Talk:Climate variability and change

Situs GK bayar

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

"Climate change" versus "Global warming"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Graph from NOAA

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

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

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

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

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

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