October 4, 2011 NewsAndEventsGuy lead, 1st paragraph, reinforce notion of "continuing" by changing one verb from present perfect (has been) to the perfect tense (is) [90% certain most of it IS....]

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface

temperature increased by about 1.4°F (0.8°C) with about 2/3 of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6]. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. [7][A]

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

23:44, November 2, 2011 Steve0999 no edit summary ("related effects" --> "its projected continuation")

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]

2014

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

Omitted various minor word-smithing edits so that by the version dated 16:04, January 6, 2014 first paragraph read

Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Scientists are more than 95% certain that more than half of the observed warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses and other anthropogenic forcings. [3][4][5] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[6][A]

Lead Para 1- all, omitting links and refs

19:12, January 6, 2014 NewsAndEventsGuy (Lead; Attempt to integrate AR5 WG1 SPM remarks on (1) fact it is warming and (2) attribution to us, but also explain how it fits with what went before)

Global warming refers to an unequivocal and ongoing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system.[2] Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.[3] Despite the oceans' dominant role in energy storage, the term "global warming" is also used to refer to increases in average air temperature at earth's surface.[4] Since the early 20th century, the global surface air temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[5] Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.[6]

later wordsmithing omitted as not relevant

Climate change

22:24, April 3, 2002‎ Mav (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (455 bytes) (+455)‎ . . (stub) (thank) The term climate change is sometimes used to refer to all forms of climatic inconsistency, but because the Earth's climate is never static, the term is more properly used to imply a significant change from one climatic condition to another. In some cases, 'climate change' has been used synonymously with the term, 'global warming'; scientists however, tend to use the term in the wider sense to also include natural changes in climate.

20:04, May 16, 2003‎ William M. Connolley The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's climate. Generally, this is taken to mean changes in the temperature, though 'climate' encompasses many other variables (precipitation, clouds, etc). 'Climate change' includes natural and anthropogenic forcing; 'global warming' is usually used to mean changes with predominantly anthropogenic forcing. For information on climate change over various periods, and the data sources available, see historical temperature record

14:52, August 6, 2004‎ 67.165.197.226 The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's climate. Generally, this is taken to mean changes in the temperature, though 'climate' encompasses many other variables (precipitation, clouds, etc). 'Climate change' can be caused both by natural forces and by human activities; 'global warming' is usually used to mean changes with predominantly human causes. For information on climate change over various periods, and the data sources available, see historical temperature record.

20:28, November 21, 2004‎ FrankP (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,738 bytes) (+339)‎ . . (Reorganised intro paragraphs) (undo | thank) The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's climate. In the most general sense, it can be taken to mean changes over all timescales and in all of the components of climate, including precipitation and clouds as well as temperature. Climate changes can be caused both by natural forces and by human activities.

However in recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, it refers more specifically to changes being studied in the present, including an average rise in surface temperature, or global warming. International efforts to study and address climate change are coordinated through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

For information on climate measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see historical temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change. For global warming episodes in the geological record, see Permian-Triassic extinction event and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

19:32, December 11, 2004‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,230 bytes) (+330)‎ . . (Cl Ch/GW/Cl Var distinctions as on GW) (undo | thank)

The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's climate. In the most general sense, it can be taken to mean changes over all timescales and in all of the components of climate, including precipitation and clouds as well as temperature. Climate changes can be caused both by natural forces and by human activities.

However in recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, it refers more specifically to changes being studied in the present, including an average rise in surface temperature, or global warming. International efforts to study and address climate change are coordinated through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Note, however, that the UNFCCC defines "climate change" as anthropogenic [2] and uses "climate variation" to mean what is used by most other sources to be "climate change". Sometimes the term "anthropogenic climate change" is used to indicate the presumption of human influence.

For information on climate measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see historical temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change. For global warming episodes in the geological record, see Permian-Triassic extinction event and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

13:56, January 12, 2005‎ 4.250.168.51 (talk)‎ . . (9,438 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (Clearer, I think. Note this paragraph also exists in wikipedia's global warming article's intro) (undo) The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's climate. In the most general sense, it can be taken to mean changes over all timescales and in all of the components of climate, including precipitation and clouds as well as temperature. Climate changes can be caused both by natural forces and by human activities.

However in recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, it refers more specifically to changes being studied in the present, including an average rise in surface temperature, or global warming. International efforts to study and address climate change are coordinated through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Note, however, that the UNFCCC uses "climate change" for human caused change and “climate variability” for non-human caused change [3]. Sometimes the term "anthropogenic climate change" is used to indicate the presumption of human influence.

For information on climate measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see historical temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change. For global warming episodes in the geological record, see Permian-Triassic extinction event and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

15:34, July 3, 2005‎ Daniel Collins (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,071 bytes) (-43)‎ . . (intro: timescales, weather, regional too) (one edit summary for the series of edits) The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's global climate or regional climates. It describes changes in the average state of the atmosphere - or average weather - over decades to millennia. These changes can be caused both by natural forces and by human activitie

However in recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, it refers more specifically to changes being studied in the present, including an average rise in surface temperature, or global warming. International efforts to study and address climate change are coordinated through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Note, however, that the UNFCCC uses "climate change" for human caused change and “climate variability” for non-human caused change [4]. Sometimes the term "anthropogenic climate change" is used to indicate the presumption of human influence.

For information on climate measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see historical temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change. For global warming episodes in the geological record, see Permian-Triassic extinction event and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

02:21, July 10, 2005‎ Dragons flight (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,880 bytes) (-193)‎ . . ({{inuse}} and modifications to header.) The term climate change is used to refer to changes in the Earth's global climate or regional climates. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere - or average weather - over any time scale from decades to millions of years. These changes can come from internal processes, be driven by external forces or, most recently, be caused by human activities.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" is often used to refer only to the ongoing changes in modern climate, including the average rise in surface temperature known as global warming. In some cases, the terms is also used with a presumption of human causation, including in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" for non-human caused variations[5].

For information on temperature measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change.

various minor tweakings omitted

17:26, February 1, 2007‎ MaxPont (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,214 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (add pointer to Global warming article) (undo | thank) For climate change today, see the main article Global warming.

07:36, February 9, 2007‎ 60.241.7.211 (no edit summary) For current global climate change, see the main article Global warming.

12:39, August 20, 2007‎ SyTaffel (no edit summary)

For current global climate change, see the main article Global warming

no change para 1

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" often refers to changes in modern climate which according to the IPCC are 90-95% likely to have been in part caused by human action. Consequently the term anthropogenic climate change is frequently adopted this phenomenom is also referred to in the mainstream media as global warming. In some cases, the term is also used with a presumption of human causation, as in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC uses "climate variability" for non-human caused variations.

no change para 3

05:39, December 8, 2007‎ Obediun (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,311 bytes) (-524)‎ . . (Discussing IPCC and conclusions in a general climate change article is too specific for intro.)

For current global climate change, see the main article Global warming no change para 1

para 2 and 3 combined into In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" often refers to changes in modern climate (see global warming).For information on temperature measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change.

some big wordsmithing that isn't relevant to scope omitted

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&diff=260829272&oldid=260584132 06:17, December 30, 2008‎ Mccready (two edits, main part of main edit summary releavnt here just said 'copy edit')

For current global climate change, see the main article Global warming

Climate change is any long-term significant change in the “average weather” of a region or the earth as a whole. Average weather may include average temperature, precipitation and wind patterns. It involves changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over durations ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by dynamic processes on Earth, external forces including variations in sunlight intensity, and more recently by human activities.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" usually refers to changes in modern climate. For information on temperature measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change.

some big wordsmithing that isn't relevant to scope omitted

22:44, December 14, 2009‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,596 bytes) (+77)‎ . . (hack around a bit. still not happy, needs more felicity

For current global climate change, see the main article Global warming

para 1 no change but with prior wordsmithing not really relevant it now reads Climate change' is a change in the statistical distribution of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth.

changes to para 2 making In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as global warming.

06:34, May 13, 2011‎ Awickert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,814 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (improve hatnote to make article focus more clear) This article is about climate change as a process.. For current global climate change, see global warming. For For past climate change, see, see paleoclimatology and geologic temperature record.

no other change

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&diff=428882803&oldid=428882525 06:40, May 13, 2011‎ Awickert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,590 bytes) (-219)‎ . . (WP:LEDE: move AGW stuff to aside terminology section (note: I'm not married to the idea that this page is about the process in general; it's just that it has been, something needs to be about the process, and I'm not about to change it))

This article is about climate change as a process. For current global climate change, see global warming. For past climate change, see, see paleoclimatology and geologic temperature record.

no change para 1 delete para 2 (about phrase 'global warming') and add a little bit of its contents to terminology section

10:47, May 31, 2011‎ Sokavik (series of two edits w/ very general edit summary) 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.

Dec 2 2004 article "Global climate change" created; there was some sudden discussion at Talk:Global_climate_change then the same day article converted to redir to "climate change" Mar 27 2014 and then redir again to "global warming"

talks

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change&diff=prev&oldid=7584257 Revision as of 17:32, November 17, 2004 (edit) (undo) (thank) Ed Poor (talk | contribs)

• * * Dr. C. wrote the following in an edit summary:

This article should not be merged with Global warming. The two are conceptually distinct.

William, would you please explain some of the distinctions between the two concepts? I would like to modify the terminology section of the global warming page so that it no longer uses "climate change" as a synonym for "global warming".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_1#Merge_with_global_warming_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_1#This_page_is_incoherent_at_best https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_2#Merge_with_Global_warming resume

Definitions of "global warming"

This list begins with a copy-paste from the "terminology" subpage found in the global warming talk page archives. I reformatted

1 An overall increase in world temperatures which may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases.NOAA January 5, 2010

2 An increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution.Merriam-Webster

3 An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's surface [which] is one of the consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect and will cause worldwide changes to climate patterns.Australian Academy of Science

4 The progressive gradual rise of the Earth's average surface temperature thought to be caused in part by increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.Pew Climate

• • Quite the same. There is no variation in definition or terminology here, just some variation in usage. --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

5 A phenomenon believed to occur as a result of the build—up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. OECD

• • It's sourced to another document.[6].

6 The progressive gradual rise of the earth’s surface temperature thought to be caused by the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. UNFCCC

7 An increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. IPCC Special Reports on Climate Change - Methodological and Technological issues in Technology Transfer - COP6 (2000) Den Hague

• • Very clear, the definition is the first sentence. Then a common usage is given, that's not a different definition. It's global warming whether it happens now or then, predicted or not, anthropogenic or not. --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

8 A gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Oxford Dictionaries

Note that there is variation: for the IPCC, climate change refers to, er, changes in climate. For the UNFCCC, they have established special usage, we've been told in the article (and I think the EPA says this): climate change is restricted to anthropogenic change, i.e., change is considered to be human activity, whereas climate variability is used for natural change. (Did I get this right? I find this problematic, how do they, then, talk about the temperature phenomenon? I really should read that source!) --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you get the "climate change" vs. "climate variability" seems to be correct. But your interpretation above, about what is important, and what is not - isn't. A glossary description defines the meaning of a wording, as a whole. Your original research on what is important, and what can be ignored - is only interesting as rationalization for your POV. (i particularly liked your dismissal of the OECD def.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OECD doesn't "define" global warming, they say what causes it. What is it that the greenhouse effect causes? A "phenomenon." What is that? A political movement? A phosphorescent tide? Death of jellyfishes? Or expansion of the jellyfish population? There are other phenomena caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide. Which one is global warming? Wait! It says that it is believed to be a "global environmental threat." Aha! The Bush Administration! Or is the corps of lobbyists for Big Oil? Or liberal environmental PACs? Sorry, Kim, that's not a definition of global warming. All the others include a definition except that one. Why not? Well, because the meaning of, the definition of "global warming" is obvious. It means "warming of the globe." Expand that with more precise language (what does "warming" mean? what, precisely, is warming?), you get IPCC terminology, etc. Get serious, Kim. I'm not putting this so-called "original research" in the article. It's for our study purposes. --Abd (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As said before, even when a specific wording may have a literal meaning, it can have a specific meaning. As examples given: anti-semitism does not have its literal meaning, but instead is specific. Your assertion that the literal meaning overrides the specific - is purely your POV, and is not supported by the references or the usage of the wording. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is correct as to "literal" vs. "specific." However, normally specific usage does not override literal or general. Antisemitism is unusual, actually, due to the common equating of "semitic" with "Jewish." And I could definitely go onandon about that. The literal meaning is given in many sources, often but not always accompanied by an example. Some sources define by example. But to restrict the meaning to the example is preposterous, and it would make, as noted, tautologies out of such obscure sources as the "IPCC gold standard." Stop beating a dead horse. There is no consensus here for the claim that "global warming" means, by definition, anthropogenic global warming, and the fact that we don't object to the term "anthropogenic global warming" as a tautology, and we all know what it means, and what "non-anthropogenic global warming" means, likewise, shows that. Is the latter concept an oxymoron? --Abd (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's normal that the specific meaning does not override the literal or general. Context will supply what meaning is appropriate. I am not claiming what KDP asserted: the literal meaning does not, either, override the specific, when the latter is clear from context. What I see here is endless argument with the obvious, for no apparent purpose other than supporting a POV spin to the article (moot at the moment because the Terminology section has been removed). From a skeptic, this would result in a block, quickly. I'm not arguing that KDP should be blocked, only to note that there has been biased maintenance of this article with support from involved administrators. Hopefully, that's over. --Abd (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you still haven't found out what the meaning of WP:NPA is. Or why you should keep to discussing the issues, and not the editors? It is getting tiring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Abd wrote; What I see here is endless argument with the obvious, for no apparent purpose other than supporting a POV spin to the article. Abd, several editors have said similar things to you. Please consider your own actions before negatively assessing those of others. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor, I haven't seen such comment, i.e., "similar things," from any neutral editor, with regard to my behavior with the Global warming article, with which I have only very recent involvement, an involvement coming from noticing, over an extended period of time, the behavior that I've described. If I'm wrong about that behavior, fine. I assume my error will be corrected. Let me repeat: I noticed the behavior that I've described before ever becoming involved, I originally noticed it as part of an effort to neutrally examine problems with the article as part of an RfC that I stumbled upon, and then with a report on AN/I. Have you read the RfC? --Abd (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(note this written prior to the comment from Skyemoor, above) There is a distinction between gratuitous personal attack and discussion of editor behavior that has an impact on articles. I've seen an "endless argument" comment used by you, Kim, and by some of your friends, and I didn't see objection to it, from you, or from those friends. And likewise with other comments that, should my own comments be "personal attacks," would be the same. Shall I compile a list of examples? That's a waste of time, unless it becomes necessary. Is it necessary? For starters, read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. That RfC concluded that GoRight had acted improperly, but the general consensus was that so had other editors, with equal severity, and I think you'd be on that list. The stated reason that no sanctions were determined for the other editors is that the RfC wasn't on them. I comment here, about editor behavior, for a reason: what has been happening with the Global warming article, and with related articles, must be discussed so that it can stop. What is it going to take?--Abd (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks Abd. Either take it to a private conversation, or bring it up in the appropriate channels. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The IPCC definition

The IPCC definition of global warming, found in one of the Working Group glossaries, (WGIII) has been called the "gold standard." What is it, where did it come from, and is it a "definition" or an "explanation"? An explanation will include information about the subject behind the term being explained, a definition will only state what is necessary to understand the term itself, generally, though definitions may sometimes give examples; the examples are not intended to be exclusive; really, they are part of an "explanation."

This is the IPCC "gold standard" definition, supposedly:

Global warming

Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.

Linguistically, if global warming is a consequence of "radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions," that cause isn't part of the definition. It's an example or a usage. Is there other "global warming," not caused by human activity? Of course there is, because the earth has warmed before human activity was taking place on a scale that would be seriously significant. Could there presently be causes for global warming other than human activity? In theory, yes. Various phenomena that cause climate variability have not stopped operating because we've been modifying CO2 levels. Some of these cause cooling, some cause warming. So some global warming is not caused by human activity, and the IPCC report includes this in their conclusions.

Other Working Group glossaries for the 2007 report did not include this definition of "global warming." What's the difference? Well, this was the glossary for Working Group III. Their report is titled: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change." [7]. This working group appears to assume that human activity is the cause of global warming, which is perfectly appropriate. But it leads them to define the term for their usage as referring to what would elsewhere be called anthropogenic global warming.

The other Working Group glossaries don't include the term "Global warming." Those group reports are titled:

• Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"
• Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"

Working Group II looks at the effects of "climate change." For their purposes, it doesn't matter what is causing the change. We would face these effects whether the cause is human activity or changes in cosmic ray flux, for example.

Working Group I is concerned with what is happening (i.e., changes in atmospheric composition, temperature, etc.) I've reported here and in Talk for the article some of what they conclude, here is some different stuff:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

"Warming of the climate system" is roughly equivalent to "global warming," and the sentence works if we make the substitution. This statement is entirely independent from cause. As to cause, they state that separately:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.12 This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

If we put this into the Terminology section, at this point, it's predictable how some editors will respond. Translating and substituting as would be appropriate in the Terminology section -- if it is to mention causation -- we would have:

Global warming is the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century, very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

And it will be called a "whitewash." But that's what the IPCC actually said, in the Working Group I Assessment Report.[8] They added the qualifiers "most" and "very likely." This was good scientific writing, in fact. We should take a hint.

What these editors have been insisting on, over many different versions, and with edit warring, is a bald statement like this (from the current version, which replaced a version where I had supplied the "very likely" qualifier:

global warming" refers to the recent increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

That definition can be supported by the Working Group III glossary, but that Working Group, in its mission, assumed the cause was human activity, which was quite appropriate. WGIII was about "What can we do about it," and mostly this would be about changing or reversing what we've done to cause it. If we can cause it, we should be able to reverse it. But that's a restricted definition, for their purposes.

Now, I'm new to this and it would be very easy for me to overlook stuff. There are users here with much more experience on this topic than I, and some of them actually care about NPOV and consensus. Regardless, all of them can be useful, if we cooperate.

Just found one more tidbit: the Synthesis report[9] defines "very likely." It means a probability assessment of greater than 90% but less than 95% (which would be "extremely likely"). Note that the highest assessment level they name is "virtually certain," greater than 99%. At the "very likely" level an encyclopedia article should carefully maintain an avoidance of certainty. --Abd (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

flap

What nice original research. Perhaps you should submit it somewhere - so that we can later refer to it as reliable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reporting (exact quotation) and discussing what is actually in reliable sources is OR? What a novel concept! Try maintaining it in an RfC or before ArbComm sometime, for the lulz. I was quoting the source, and that's what I or someone else will put in the article, instead of synthesis that does not enjoy consensus. Laugh, if you like. This doesn't need to be published, it already was published, by the IPCC. Of course, now will you argue that the IPCC report isn't reliable? Or will Skyemoor take on that job? Edit warring can "win" today, maybe. It won't win tomorrow, or the next day. This isn't going away. --Abd (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What is in the exact text of the source is not OR (obviously) - but your interpretations, rationalizations and analysis of the text is. (or in the words used in main: Your "exploration" is OR). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, KDP, not the article. Or are you and your friends the only ones who can "interpret, rationalize, or analyze?" It might seem so, from a review of your contributions history. I have a suggestion: if you'd like to see Skyemoor stick around, give him some friendly advice about edit warring, he won't (hasn't) taken mine as friendly, probably because I'm getting a bit pissed at being called a POV pusher, when I'm quite the opposite. (You've managed to remain unblocked, I'd guess you are careful; he hasn't been and isn't. He might listen to you.) The text he is defending so staunchly was most recently inserted in the article by me. And when text came along that had higher consensus, that's what I put in. This will continue. Don't think that because you've gotten away with persistent use of reverts to maintain your desired spin -- not based on source, but on synthesis -- that this will continue. I predict: it won't. You and he are largely SPAs, it makes you vulnerable, should push come to shove, which I surely hope it does not. Try addressing the actual issues instead of spouting "OR" once again, or demanding predigestion of it all (i.e., "be concise," when the only way to be concise is to gloss over important aspects of an issue, something POV pushers do quite readily). --Abd (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand where you're coming from here, and I get the impression from your tone of writing that you've become frustrated. You're normally more level, diplomatic, and rational than this, so you may want to take a night off & let things cool. What we have here is a simple failure to reach consensus. You, I, and WMC have one position, Kim & Skye have another. Their position is reasonable, because multiple sources - and most importantly the IPCC - support it. I think it defies logic, but they are unconvinced. Both sides have made their case ad nauseum and we continue to disagree. That isn't misbehavior on their part or ours, they just disagree with us on this point, which is ok. You removed the terminology section, and that's ok too. It may be the best solution.

The last guy I saw get blocked was being disruptive. I acknowledge that I've been out of this article for a long time, but that was my experience in the past, too. If skeptics are receiving more blocks here, I would argue that it's because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not allow them to fill the global warming article with their viewpoints, which they most probably consider to be unfair. I think some of them get into a holy war mode and try to "fight the establishment" or whatever. A fair treatment of the article doesn't address the issue to their satisfaction, and they are driven to bad behavior in the attempt to get some page space for their points (which is rightly denied in most cases.) That's all well and good until it becomes disruptive, and then a block becomes appropriate. An editor that supports the mainstream view is unlikely to behave as badly, because really the article already represents most of what they believe pretty well. The larger point is about good faith. I'll tolerate anyone's viewpoint if they're willing to express it honestly and calmly. I think you're a good editor, and I think your attempts to reach consensus and your reasoning for doing so were excellent. It's unfortunate that the IPCC chose to define the term as they did, but we both have to acknowledge that contradicting an IPCC statement on a climate related article is going to be an uphill battle if the other editors don't agree with our judgments in the matter, and they don't. I think it's unfortunate, but I also choose my battles and this isn't going to be one of them. Mishlai (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that some skeptics are blocked for quite good reasons. However, I'm also sure that much of this isn't necessary and it's due to the hostile reception they get when they try to make the article, as it would seem to them, more neutral. As we've seen, the article, as maintained by a group of editors, can contain material for a long time that is presented in a way that is not actually justified by the sources. A skeptic sees this and tries to fix it, as I did. They are met with hostility, they are called "POV pushers," and if they respond in kind, they are warned and blocked. I'd urge you to read, carefully, WP:Requests for comment/GoRight and the pages in my user space (referenced from the RfC) where I compiled and analyzed evidence. I wasn't involved, I had never had any dispute with these editors previously. And it's ongoing. I came here because an attempt was made to sanction Jaimaster for his participation in Global warming, on AN/I. It failed, but it's obvious that at least one admin is itching to block him. He wasn't uncivil. Did he err? Possibly. However, if you look over the history of my own intervention here, and the response and other stuff that has happened in this brief period, you'll see edit warring with no attempt to reach consensus or attempt to thoroughly explain why not, characterization of edits as pushing some POV that weren't, tendentious argument, etc. This kind of situation often arises when a group of editors get burned out maintaining an article, you can see the impatience over and over, it shows up in how answers to questions on Talk are made by certain editors. "Read the sources!" will often be said. Sure. But ... sometimes what one gets from actually reading the sources is quite different from what is in the article or what these editors are claiming, and a reference might be to a huge source with no specification of where. When editors are burned out with maintaining an article, maybe they should take a break! If we can't be civil to newcomers, we've lost it.

And then there is the whole can of worms of administrative involvement. Just in the last, what, two weeks?, we saw a user, User:Logicus blocked for, apparently, writing too much in Talk. Not uncivil, just lots of text. He wasn't formally warned; the admin blocking, when challenged, pointed to comments in talk that weren't phrased as warnings, they were just on the order of "TL;DR" or "Why do we have to read this again?" (And, of course, the editor who wrote that did not have to read it!) Yes, the user was clumsy, wordy, etc. But blockable? Not by any guideline I know? And, making it worse, the admin is one who has been heavily involved with Global warming. Then when edit warring had started up (over the first removal of the Terminology section), an independent admin protected the article. It was unprotected by another admin who is likewise heavily involved with the article. With the comment that there isn't a problem here because the article is being watched by many administrators. That's correct, i.e., it's watched by many admins, who are largely involved, as one might expect from having the article on their watchlists! Both of these actions involving admin tools were violations of policy regarding conflict of interest, without there being any emergency. Likewise that admin -- though this did not involve tools -- deleted Logicus's comments entirely, even though some of it wasn't repetitive. (I later restored them and then collapsed them out of respect for that admin's position. Deletion was, quite simply, improper on Talk, they were not uncivil, were not personal attacks, and were merely, at worst, redundant.)

It's a huge can of worms, Mishlai, it is not merely business as usual. Or if it is, that's really scary! Anyway, look at the RfC and at who was involved, first in the edits in the subject period, with reversions and uncivil comments, then with the RfC itself, who filed it (uh, the two admins who acted improperly, recently, as described above) and who voted and how (some of this is analyzed on my evidence pages, in terms of who had engaged in edit warring with GoRight); notice that neutral editors almost overwhelmingly concluded that, yes, GoRight had erred, but his behavior wasn't any worse than that of other editors involved. Yet who was sanctioned? (The sanction itself was weird, I doubt that ArbComm would support it, it seems to have been punitive, since the offenses, such as they were, had stopped.) "Cabal"? Not necessarily a formal one, but it is "as if" there is one. This situation is a poster boy for WP:TAGTEAM; there have been efforts to dilute that essay to try to make it seem as if, to be a tag team, there must be some conspiracy. No, the essence of it is edit warring, with the reverts being distributed among a number of editors so that none of them violate WP:3RR, whereas the intruder is led right into doing that. The difference between this an legitimate article maintenance against improper edits is the attitude, the conduct. Edit warring, per se, purely stubborn reversion by itself, is not how we maintain articles, we must consider each edit as made in good faith, unless vandalism is obvious, and attempt to incorporate whatever is possibly good from it, or explain in detail why not. Burned-out editors stop doing that. They just revert. And that's what was repeated here, since I started working on this article. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Misc

other areas to peruse

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change&oldid=169436164

Interesting threads

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_24#change_to_the_intro_is_not_personal_opinion (re committed add'l warming vs projections)

Concepts, energy imbalance, committed warming; Ed pushing these erroneously said energy imbalance was the cause of warming. In a way that's true (like saying the temp gradient between stove burner and pan is the "cause" of the pan warming). But what caused the energy imbalance? These threads died out over that confusion, but the points of energy balance and committed warming are worth hanging onto.

• Related

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_24#Causes

Climate commitment

List of articles that caught my eye while working on this

• Attribution of recent climate change

TO DO Start a bullet list of places in sci lit where "global warming" has been given a rootin' tootin' (not implied) definition. Especially note if there are attending qualifiers, e.g., anthropogenic global warming. This will be much more useful than a dubious tally of GoogleScholar hits.