Talk:Climate variability and change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Creative Mastermind. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nul90 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dragonroll.

Climate change vs Global warming

Not starting a discussion or taking a stance right now but just as a practical note for the perennial discussions on whether to move global warming here, there are several thousand articles that link to this page which you can review to get a sense for how many want modern anthropogenic climate change and how many want climate change in general. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ReconditeRodent I don't really understand the point you are making? (I'll disclose that I have argued for changing the title of the global warming article to climate change, and can't wait for it to happen eventually - I am convinced it will, one day). EMsmile (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the majority of pages that link here mean to link to global warming, and though the exact ratio varies each time I try to take a sample it would in any case be less practical to change all of them than the reverse (if the page was moved). But since I haven’t fully reviewed the other arguments made I didn’t want to jump into a discussion just yet. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's true we have a a lot of wikilinks to these two articles, and that some unknown percentage point to the "wrong" one, given the current status quo. This fact has been used to argue against making any name changes. If a group of editors were determined to clean house by auditing the thousands of links it would be a massive undertaking, but with careful planning and expert use of categories and templates it could be done in bite sized pieces. We'd need a team of committed volunteers, a clerk, and some wiki advisors who are expert with the tools needed to manage such a project. A way to get started might be to make a pitch at WP:WikiProject Climate change and possibly form a task force for the effort. This is worth doing in its own right. Once done, the perennial name-change proposals may or may not gain traction. But it would be worth cleaning up the various "wrong" article WP:EGGS anyway. I have had a note to consider doing this myself for a couple of years but the job never bubbles up to the top of my pile. Any takers? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to coordinate the discussion, but I've done way too much gnome-work for at least the next five years in global warming to take up the clerk role here. Don't even know what that would entail. You expressed willingness to take up this role before ircc. What made you change your mind? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind, but for me and the way I would approach it I still think its premature. The project is going full blast to set up categories and banners. {Thank you everyone who is helping!) And while this is great, I observe that there is a long list of possible goals projects might wish to pursue with banners and categories. I don't know much about this. With different goals, would we set up the categories and banner differently? I think so. Once its set up, we need time to build team momentum to start knocking off the to do lists. Also time to verify that the banner/category configuration is meetings our needs. So I don't have the drive to charge forward with this other gnome work solo right now. Maybe someone else does. Meanwhile I'm interested in building the project team machine, and other low hanging cleanup fruit that should also be done. And then there are the short term action items that heat up, like working on Greta Thunberg before US papers start covering her much more intensely. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Separating current climate change from the general phenomena

The current article, even though correct is misleading. We the media talk about climate change it doesn't talk about the repeated phenomena but about current climate change that is cause due to the emission of green house gases. I think we better have two article or to make it more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Thanks for your interest and please read the italics at the very top of this article, which explains that topic is covered at our article Global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello IP. I think you're completely right. The article about current climate change is found under global warming, which is not the place most people expect it to be. We're working on getting consensus to have both climate change and global warming point to the same page, as these two terms are very similar. General information about climate change will then probably be found under different articles, such as the climate system. Alternatively, we can change this article's name to something like: climate change in the past and future. Bear with us, this consensus seeking might take a while.

@NEAG: more evidence people don't always read the top note, yet another reason for our ideas to go forward. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

How about "climate change cycles" for the cycle of the climate changes: sun 11 year cycle, milankovitch cycle etc etc. And keep the climate change article for the current climate change (that is mostly due to emission of green house gases).31.154.23.74 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

or maybe "natural climate change" to separate it from human induced climate change.31.154.23.74 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Natural climate change is an option for me if we decide on a separate article about this (instead of the current discussion at climate system). Climate change cycles implies that all natural climate change changes in cycles: back and forth. That is not entirely true: climate change induced by plate tectonics works in one direction for instance. The same goes for the climate change that was a consequence of living creatures 'inventing' photosynthesis: the 'sudden' drop in CO2 caused quite a lot of cooling. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree we need to resolve this perennial issue with a consensus to change to something else, but I also think we have our hands full getting the project up and going, and doing the housekeeping that we would do anyway whether we tackle this or not. As we previously discussed, Femke, all that housekeeping will need to happen regardless and its state of being not done has been cited as a reason to make no change in the past. So.... its tedious and time consuming, but .... on with the job, as far as I'm concerned. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there going to be any progress regarding this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.73 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Depends if everyone keeps asking other people that question instead of asking themselves "What can I do to help resolve this issue and will I actually do it?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

NEAG and me are working behind the scenes on it now. I'd say that the next month should see our discussion going live. Maybe another month or even two for the decision to be made and executed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Femke, you are the one doing the heavy lifting and timetable push here, and thank you for believing! I'll keep kinda helping a little as I'm able. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Climate crisis vs Climate change

@Rosvel92: are you aware that old consensus [no consensus status quo] is that this article is about the general concept of climate change, not about current CC? I'm preparing a proposal to have climate change and global warming both point towards the current FA global warming article, as a large portion of editors (definitely) and readers (almost certainly) get confused with the current situation. You might want to withdraw your merge proposal and join my proposal instead. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:12, September 4, 2019‎

@Rosvel192, I removed the climate crisis paragraph from this article because it is the wrong article, as Femke explains above. Being the wrong article, I have also removed the malformed merge tags. The tags were "malformed" because to use these tags you must select a single place to start a discussion (a single place, per WP:MULTI) and there make your case for the proposed merge. Just slapping up tags is called "drive by tagging". I started to try to redeem the tagging by moving the following paragraph here, but was hasty. I assumed, wrongly, that the paragraph was a discussion comment. After I got started moving things around I realized it was article text and this is the wrong article because it pertains as much to the PETM as it does the modern age. As Femke also observes, veteran climate editors are working on a comprehensive rename proposal. Please be patient. The text I removed from the article was

In the late 2010's a newspaper called The Guardian started a trend where it advocated to call it Climate crisis instead of "Climate change". This due to feeling that the word "change" doesn't properly reflect the severity of the environmental problem, and as such, "crisis" is more appropriate. Several other news media outlets and researchers, agreed and followed the suit (while still considering the "climate change" terminology as an acceptable synonym, they agreed to decrease it's use in favor of using "climate crisis" more).

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Chop.... Chop...... Chop.......

This article has accumulated an enormous amount of cruft that really belongs in Effects of global warming and sub articles under that tree. As I start to try to focus on the article topic any climate change, whether warming or cooling, at any time in earth history, I've started chopping the cruft that is all about human-caused climate change/global warming.

I know many editors want current climate change to be hosted under this article title. We argue about that repeatedly, but the current article title status quo arose in 2002 and hasn't changed in all that time. FYI some of us are preparing a comprehensive reform proposal. Coming up with ideas is easy. Arguing about them endlessly is tempting (for some). But actually executing a name reform is far greater task than newer and casual editors can imagine. That discussion will be easiest and executing a consensus will be easiest if we clean up this article so it matches the current status quo as well as it can. So that's why I'm chopping.

By the way, the refs etc are all recoverable from the archives. I haven't actually relocated any of this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If you believe improving this article is a step towards our goal of renaming, I'll join you and remove weird and outdated information from it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Great! Assume it will take others 6 units of brain energy to think through the proposal and come to the right decision. If this article is full of needless crap, when they come her to think about it, they will have to expend 1 or 2 units of brain power to see past all the needless crap before wondering what to do with the good stuff. So all we're doing is conserving brain power by making the field lean clean and mean before asking folks to ponder the big questions. And if the proposal fails after that excellent thinking, then this article would need the same clean up anyway. So THANKS! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what I though as well. Also, I want to minimize the words spent in my proposal to prevent Wikipedia:Wall of text, while still covering everything I deem important. In the TO-DO list for two possible directions of change was 'clean up climate change', so those words can now be deleted. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done now. I think the state of this article is again good enough to not confuse people in our discussion. Still an ugly beast, but can't solve it entirely of course. Do I recall correctly you started the climate system section? If so, would you want to add a couple more sentences? Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You probably remember correctly, but no, I'm not inclined to add anything. Its my belief all of this content is redundant and/or should be exported to other articles, as we discussed last winter while looking over my user space draft and reform idea Original and updated and streamlined that led up to your excellent launch of climate system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I sorta forgot. I'm inclined to disagree with you on this one, as I do think it's worthwhile to discuss natural variability in its own separate article. This would, ideally for me, be a merge of this one and climate oscillation, and climate pattern, but that would be phase 4 of my plan to merge all of those. (Phase 3 is tidying up after agreeing on what we have to do with the name climate change) Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikibreak time for me, back next week NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Long period variability

@Femkemilene: something that I'm still confused about.... Let's say we characterize the current climate as CLIMATE-X. Then along comes some variability. For short-period variability, that's just a bit of noise within the bounds of CLIMATE-X so there is no "climate change". After all, climate is usually defined as weather averaged over 30 years. For cycles less than 30 years, their impacts are captured we do the averaging, so despite the noise, we still have CLIMATE-X. So far so good.

The confusion arises for long-period variability. Have we identified cycles in the climate system that play out over greater periods of time? And if so, since their impacts are not captured by the usual averaging, are these long-period cycles potential drivers of climate change, that might bump CLIMATE-X to CLIMATE-Y? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We have (probably?) identified things like this indeed, where internal variability triggered some tipping point for instance. The Cronin book I'm reading now gives Heinrich events as an example of internal variability happening with a period of 5000 to 10000 years. Some instability in the ice sheets.

The books also makes some good points that 'normal' climatologists has slightly different definitions of external than paleoclimatologists. For instance, we ('normal' climatologists) say that volcanic forcing is external, while they treat is as internal. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"normal"....... ROFL. Seriously, this confusion is a big sticking point for me in figuring out our big picture reform, as we ponder article structures names and relation to each other. It's also a bit advanced for me, so I look forward to any additional light you can shine as you read sources and ponder. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I now think we should keep in mind that the 30-year cut-off is really arbitrary, and that climate variability (typically fast change) and climate change (slower change) are all on the same spectrum. I'm now thinking that it's best to discuss the two terms in this page. (But other days I'm more in favour of a separate climate variability article, where there is approximately a 1/3 overlap with an article on natural climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

One-sided article.

RS-free WP:SOAP and [{WP:FORUM]] click show to read anyway

There is no reference in the article to the science that sustains that climate change is not related to CO2 emissions. My understanding is that WIKIPEDIA articles need to have a space for dissenting views. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. For example, the scientific conference https://climateconference.heartland.org/ is dedicated to the analysis of the science that shows no influence of CO2 atmospheric level on climate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC) The Heartland Institute is not a scientific organization, it's a corporate-funded shill for denialism. Please review WP:FRINGE - we do not give equal credence to pseudoscience. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC) A conference is just a venue, obviously, I´m referring to the views of the scientific that give presentations at the conference. So, the question continues. How we give space to the scientists that have a dissenting point of view? The answer remains: We don't, not in this article - just as we don't have a section in Evolution which discusses people who believe God created the universe in six days. Rather, we have an article about their belief system: intelligent design). Likewise, we have an article called climate change denial which discusses those who reject the scientific consensus about climate change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC) THE article called climate change denial is a pamphlet against a dissenting oppinions, THERE is no a single reference on it a Papers published in a peer-review magazine that dissent. SORRY, my mistake. , I´m not suggesting to give space to "Climate change denial" I don´t suggest that. Obviously, if something has been changing is the climate, with periods of High temperature and periods of lower temperature, it looks that there is a consensus that the climate DO change, and we have previous global warming maximum temperature that exceeds the temperature of today. The point is to present the scientific investigation that has don´t find a relationship between increase in temperature and CO2 emissions. Your opinion is a little totalitarian, for example, "WE DON¨T" Really? you are the owner of the article? I think that an opinion published in a peer-review magazine is the standard to be considered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) It's somewhat hard to make out what you propose. Climate change is a field in which literally thousands of peer-reviewed articles are published. A single article might be noteworthy, but it would have to be very well-received, and probably published in a first-rate journal like Nature or PNAS, not some crappy pay-to-play predatory outlet. Do you have something concrete in mind? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC) @Cuye: Can you find peer-reviewed secondary sources that discuss this alleged claim about CO2 and climate? Take a look at the medical sourcing guidelines for a sense what what good sources might look like. (I'm not saying that we need to apply precisely the same sourcing guidelines here, I'm say that it's a good overview for trying to understand how to deal with these fringe claims.) Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Many thanks for your comment, I will add later here the articles that I think are relevant. I agree with you, we don´t like to have "not some crappy pay-to-play predatory outlet.", FOR SURE, this is why I´m always referring to peer-review magazines, and I likes to add, Per-review magazines that are LISTED. By the way, Nature is not a peer-review magazine, it is an advocacy journal of the importance of CO2 in the rise of temperature. Scientific magazines DON¨T have opinions about the subjects, they publish articles that the scientific community consider that are science-based. For example "The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)" PNAS is abstracted and/or indexed in, for example CABI, Chemical Abstracts Service, Current Contents Connect, EBSCOhost, Elsevier Scopus, Gale, H. W. Wilson, Index Medicus, Journal Watch, JSTOR, OCLC, Portico, ProQuest, Psychological Abstracts, PubMed, PubMed Central, RePEc, and SCI. So, this is a key point of peer-review magazines the relevant ones are LISTED, this means that his articles are included in the scientific search databases. If a magazine is NOT listed the articles there will not be used in good scientific investigation. Also, good articles show results that are conflicting (good articles are not advocating articles.) For example, The PNAS article "Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events" Shows the influence of global warming, don´t advocate the SOURCE(S) of global warming, but the article has some interesting points A)The article found "extremely high statistical confidence that anthropogenic forcing increased the probability of record-low Arctic sea ice extent." B) but the article also said "The strong imprint of internal variability at the local scale creates substantial uncertainty in the influence of anthropogenic climate forcing on individual local trends (e.g., refs. 45 and 46), with even greater uncertainty for extremes than for the long-term mean" C) Aso said: "For example, neither the observed nor simulated trend in extreme precipitation is statistically significant over most grid points (Table 1 and Fig. S4), which could imply that global warming has not substantially influenced such events. However, thermodynamic arguments suggest that global warming should have increased the event probability by increasing atmospheric moisture (2, 48). SEE also atmospheric moisture plays an important role. Coming to your point I suggest that paper that I mention previously needs to be an acceptable reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) I think you must be confusing Nature (journal) with some other publication. The nature family of journals are listed in all the general indexing services you mentioned and one of the most prestigious journals out there. Note that it is not listed by for instance Elsevier, as they only list journals they they happen to own. Could you come up with a proposed change (including reliable source) for the article. The talk page is not meant for a general discussion of the topic (it's not a WP:FORUM). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC) This seems to be the PNAS paper referred to. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC) I would guess you are actually looking for the article Global warming rather than this one. As to other effects affecting climate change others are described here including ones like solar output. As far as recent global warming is concerned though that is a minor factor. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Example things that link here

There has been discussion of the things that link here. Specifically, the question is whether the incoming link really means to come here (because it means generic climate change) or maybe meant to go to global warming (because it meant to refer to Human-caused global warming and climate change, or other expression that means the same thing). So here are some examples

• Article useage meaning climate change in a generic sense (i.e., "the right way" under the current status quo)

• This section in this version of Radiative forcing
• This section in this version of Snowball earth

• Article useage where writer means Human-caused global warming and climate change or other phrase that means the same thing (i.e., the "wrong way" under the current status quo)

• Since the 2004 rename in this version of Attribution of recent climate change
• Since June 2019, in this version of Environmental law

(to do add talk examples) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

In User:Femkemilene/sandbox I've got a link (Q1.1) that shows it links correctly 10% of the time and should link to ongoing climate change 90% of the time. Renaming this page and making climate change a redirect will solve decrease wrong links from 0.9*5000 = 4500 to 0.1*5000 = 500 :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Renaming this article to solve confusion

After months of preparation, I'd like to propose a title change to this article. Informal discussions so far indicate there is a clear consensus for having climate change redirect to global warming (with some suggestions even that it might replace the title). The discussions have not yet led to a best alternative name. Tagging users that have provided feedback on the sandbox that helped this proposal along: @NewsAndEventsGuy, NightHeron, Efbrazil, and EMsmile.

Currently, our global warming article deals with current global climate change, while our climate change article deals with climatic changes in general. Over the last couple of months, a few calls to rediscuss this have been put forward, and here at last I'd like to start the discussion for real with a concrete set of proposals. I've prepared the overview arguments for why I believe the current situation is untenable and what policies and guidelines are applicable. I also put forward a solution to solve this issue. The main reason for not calling an article about general climate change, simply climate change is that most people associate it with current climate change. Applicable guideline: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

I think that the first criterion is most important here. In Q1.1 (specifically point 4) I've laid out evidence that the term climate change is only used to refer to climate change in general about 0.5 to 2% of the time, both in lay literature and in scientific literature. In previous discussion, we've focused on definitions of global warming and climate change to determine this distinction. I think that misses the point of PRIMARYTOPIC, as this disregards how the terms are actually used. Climate change and global warming are both used in common speech to refer to the current warming. I suspect that the readers of climate change, over a million per year, are mostly interested in what is typically meant by climate change and the hatnote is insufficient to lead all of them to our page about current climate change: global warming. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Two possible ways forward and my argumentation for renaming
Considering the current practice leads to confusion (see entirety of Q1.1) and is at odds with Wikipedia guidelines, there are two courses of action for the current text at climate change that I consider to be in line with policy&guidelines:

1. Merge the page into other pages that deal with climate change in general (mostly climate system)
2. Rename the page. Criteria for good names are found under WP:CRITERIA.

My renaming proposal
Credit for this proposal goes to User:Colin M.

(PROPA) Rename climate change to climatic changes. The plural here provides a natural disambiguation from current climate change.

1. Advantage 1: the scope can be completely retained.
2. Advantage 2: we stop confusion (I think). There are two types of confusion that can happen due to an article title. One is with internal links breaking, and the other one with typing climate into search box and getting the wrong page. I'd say the former is worst, in the sense that people believe their on the right page
   1. Climatic changes is currently a redirect with only 1 link. So wrong internal links are set to not become a big problem here.
   2. By making the page into climatic changes, there is an 'early' point where people that search climate change break off.

(PROPB) Rename climate change to climate change (general concept) Thanks to discussion below I came up with a name I think might suit our needs even better.

1. Advantage 1: impossible to blue-link on accident
2. Advantage 2: The name is specific. A possible disadvantage of climatic changes might be that 90% of people associate it with climate change in general, and 10% with of climate change now. This specification makes clear it's not an issue/problem but a concept. It's also scientifically accurate.
3. People actively looking for the concept of climate change can still find it.

Alternative names
Other possible names that I came up with, that I think fall short of meeting title criteria.

1. Attempts at finding synonym for climate change which is not primarily associated with current climate change: Climate variation, Climatic fluctuation, Climatic variation and climate variability. Climate variability is not the same as climate change. It's typically used for short-term climate fluctuations. The other three terms are also used, informally, to describe either climate variability, climate change or both and are not precise.
2. Option that does restrict scope: Natural climate change (restricted scope). Although the term is immediately clear, it might lead people to think current climate change is natural.
3. Putting qualification after title, such as general: Climate change (general). It's not really clear what the world general means. It could for instance refer to the human, animal and physical aspects of climate change. Other option is climate change (past, present and future). Again unclear whether past only refers to last 200 years of further back.

List of names that came up during discussion (see discussion for discussion)

• Climate change (general concept)
• Climate change (general phenomenon)
• Climate variation (long time scale)

Merging into other pages
Information has already been copied to our new climate system article (much of it was changed as it violated verifiability and summary style guidelines). About a third/half of that article is about climate change and it provides a basic overview. The new climate variability article also has a slight overlap.

Background information

Q1.1: How do we know the current naming leads to confusion?

A1.1: We have five clear indications the current naming practice leads to widespread confusion, and the hat note is insufficient to mitigate this confusion:

1. Look at Pages that link to climate change (Special:WhatLinksHere/Climate_change minus the navboxes). Only ~10% are linked correctly, with 90% of them referring to ongoing climate change!
2. Climate change is read disproportionately often for a page about the general theory of climate change. It's at 3000 views a day, compared to 1500 for the GA article on climate. Peaks in climate change readership often coincide with peaks in global warming, further suggesting people are actually looking for information about current warming (Comparison of last year's viewership)
3. A large portion of comments and edits on climate change from new and older editors is about current climate change.
4. Our climate change article is the odd one out in Google's search engine. Only on the 4th page of unbiased Google results is there another page about climate change in general, instead of current warming. For Google scholar (possibly biased towards my search history), the first mention of non-current climate change was on page 6. With a bit of rough statistics, this implies that climate change refers to the ongoing climate change about 97-99.5% of the time.
5. There have been complaints and debates on the talk pages for years, and the number and passion of these has increased the last two years.

Q1.2: Why was the distinction established

A1.2: Multiple reasons were given to make the distinction as it is now (it started in April 2002. See Talk:Global warming/Archive 1):

1. First of all, back around 2005 global warming was the most-used term to refer to current warming on Google. In books and in the UK parliament the switch to climate change came earlier.
2. The editors active then asserted that while the distinction climate change/global warming was not made properly by lay people, scientists typically used climate change in the general sense, while global warming was used only to refer to current warming (see for instance the first few edits 1, 2 of the climate change article). While there may have been some truth in it in the past, this is certainly not the case anymore now, as can be seen by the names of the most prominent climate research sources (IPCC and National Climate Assessment) and a comparison of Google Scholar's results.
3. In a recent discussion, it was proposed that renaming the global warming article into climate change would play into the hands of those that want to downplay the human role in the current warming. Note that the article title policy explicitly states that "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense".

Q1.3: What has changed since previous discussions?

A1.3: Common usage of the terms has changed, as well as the context on Wikipedia:

1. The usage of the terminology global warming and climate change has shifted. Google keeps track of the frequency of use for both terms and from about 2015 climate change has become the more dominant term for the current warming+effects. In books and in the UK parliament the switch to climate change came earlier.
2. We've made a new article: climate system that covers the basics of the general concept of climate change, so that a separate article is not needed as much as before.
3. Starting with Talk:Global warming/Archive 1, the first three archives have been rebuilt and formatted with dates and threading to extent possible. It is much easier now to see the denial/skeptic arguments that led to the dubious bifurcation we have inherited.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative - Merge this content to Climate system

If you arrived here from a targeted link elsewhere, please bubble up one level to see the concurrent rename proposal NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Instead of renaming, NAEG proposes to merge all of this article's content about generic climate change to the subsections under Climate system#Changes in the climate system.

NAEG says the ADVANTAGES to merging instead of renaming are

• Climate science communicators advocate for "systems thinking" when trying to talk about climate change. (E.g.,"Systems thinking can support public understanding of climate change". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 2019-10-10.
• That's about as general as you can get
• Its a simple mid-teens level English
• Avoids a new form of befuddlement.... What we have now regularly gives readers a bad WP:EGG experience and I don't want to shift this to a new flavor via a new article title. EXAMPLE - Imagine our lay reader searching on "climate change" to read about Human-caused global warming and climate change (or whatever we call that topic). Our lay reader only knows the most basic info on this subject and after searching on "climate change" they run into into articles called

- Climatic changes and the reader says "What? Is THAT what I want?" (But like the current article, it isn't)

- Climate change (general) and the reader starts in on that but ends up saying "Where's the GLOBAL WARMING shit?"

etc

By putting the general discussion of climate change (and all the navigation links to sub articles) under Climate system#Changes in the climate system, this sort of ongoing befuddlement and consternation never happens during article title searching

• When the reader does arrive at the subsection #Changes in the climate system, fact that the article gift-wrapper is "SYSTEM" there will already be an unconscious mindset that imagines all sorts of changes in that system, and doing it this way is consistent with current thinking among climate communication researchers (see ref above)
• In the end, "climate change" and "global warming" will still land on the same page, just like the renaming approach

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion and surveying of opinions

My proposal is to rename climate change to climatic changes. The current name leads to a lot of confusion. Climate change will become a redirect to global warming (which is the guideline when we determine the primary topic of climate change is current climate change).Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add NotVotes and Discussion in the subsections below'

Survey (not voting)

In this section, please say "Support", "Opposed", or propose a different article title, but remember this is a guide, not a binding vote. If you don't agree with the premise of this renaming proposal (climate change has current climate change as primary topic) explicitly state this as well.

Question 1 - Should "climate change" and "global warming" both go to the same article (whatever its called)?

Question 2a - Should climate change be renamed to "Climatic changes"?

Question 2b - Should climate change be renamed to "Climate change (general concept)"?

Restatement of Femke's original two questions added NAEG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Question 3 - Should Climate change be merged to Climate system#Changes in the climate system?

Please try to answer all the questions in bold Answer-1/Answer-2/Answer-3 etc, possible answers include "support", "Opposed", "Don'tCare", "Also Works","See alternative" etc. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

1. ... Q1: Support the proposal that climate change should redirect to global warming. Q2a/2b Support renaming this article to climactic change or to climate change (general concept). Q3 Oppose merge. Vision Insider (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Support the proposal that climate change should redirect to global warming. (and maybe some time in future the article on "global warming" to be renamed to "climate change"; but that could be a second step much later). Support renaming this article to climactic change or anything else that is similar & overarching (I don't think it matters that much what it is renamed to). EMsmile (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC) - Update: Q1 - strong support / Q2a- oppose / Q2b - weak support / Q3 - no opinion, don't know enough about that article EMsmile (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
3. Support redirecting climate change to global warming (and in the near future changing the title of Global warming to climate change). Also renaming this article to something like Climate variation (large time scales). NightHeron (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC) - Update: Q1-Support/Q2a-Oppose/Q2b-Oppose/Q3-Weak oppose NightHeron (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC). Changing my vote on Q3 to Q3-Unsure NightHeron (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
4. Q1-Support / Q2a-Oppose / Q2b-weak oppose / Q3-Support NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Strong support redirecting climate change to global warming. I'd also be in favor of changing the title of Global warming to climate change at some point. Will write more later. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Update: Q1 Strong support, Q2a: No opinion. Q2b:Oppose - "General" to me in this context implies the article will give general coverage of a given topic, not that the topic itself has a more general scope than another topic. Q3: No opinion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Update: Struck my oppose to Q2b. Q2b: No strong opinion While Climate change (general concept) has some problems, I also don't want to be opposing something without supporting an alternative. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
6. Q1-Strong Support/Q2a-Support/Q2b-Strong Support/Q3-Oppose Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
7. Q1:Strong support "GW & CC" — Q2a:(Prefer 2b)--> — Q2b:Support — Q3:Would also support —RCraig09 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
8. Q1- Strong Support/Q2a-Oppose/Q2b-Support/Q3-Strong Support Efbrazil (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
9. Q1-Strong oppose: CC is the general topic and isn't the same as GW, which is much more specific /
   Q2a-Oppose introduces uncommon and unnecessary term /
   Q2b-oppose – it's not necessary to rename climate change to "Climate change (general concept)" as that's the common meaning /
   Q3-oppose merging Climate change to Climate system#Changes within the climate system as that's an unexpected easter egg leading away from a common and general term, though the two may be synonymous. dave souza, talk 10:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

In this section, please explain your answers above, referencing reliable sources and policies and guidelines, specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ARTICLETITLE. Beware of making irrelevant arguments like these.

• Explanation of Support for Q1, Q2a/2b The topic of this article is not suited to how the term is used in common parlance. A title really does need to reflect how a user will expect the term to be used. Since climate change and global warming are generally used interchangeably, it is confusing to the average reader not to reach a page discussing global warming if they have searched for climate change. A central part of a title is the need for it to be readily recognised. While I know that this is only anecdotal, when I first visited this page I was actually seeking for a page on global warming specifically, not the general climate trends. Part of me thinks that renaming this piece would be a violation the idea that the title must also be a neutral term (and climate change, strictly speaking, is term referring to long-term trends and not the current situation), but I also think that, realistically, the battle has long been lost on this splitting of hairs. Therefore, making this page have a different name would be more useful to those using this page for what they expected the title told them it would. Vision Insider (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC) ETA: Opposition to Q3 the distinction seems esoteric to anyone (like me) who would be unlikely to use such terms that specifically. I think that a title needs to match what a user is expecting to find. It's also notable enough, I think, to warrant its own page.Vision Insider (talk)

In terms of neutrality: there are two definitions used by our highest quality reliable sources for climate change. One refers to climate change (general concept) the other to human-caused climate change. Both definitions are mentioned in the IPCC SR1.5 report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/. So I would argue, there is no 'strictly speaking' here. In typing this, I think I may have though of a name candidate for our current article: climate change (general concept).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 06:39, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I think Global warming (General Concept) Climate Change (General Concept) (Thanks Femke Nijsse!) is a suitable title for this article. Since you are defs more of an expert than I am, is there a difference in meaning between "climactic change" and "climate change" that means the former isn't suitable? It could be a moot point, anyway, because now you've mentioned it, "global warming (general concept)" works well as a name anyway. Vision Insider (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. Am I right in assuming your 'global warming (general concept)' was a typo and you meant 'climate change (general concept)'? The former doesn't really work, as you would arbitrarily only look at global warming events and mechanisms, instead of the full phenomenon. Climate change has two definitions: one of them human-caused climate change, and one of them climate changes in general, also before humans were around. I hope that when I say climatic changes, people will mostly associate that with the general definition of climate change. (In another comment 'climate change (general phenomenon)' was preferred over 'clmate change (general concept)'. Would you agree with that?). Femke Nijsse(talk) 06:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, I did mean that. Fixed! As to the second idea, I prefer 'climate change (general concept)' and 'climate change (general phenomenon)' in equal measure to the current title with no particular preference.Vision Insider (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Explanation of Support - for the same reasons as listed in this proposal. It is long overdue and I am so glad we are finally having a structured, well-laid out discussion about this; hopefully we can finally make progress on this question that has been lingering for several years now (I remember my own confusion when I got to this page and read completely different stuff to what I was expecting. Naturally I was expecting to read about the current topic of climate change, not an academic article on how the climate has changed since earth was created etc.). EMsmile (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Re your comment in the survey that you don't know much about the Climate system article, you had a hand in bringing that about. Efbrazil, you, and others made a hard push for some renaming late 2017-early 2019. In response, I started brainstorming a solution. As I envisioned things, creating Climate system was key to the longterm solution. Femkemilene and I started talking and she ran with the ball creating that article, just because it was an important article to have. And that's how that article came to be, thanks for stirring the pot many months ago that led to these efforts! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's most important to get clarity in the title of the article that readers are most searching for, concerning human-caused modern climate change. It appears that climate change is the most commonly used term for that. Concerning a new title for the present Climate change article, I see two problems with "climatic changes" as a title. First, it sounds to me as if it's referring to changes over a small time scale, which is not what we intend. Secondly, the distinction between human-caused recent climate change and climate change over longer time scales is not that the second is more "plural" (multidimensional) than the first; in fact, one reason for replacing "global warming" with "climate change" for the article on current anthropogenic climate change is that it is a complex process producing many changes whereas "global warming" suggests a one-dimensional process. For another possible title for the Climate change article, how about "Climate variation (large time scales)"? NightHeron (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming up with an alternative name! I think we typically speak of long time scales, so I'm going to comment on the name climate variation (long time scales). I'm not immediately enthusiastic. There are two drawbacks of the name. The first one is that it's rather long. If at all possible, we should avoid long names. (Of course, avoiding plural is also commendable). The second one is that is quite a roundabout way of describing climate change as general concept. Which brings me to a new idea: what about the title climate change (general concept)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 06:39, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

I think either Climate variation (large time scales) or Climate variation (long time scales) is okay. The title isn't any longer than many titles of BLP articles where a few words in parentheses distinguish the subject of the article from other people with the same name. The trouble with (general concept) is that it implies a theoretical discussion of principles of climate variation rather than an article with a lot of specific information about concrete climate changes through the ages. NightHeron (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Please see WP:ONEDOWN at Make technical articles understandable. If we target freshman year college and per ONEDOWN write for highschool, do those titles make this basic top level summary article more or less comprehensible to your average 16yr old? In case it isn't clear, I think the techy titles make things worse, not better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Yes, I very much agree with your general point. Elsewhere I suggested that the Global warming article needs to be reorganized so as to frontload the easily understandable material and put the more technical content toward the end; this would be in line with WP:Make technical articles understandable#Put the least obscure parts of the article up front. Global warming is the article that's of tremendous popular interest, especially among young people, whereas the topic of climate variation over the ages would not be of interest to nearly as many high school or college students. But in any case, I don't see any words in the title I suggested that would be unclear to high school students (even in the U.S., where vocabulary development is not a strong point of the educational system). NightHeron (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, re the offpoint tangent, Global warming evolved that way during frequent "Its not actually warming" battles and reform is long overdue.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

But this article currently is about general climate change and not a history of climate changes. The historic events are used as examples. I don't agree with NEAG's assessment that the title is too techy, instead it's not precise enough to me. (NEAG: also note the word college is US-specific. In the UK, college freshers are 16)) Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article mentions "extended period of time" as a characteristic of the topic. From a popular standpoint, the main difference between the Global warming article and the Climate change article is that the former deals with a current issue with impacts in the near future -- a few years or a few decades, whereas the latter deals with changes over time periods that are between a few decades and a few million years (as stated in the second sentence of the lead). NightHeron (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Re current warming & "decades".... Science says... sea levels will continue to rise for thousands of years, and under a status quo response it will take millions of years to reset the biodiversity from the mass extinction now underway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The current climate change instance is not distinguishable from other climatic changes in terms of how long the event is. It's not (that?) controversial to say that this event will cause the next (few?) glaciation(s) to not occur, the first one which would have been expected ten thousands of years from now. Agree that either of climate variation or climate change (general concept) will be read far less (and even more so, far less by 16-yr olds) than climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought there's a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring much more rapidly than natural climate change normally occurs. If this is correct, then there really is a difference in time scale. NightHeron (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Arguing for a difference is speed is something else than what your title implies I feel. There is consensus it's faster than the last thousands of years. But tipping points have caused rapid change in the past as well. I'm not a paleoclimatologist, but I wouldn't say that there is consensus that now is the fastest change ever. You are right that normally natural climate change is slower. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron... sounds like you may be confusing "timescale" and "rate". The first is just time, i.e., number of years. The second is change per unit of years. You're right though... the science does say the rate of climate change is very fast compared to past events in the geo record. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Another point to consider: "what is long time scales". For geologists/geology undergraduates, thousands or even hundred of thousands of years are considered short time scales. For this group, which might be one of the major groups interested in this article, your proposed title isn't sufficiently precise. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: The second sentence in the article establishes what is meant: "This length of time can be as short as a few decades to as long as millions of years." @NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm only a layperson and have read little of the scientific literature. But as I understand it, the main point about time scale -- or the rate, if you prefer that term -- is that in the past climate change usually occurred over long enough periods so that most animals and/or humans could adapt, for example, by migrating or changing diet and (in the case of humans) the basis for their economy. But the current anthropogenic climate change is occurring so fast that many fear that we won't be able to adapt. This means that the rate and time scale are a central issue in distinguishing anthropogenic climate change from the typical climate changes that have occurred in the past. NightHeron (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the article itself is clear, but we want people to be able to find the article, which is one of the main functions of a title. In WP:CRITERIA there are five criteria listed that make up a good title, and one of them is preciseness, which I don't think your title meets. I think the longness of the title (conciseness is another criterion), can be compromised on, but since we're out to dispel confusion, preciseness is quite important. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Okay, you're right that the article makes the timescale clear at the beginning of the lead. So I'm happy to vote for Clayoquot's suggested title Climate change (general phenomenon), which seems to have a chance of achieving consensus. NightHeron (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron, To give credit where it's due, that was Femke's suggestion :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Clayoquot, sorry about the misattribution. Because of NAEG's criticism below, perhaps it should be plural: Climate change (general phenomena). NightHeron (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• NewAndEventsGuy

(A) Malformed discussion headings the bolded "explanation of support" in this discussion section appears to recreate the survey and inflate the level of support across the board, but that's misleading. The survey itself has multiple questions; its very hard to tell which things each ed actually supports, and which they don't care about, etc.

(B) Question 1 = YES", climate change" and "global warming" should land on the same page because in the common tongue they mean the same thing. These phrases became assigned to articles with different scope for a really lame reason in 2002-2004

(C) Q2a = NO and Q3 = YES for reasons stated above, in section #Alternative_-_Merge_this_content_to_Climate_system

(D) Q2b = weak oppose Although I made basically the same proposal in June 2014 now I think this is merely a Plan-B. Merging to CLimate system is still better. So far, I only see Femkemiline's comments of 12:43, 10 October opposing the merge alternative. Femke and I are both guessing what the future reader's experience will be, kinda like CRYSTALBALL and IJUSTLIKE sort of thinking. There aren't any clear policy reasons to prefer one over the other. However, there IS an RS-based reason, which I have already provided. Systems-based thinking is an important element in clear communication about this topic. Therefore, I'd talk about general change in the context of workings of the climate system, rather than as a stand alone article. Femke, observe that we had a "climate change" article for 16 or 17 years and how astonished you were when I pointed out we had no CLIMATE SYSTEM article!! Now we have RSs supporting science communication that says Systems-thinking is the way to do it. So I weakly oppose Climate change (general concept) on basis of my guessing about future reader experience and because science communication RSs say presenting it in systems-based thinking is the way to go. I think Climate system#Changes in the climate system is preferable, but I can reluctantly accept Climate change (general concept) as a Plan-B worth taking for a test drive, if all else fails.

(E) Q2b = weak oppose (Part 2) If we call this Climate change (general concept), then after the expected rename effort at Global warming (which I think is on hold until the present dust settles) we could end up with... just for example....

Outcome in future rename discussion	What articles would readers contend with
If Global warming is not renamed)	Climate change (general concept) and Global warming
If Global warming moves to "Climate change"	Climate change (general concept) and Climate change
If Global warming moves to "Global warming and climate change"	Climate change (general concept) and Global warming and climate change
If instead Climate change is merged as proposed above	Climate system and Global warming-possibly renamed

The table shows that using "Climate change (general concept)", while proposed in very good faith, it will accidentally make some options for renaming "global warming" far less appealing before we even have that discussion. If we simply merge to Climate system, we really won't have to deal with similar titles anymore.

(F) To answer one of Femkemilines guesses about the future, if anyone tries to make a generic climate change article or complains that we're hiding stuff, we answer, "Sure we have an article, its at Climate system especially under headnig 3. Did you READ the hatnote at Global warming (which says this)? Did you READ the invisible comment we added to the various redirects (which say this)?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that I'm against calling the article climate change (in general) per, among other things, reasoning above and under User:Clayoquet's comment. I think that we need to specify better by saying WHAT is general. Hence climate change (general concept). Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed all the (in general)s in my comment to (general concept)s NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Femkemilene (discussion proposal NEAG)

(a) The main reason to oppose for me is that we invite a new perennial discussion with this proposal. There will always and always be people that want to have a general article about climate change.

(b) Furthermore, some of our readers might start complaining that we 'hide away' information about climatic change by not even having a page about it.

(c) Request to talk about ages, instead of talking about a US-specific grades Having thought about it a bit more, I now prefer climate change (general concept) to climatic changes because it's perfectly specific for TWO groups of people that might have interest in it: the general public and the specialists. I'm going to complicate the discussion a bit further my introducing this option as well. If a 14-yr old were to search in our search box and come across two options: climate change & climate change (general concept), I think most of them will go for the simplest option before thinking. The majority of that small group that does start thinking will, even if they hadn't thought about climate change as having occurred before, connect the dots SOLELY from article titles. Then, the last portion will be able to be lead to the correct page by a hatnote.

(d) With this longer name climate change (general concept) I think the two types of EGG confusion (via blue links definitely and via search 99% of time) will be solved.

(e) People actively searching for climate change in general will have some difficulty finding it. From the search box, many might go go to global warming first (some might quit because they KNOW that's the wrong page), then some will miss the hat-note (I assume we'll refer to a section in a hat-note? That's quite uncommon, right?). Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

RE(A) that's easily preventable. This reform will convert "climate change" into a redirect. Your fear is that people will constantly try to turn it back into an article. Any editor who tries has to hit the "edit" button. In edit mode, they will find this invisible comment

Climate change content as a redirect as seen in edit mode

<!-- EDITORS Per prior consensus [[Found here]], please do not turn this redirect into an article without first proposing this change and getting consensus at [[Talk:(new place)]]. Be sure to notify interested editors at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change]]. Thanks. -->

#REDIRECT [[Climate change (general concept)]] or

#REDIRECT [[Climate system#Changes in the climate system]] or

(other place as we decide in this thread)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

My experience is that people often ignore these warnings :(. But maybe it'll work this time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(f) And almost forgot this reason: I think we want to cover more about this important topic that can fit into a climate system article. We can't skew climate system to mostly talk about climate change, so to keep WP:UNDUE in mind, we'd have to add to the two other major parts of that article everytime we want to expand about climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

We try to do way too much in the top articles. The best top article, IMO, is written in WP:SUMMARY style, and quickly provides links to the main sub-articles. If we make efficient use of the sub-article system, this won't be a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Explanation of support: When people say they are concerned about climate change, or when other people say climate change is a hoax, they are talking about global warming. If I recall, many years ago the media usually called it global warming and shifted to calling it "climate change", but Wikipedia hasn't caught up. I sympathize with how hard it's historically been to get consensus on the naming issue, but it's an ongoing problem for both readers (as described with excellent evidence in the proposal) and for writers who have to justify (and sometimes argue) over and over why they are converting [[climate change]] to [[global warming|climate change]]. A huge thank-you to Femke for putting this proposal together. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input :). Let me reply to your comment above: "General" to me in this context implies the article will give general coverage of a given topic, not that the topic itself has a more general scope than another topic.. When I was debating different options before the proposal, I came to the same conclusion for the possible article title climate change (general). To me, the article title climate change (general concept) or possibly even climate change (general phenomemon) do make it clear WHAT is general, namely the concept. Do you see that otherwise? (I know that this move is more motivated by push-factors than pull-factors, but if you could formulate what way forward you'd like to see, that would be very useful). Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think climate change (general phenomenon) could work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So to confirm, you prefer 'climate change (general phenomenon)' over 'climate change (general concept)'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene, Yes, I prefer 'climate change (general phenomenon)' over 'climate change (general concept)'. As NightHeron describes below, the former is clearer. Worth a few extra cents. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Clayoquot, to borrow a US expression, why use a twenty-five cent word when a five-cent word will do? Why use general fen... Fenoh.... oh, you know, that word, instead of just the simple general concept? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The two words have different meanings. Earlier I objected to general concept because it suggests a vague or theoretical discussion; in contrast, phenomenon suggests something concrete and specific. It's not really a 25-cent word. Maybe 10 cents. NightHeron (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The earlier objection was about in general, where you raised good points and the idea evolved to general concept. I have not heard a good reason for prefering "phenomemna" instead of "concept". I don't like phenommenmma (never could spell that) for two reasons. First its high-falutin' nerd speak. Second its ambiguous. Climate change phenomenon... might lead a person to ask "well which one? Sea level rise? Desertification? migration of climate refugees? Which "climate change phenomenon" are we talking about? In contrast "general concept" avoids both of those problems, and that's my second choice, if we don't merge. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

To meet your second objection, how about making it plural, that is, Climate change (general phenomena)? Concerning your first objection, we're not expecting readers to be able to spell the word, only read it. The word phenomena is not shunned in Wikipedia titles, see e.g. Electrical phenomena. NightHeron (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

From the dictionary: Phenomena: perceptible by the senses or through immediate experience. I don't think that describes this article, this article is covering Earth's climate system over geologic time. I prefer stuffing the content in "climate system" as I think that's the best home for it, but I won't vote against anything that moves the ball forwards on the article merge. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a bizarre definition. What about an astronomical phenomenon related to distant galaxies? Not exactly "perceptible by the senses or through immediate experience." Dictionary.com gives a better definition: "a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable." NightHeron (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

As I see it, the first 2 sections of the article are about climate as a system- forcing mechanisms and study of past climates. Only section 4 (Change in different elements climate system) is really about phenomena, which also fit under the system umbrella. Efbrazil (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: in terms of making it plural. I don't think that will work. The article would have climate change (the broad definition of IPCC) as its topic. The text in brackets would be to distinguish between the two common definitions of climate change that are in use:

Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.’ The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

— IPCC SR1.5

• Chidgk1: I did not read all the above as I found it confusing and don't really enjoy these discussions, but I support merging this article into climate system then renaming global warming to "climate change". Because I suspect the vast majority of people mean current climate change when they talk about "climate change". And also probably when they want to talk about current climate change or current global warming they say "climate change".Chidgk1 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• My only concern about merging (and why I voted weak oppose to Q3 above) is that the topic is a very broad, multifaceted one with great popular interest internationally, and is likely to become more so as climatic conditions worsen. As such it merits multiple articles, none of which should be too long, per WP:LENGTH. NightHeron (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That broad multifaceted topic is reported at global warming and its sub-articles, so I think this isn't really about this article. I mean, this article is also applicable to the cooling during the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event, and every other climate change throughout time. Most folks want to read about the CURRENT climtae change, so go to Global warming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but there'll be a spillover into the more scientific articles. Colleges and universities are likely to be giving high-enrollment courses on climate, and the scientifically educated public (that is, people working in other scientific and technical fields) will want to understand the issue on a deeper level. I don't think we're in danger of over-saturating Wikipedia with too many articles on climate. After all, Wikipedia has a detailed article on Jabba the Hutt, and nobody seems bothered that there are so many spin-off articles on the Star Wars franchise. NightHeron (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, no worries... that's what sub articles are for... Whether we have a stand alone or a merged, since its a TOP article it should be an OVERVIEW and send people off to Main Article (Whatever) in each section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. My understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that a merging means that there will be no separate article on climate change (general phenomena), but rather it will be a section in the more general article "climate system" that covers the components of a climate system; and that in this case there would be no sub-article on climate change phenomena (which would be a stand-alone article that is linked to from a section of the general article). I might be confused about the Wikipedia terminology. Can you clarify this? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll be glad try, thanks for asking! By way of analogy most universities I know teach A*P together... anatomy (the parts) and physiology (the system) are best understood together. We would have an article about the system, which is a living dynamic changing system.... so an article about the Climate system +++++++++++ is +++++++++ an article about "climate change". How could it not be? Compare the table of contents for the two. They have many of the same sections already. The subsection of variabilty? There's too much for either approach, so either way we will point to [{Climate variability]]. Same with Climate change feedback. (Sub article status for external forcing is less clear and this thread is already too long to go into that, but we need to talk about sometime, just not now). The subarticles are a whole other work project once we have the top layer figured out. But that's the gist.... science communication researchers are saying, more or less, that climate change is about the system. Whichever way we do it, we should strive for well-organized sub-articles. And if we have them, I favor eliminating the overhead redundancy created by these articles overlap, keeping the top article pretty simple, and letting readers drill down to sub articles for increasing levels of technical detail. In other words, I think the lay reader will best understand "climate change" if we present it as an element of the "climate system", kinda like cardiac anatomy is best understood when you also talk about cardiac function and common dysfunction. Does that help? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help. I changed my vote on Q3 from weak oppose to unsure. I still am not visualizing how this will all look. Climate variability at present is just a stub. NightHeron (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

NEAG: you are right: the table of contents are/were quite similar. I think that is because of flaws in the articles, not because there is as much overlap in the topic as you might fear. Some sources describing the climate system only describe climatic changes as 1/10th of the book, while dedicating half the book to atmospheric circulation and ocean circulation. I've made some modifications to the climate system article reflecting those sources (which previously were mentioned in a single sentence). Note also that while the section titles might be the same, the content can be quite different. El Nino is an important mode of internal variability, but has a time scale under 30 years, so should only be mentioned under climate system's section on internal variability, and not under climate change's section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I wonder how those source's preface or first chapter breakdown between parts and interactions? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your question. The source I largely ignored before because it had a different structure of describing climate system than I had in mind, has this as its table on content: https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/climatology-and-climate-change/essentials-earths-climate-system?format=HB&isbn=9781107037250. It doesn't even talk explicitly about the five climate system components in a separate section. (I'm using Google books to access most books here, so you should be able to trace all of my tracks). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary and points that need resolving still

• There is a strong consensus the current situation is untenable
• There are clear indications that climate change (general concept/general phenomenon) is preferred over climatic changes
• There is not yet full agreement on the text between brackets, with three options mentioned (general concept/general phenomenon/general phenomena)
• While merging does not have a lot of opposition, there are quite a few people that have not formed an opinion on this.

I'd like to move forward with the discussion about the exact name by summarizing some points named in the text.

	General concept	General phenomenon	General phenomena
Difficulty	Easy	Moderate difficult	Moderate difficult
Precision	Objection was that this implies theoretical discussion. Other editors state that this is indeed what the title should imply.	Two interpretations of this title are possible: (the phenomenon of) climate change as defined by IPCC OR all of the phenomena that are observable during climate change (e.g. sea level rise)	This would mean all the phenomena observable during climate change (e.g. sea level rise) and not be precisely in line with IPCC's definition.

I think the key thing here is to choose a name so we can move forward with the merge. I know consensus is the wikipedia way, but in this case I'd rather just see us proceed on the basis of a vote. How about using Instant-runoff voting to choose between the 3 choices? I would vote "1. general concept 2. general phenomenon 3. general phenomena". A condition of voting would be that you can live with whatever choice is made. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As most people have already indicated that they don't really mind, I think the consensus process is actually going to be faster. (my timeline now is have to have a "formal" proposal on Thursday with the outcome of this discussion, which will hopefully have a clear outcome in a few days).

@NightHeron: you seem to last person to have stated a preference for general phenomenon over general concept. Do you agree with my analysis of the three last similar terms? Specifically, (A) that we want to have an article about the (first) climate change definition of the IPCC (which is singular), (B) and that by using the word phenomenon there is possibly confusing about which phenomenon (climate change as a whole, or its constituent parts), and that (C) by pluralizing we move away further from the IPCC's definition of climate change as a whole and instead talk about constituent parts? If you're on board, I'd like to go to the next phase of the renaming process and propose climate change (general concept). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I really think that "Climate change (general phenomena)" in common English usage exactly conveys what we want to include, namely, what's in the first two sentences of your displayed quote from the IPCC. Those two sentences are not "theoretical" as the average person understands the term, but rather they refer to concrete phenomena. (So I don't agree that "theoretical" is "indeed what the title should imply.") However, if the majority of participating editors prefer "concept" to "phenomena", that's okay. I definitely wouldn't want to delay your schedule for moving on to the next steps. NightHeron (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm annoyed that the summary presumes rename wins and the only issue is what name? So I'd like to add a fourth column to the summary

	Merging to Climate system
Difficulty	Easy
Precision	It's argued that discussion of the "general concept" of climate change -- from any cause -- of any duration -- at any time in Earth's history -- is best introduced as a "general concept" under the introductory top level article about the parts of the Climate system and how they interact.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Right now, we have some hatnotes that explain matters. Many readers have no problem with these articles because they read and understand the hatnotes. Sadly, the hatnotes just bounce off other readers. The latter have been the source of complaints the last couple of years. In my view, merely tweaking the name with some additional nuance is unlikely to matter to this latter group. For the latter group, although the current hatnotes use several words to explain the status quo, those hatnotes just don't work. Why would this latter group suddenly undestand the nuanced differences based on just two words of a new title? I fear they are likely to look at any of the new titles and assume it is a about the current climate change known as global warming but in "general" terms, i.e., as a basic-level overview. So I still favor merging, to help everyone understand upon first reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The omission of climate system merge in the summary was because it's clear what the status is of that plan, whereas it wasn't yet clear if we had complete consensus for the best alternative name. Sorry for not being clear, omitting climate system and the annoyance that caused. Let me list why I think renaming will be sufficient

When you make assertions about confusion, please indicate WHEN they will happen. We now have confusion via bluelinks, via Google and via inwiki search option. Only after the initial confusion, there is the fact that people don't read the hatnote. There will be waaaay less confusion because

A) Traffic to this page will plummet. Google is smart and already shows this page quite low when people search climate change. That will decrease massively once we've decreased inwiki links from ~5000 to ~500. The wikilinks themselves will lead to less traffic and the fact that people who simply type climate change in the search box will not come here either will decrease it further.

B) I completely disagree with your assertion that the title doesn't raise big RED FLAGS for those people that have somehow come here by accident (let's say via search box). They will have consciously chosen this article over just climate change, leading to the natural curiosity of what these two words mean

C) If we had the article climate change (general) that could mean current climate change from a general perspective. With the addition of the word concept that final unclarity is completely gone.

Climate change (general concept) is such a huuuge topic that it really doesn't make sense to not have an article about it. If we write a good article about the climate system, it's only 1/3 about climate change, with the rest of the article dedicated to description of components, discription of general circulation, biochemical cycles, hydrological cycle and short-term variability. For each of these aspects of the climate system we have separate articles, and to me, the more I think about it, it's inconceivable that we have no article about the climate change aspect. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

An alternative: disambiguation

I have not followed the details of all the past discussion, but I gather the principal problem being tackled here is the common use of "climate change" as a general search term for what is covered at Global warming, with some readers being confused arriving at Climate change.

I wonder if instead of redirecting Climate change to Global warming (which would also confuse some readers), it should be a disambiguation page. The reader could not skate over the hatnotes and plunge straight into material not quite what they really wanted (because it isn't there!), s/he would have to select what they want. And more description could be given than hatnotes can accommodate. What I have in mind is something like the following:

Climate change covers a range of overlapping topics such as:

• Global warming, the phenomenon driving current climate change.
• The Scientific consensus on climate change.
• The Effects of global warming.
• Sea level rise, recent and projected.
• Climate change in general.
• Paleoclimatology -- climate change in the distant past.

Related topics include:

• Climate crisis is a characterization of the current state of affairs.
• Climate change denial.
• Global warming conspiracy theory

For additional articles see Index of climate change articles.

Wouldn't this be better than dumping dumping readers who don't read the hatnotes into a different article with hatnotes they won't read there, either? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambig was discussed in the months-long prior discussion and rejected. When "climate change" and "global warming" both land on the same article, the text at that article can be revised accordingly. There's agreement that page should be about the "global warming and climate change" happening now, in our time. With the text updated it's doubtful anyone arriving at that page will be confused, and if anyone is savvy enough to be looking for generic climate change, they'll find their way to that article(s) easily enough. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Where was this discussion, and just when was it rejected? In trawling the archives I found just two mentions of "disambiguation" (in Archive_5), without any mention (let alone serious discussion) of rejection. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion was at various user talk pages, but let's bring it out in the open.

Disambiguation pages are used when it's impossible to determine a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If a primary topic for a terms has been determined, the guidelines say that we should redirect: WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I think it's surprisingly easy to show climate change has current climate change as primary topic. Under Q1.4 I've estimated that about 97-99.5% of all webpages AND all google Scholar results use climate change to refer to current climate change. According to This talk page discussion about the guidelines, people would argue that the grey area is between 66% and 90%. I don't think there is any doubt left about the primary topic.

Furthermore, people searching explicitly for a general article about climate change will be familiar with the fact that it normally means the current climate change and will therefore think a bit more what they can type to get at the page they want.

Further note: that "climate change (general)" has been rejected in the discussion above as well. This could possibly lead to confusion where people interpret this as general issue/general problem, instead of general phenomenon/topic/concept. The alternative name with most support is "climate change (general concept)"

And lastly note: your suggested disambiguation page is not in line with what a disambiguation page should be, specifically WP:DABRELATED and WP:PARTIAL. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Femke, thanks that's a good summary. @JJ, as Femke mentioned it was mostly in userspace, in a number of threads which link and cross link to each other. It was sprawling and its understandable you didn't try to wade through it all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Which shows why discussions bearing on articles should be on the article's Talk page.

So yes, let's bring out those considerations. Perhaps one of the involved parties (how many?) could work up a recapitulation of the points addressed in those considerations, so everyone else can know what was, or wasn't, considered. And can then be ratified across a broader swath of editors. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

See the above discussion for the considerations of what we consider(ed) to be a set of viable proposals, including a list of alternative names which we considered and decided not to go for. I think the problems with a disambiguation page was the only (major) thing left out of the above recapitulation. I left it out on purpose because (A) making a disambiguation page here seems at odds with guidelines and (B) we have enough proposals already that are in line with guidelines and it makes more sense to avoid discussion even more proposals. There is merit in discussing things in private before posting to a busy page. It gives a safe working space in which ideas can be tested out without tiring all the other editors. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about the future in practical terms, I agree with Femke, and this is probably the (or at least one of the) rationale(s) underlying PRIMARYTOPIC. Going forward, people are going to keep linking "climate change" in articles and discussions when what they really mean is the content now under the title "Global warming". If we turn this into a disambig, all those links will arrive at a disambig page instead of being passed through a redirect to the right article (climate change >> Global warming). If we had a reason to think half the incoming links to "climate change" were looking for this generic information instead of the global warming info specifically, I might agree disambig makes sense. But it doesn't take long browsing in "What links here" to realize almost all the incoming links actually mean global warming specifically. And that's why all the other eds (so far) have agreed that a search for "climate change" or "global warming" should land on the same page, which for now is called "global warming" but may be subjected to a future rename discussion after the dust settles here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

PS... This effort started in my sandbox before migrating to Femke's. At that time I too wanted to make this a disambig page (to satisfy expected status quo IJUSTLIKE arguments). Femke's research in the P&G convinced me that rename or merge are vastly superior, so I changed my mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am still digesting all this. As Femke is a pretty good "arguer" (?) I reckon it is likely my view on this may take a trajectory similar to yours. I can hardly wait to see where I will end up at. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, the whole point of the user talk threads, and now these threads, is to generate a concise distillation for a formal proposal. To be clear the only thing we're really trying to decide right now is what to ask when we make a by-god proposal for change. That will be a brand new thread, do you agree Femkemilene? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Was planning to put forward formal proposal (with the two options) tonight, but alas tiredness has prevented me from doing this. I won't have time till Sunday. NEAG, if you want, can you make the proposal before then. I was thinking to have people answer two questions. 1: do we want to move away from current situation and 2. which of the two solutions (rename to 'climate change (general concept)' or merge) do you prefer. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Even better, I will withdraw the merge option (reserving it for possible revisit later) and tomorrow (Friday) will just start the formal process for "climate change (general concept)". Anyone object to that plan? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! No objections here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2019

Original rename proposal

Climate change → Climate change (general concept)This is a small change with broad support among eds who chose to participate in the widely-publicized preliminary discussion. The phrase "Climate change" is ambiguous and can mean the

• A. The general concept driven by any cause, involving either warming or cooling and happening at any time in earth's history or
• B. The specific example of climate change humans are witnessing in modern times

Since at least 2004, the content of this article has fallen under meaning (A). The PRIMARYTOPIC most lay readers associate with the phrase falls under meaning (B). This is evidenced by GoogleTests performed by Femkemilene in preliminary discussions (see this talk page and her sandbox). It is also evidenced by the frequent complaints from lay readers who search for "climate change" with an intention of meaning "B", but they arrive here, which has meaning "A". In the past we have often debated sweeping reforms but this proposal only asks to do a baby step. Since hatnotes at global warming and climate change have not eliminated reader confusion we propose to take one more step toward resolving reader confusion by adding disambiguation to this article's title per WP:NCDAB. Reader confusion will be reduced in a small way by (1) the existing hatnotes (2) the addition of "general concept" so the article title is a much more precise match to its contents.

To recap then the proposal is

• Move this article to "Climate change (general concept) and
• At least for now, turn "climate change" into a redirect pointing at the new title

Note - We know a lot of editors (myself included) want to point the "climate change" redirect at "global warming" but I am proposing we wait to discuss that as a separate issue after making this baby step change and waiting a month for the dust to settle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed a housekeeping note addressed to eds who answered before I finished the rationale. All of them have doublechecked and verified (THANK YOU EVERYONE!) so I am removing the ping asking them to do so.

@Closer... FYI this discussion was also advertised at the other top article (Global warming)[1] and at WikiProject Climate Change[2]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Agree as a co-initiator NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree. Assuming we reach consensus on making this move, after that perhaps we should move Global warming to "Climate change (human-caused)" rather than to "Climate change." When a typical reader wanting information about anthropogenic climate change types in "climate change", it would be helpful if the first two choices that come up are "Climate change (human-caused)" and "Climate change (general concept)." That way the difference between the two articles will be very clear. NightHeron (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree and strong support! - and yes, I agree with the proposed staged approach of baby steps and waiting a bit (a month is a bit long?) in between. That second step will be important, but let's complete the first step first. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support (as one of the initiators). Looking forward to not having to fix all of those internal links that wrongly point towards this page anymore. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC). I'm okay with doing a two-step process, but would prefer we directly make climate change a redirect to global warming. 14:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support. Per various thorough discussions and NAEG's intro description. Next, I favor prompt redirect: "CC" --> "GW and CC". —RCraig09 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Supplemented —RCraig09 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree but I think waiting after the move is not a good idea. Please keep momentum going forward by proposing subsequent steps as soon as the move takes place. Efbrazil (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support, without prejudice to further refinements of the new title if evidence arises that readers are confused by (general concept). A lot of prior discussion and painstaking gathering of evidence has gone into this proposal. We need Climate change to redirect to Global warming and this proposal is the first step. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• oppose - pointless fiddling William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@CLOSER, back in August William told us his opposition was mostly on basis of a humorous essay, WP:WASTEOFTIME, which is a variation of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#It's_useful. Since William's opinion here lacks any reasoning much less an attempt to address the reasons for rename above, hopefully the closer just dismisses this not-vote of personal prefereference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional support ONLY if climate change becomes a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to global warming. I do not support a potential move of global warming to climate change (human-induced) or something similar, I consider "climate change" on par with "clean coal" as a problematic euphemism._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This proposal explicitly leaves the redirect discussion for another day. There is indeed a lot of support for what you want to see happen (and I am one of the supporters). But in the past trying to do everything all at once has prevented anything from happening at all. That's why we're asking people whether they can support this babystep, and if not, what RS or P&G reasons there may be for opposing it. What do you think of the babystep all by itself? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support and make Climate change a primary redirect to Global warming. 2nd choice: grudging support of move as proposed. I understand not wanting to do too much at once, but the proposed move alone clearly has the effect of leaving things in an undesirable half-baked state, where the title has an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguator. Also, I'm supporting this mostly on the grounds that the current title is inappropriate on ptopic grounds. I would also support any other reasonable alternative name such as "Climatic changes", or a merge with Climate system or Climate variability. Colin M (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy has asked me to clarify why I described the parenthetical disambiguator as "unnecessary". What I meant is that it's generally an error to have a name "Foo" redirect to "Foo (disambiguator)". In such cases, the article title should just be "Foo". Per WP:CRITERIA, the title should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". So if we view this RM in isolation, it's actually a step backward. It only becomes useful in concert with a change to the target of the "Climate change" redirect. NewsAndEventsGuys has said there's a plan to list it at RFD. But what if it fails? Will we have to have another RM to remove the unnecessary disambiguator from "Climate change (general concept)"? Colin M (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for such a speedy and concise explanation, Colin! I disagree with your reasoning, however. There are two ways parenthetical disambiguation may be "useful". (A) For the 'filing system', so the servers can tell one article from another, and (B) To support reader navigation and education. If the proposal passes, for whatever period of time "climate change" redirects to climate change (general concept), readers will find the disambiguator "useful" by helping them understand that this article is about any climate change, from any cause, at any time in Earth's history, and is NOT about the PRIMARYTOPIC of the phrase "climate change" which is now reported at Global warming. It's usefulness may be redundant to lead text and redundant to the hatnotes, but the repeated complaints in the article talk page here and at Talk:Global warming beg for all the "useful" ways we can help readers navigate and understand the scope of each article. I agree leaving the redirect pointing at this new name would not be the best, but however long it remains that way will be more "useful" than the PRIMARYTOPIC mismatch between the status quo title and content. Thanks again for such a fast clear answer!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. The case is not even strong that there is something wrong with the current title. The A/B problem can be dealt with by a brief fourth lede paragraph. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Thanks for commenting with an RS or P&G reason! There are four paragraphs in the section you cite, so please clarify. I think you are specifically relying on the part that says Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title and an opinion that (so far at least) you believe there is no "good reason". Is that right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your motivated oppose. Is your reading of WP:TITLECHANGE that we shouldn't change the title because it has long be the consensus? Wouldn't you agree that because we've had a almost yearly discussion about the title of this article we actually have a "no consensus status quo", which according to WP:NOTMOVED makes it perfectly valid to find a better name. Do you disagree with the analysis above (summarized in Q1.1 of previous threat) that climate change's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is current climate change? To reinstate: we see that around 97-99% of all mentions of climate change on Google, Google Books, and Google scholar are about current climate change. We see that 90% of all links TO this article are actually meant to go to an article about current climate change. Do you think that people linking to this article will read even the first line of the article, nevermind the 4th paragraph? Femke Nijsse (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My position is that no case has been made that anything serious is *wrong* with the current title. I do not agree the “climate change” implies recent current predicted change to the exclusion of the general topic. The little bit of ambiguity A vs B is a reader issue, not an editor issue, and is better addressed by a better lede. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I agree with you (if I understand you correctly) that climate change has two definitions, one of which corresponds to the current content. The UNFCCC definition is specific to current climate change. In that sense, there is nothing 'wrong' with the article title. But our guidelines are quite clear that it's not definitions that determine primary topics, but the general use. I've shown, in as many different ways as I could think of, that the phrase climate change is primarily used when talking about current climate change. For you, are there any additional quantifiable metrics I could compile that would convince you that this is the case? Or other types of evidence?

That this is an editor issue, as well as a reader issue, can be seen by reading the history of this page. Search for edit summaries of 'wrong article' or 'wrong place' and you might change your mind on how much confusion our current artificial distinction makes for the ordinary editor. Femke Nijsse (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

“ climate change is primarily used when talking about current climate change” says to me WP:RECENTISM. Climate change is as old as climate. The titles Recent climate change, Current climate changes and Predicted climate change seem to be missing. They are at Global warming, which is the unfortunate mismatching synonym for current climate change. I don’t think the title is a problem, but the lede fails to distinguish the general concept, which belongs at the simple title, with recent climate change. The problem is the lede, not the title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

See also, samples of recurring debates about article title and scope in these pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, do you acknowledge the fact Femkemilene has reviewed both lay and professional sources in an effort to determine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC associated with the term? Do you have a reason to dispute her conclusion, i.e., that the PRIMARYTOPIC for "climate change" is the example of climate change humans are witnessing in the modern age? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I do. Modern climate change is a subset of Climate change. It is very hard for a subtopic to gain PT over the parent topic. I disagree with her and your conclusion on assigning the PT to the subtopic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM gives a thought experiment to recognize and combat recentism: the WP:10YEARS. Would you argue that in ten years time, the phrase climate change will become primarily used in the sense of the general definition? I think not. Because I cannot look into the future, I looked in the past and performed the -10YEARS test on Google scholar. The first 50 articles all use climate change in the UNFCCC definition. That climate change is as old as climate doesn't matter here as we have to determine usage and not definitions to determine a primary topic.

You say it is very hard for a specific definition of the term to gain PT over a general definition. Very hard implies that it is possible. What is your threshold? What specific evidence do you require to change your mind? To give an example, Global warming is used in its general definition about 0.1-1.0% of the time (Google Scholar search), whereas its use as human-caused global warming is dominant. Would you argue that global warming should deal with its general definition then as well?

What makes you say it's difficult for a specific definition to gain PT over a more general definition? I'd argue we need might the disambiguation clearer even, as confusion is very possible with two strongly related terms. Many readers that come to climate change might conclude that this is the only informaiton we have about climate change (missing the hatnotes and the 'fourth paragraph'). If the topics were more widely separated, readers would look around more to find the hatnotes and get to the right place.

About extra information in the lede: notice that there was more (flawed) information about current climate change in the lede up to 9 days ago, which I removed because of the fact that it was a bit prescriptive and not correct. This extra focus did not stop the approximately 90% of people wrongly linking to this article (and that 90% is after many of these links are corrected.) Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Recentism? There is an understandable obsession with the last 1000-100 years over the last 100000 years.

I must admit that I have a kneejerk dislike of Climate change (general concept). Failing WP:Natural, I do not see it as even viable. Something else though?

You may get me to change my mind with a point about a need to do something about masses of incorrect links that keep getting made by editors. I was slow to be convinced about this for New York, by User:BD2412, but I was. Is this a similar situation? Should *nothing* be at "Climate change"? This is not your usual interest BD2412, but when it comes to ambiguous titles prone to receiving bad incoming links, I would like to start with your opinion.

Alternatives? The scope of this article is long term, geological time scale, climate change in the Earth's atmosphere, and ground and ocean surfaces. Does "Climate change" not sound enough general and indefinite long term? Maybe "climate variability"? Curiously, the stub Climate variability tell me my pre-conception, "Over the short term, such variation is averaged out and called "internal climate variability". Over the longer term they are called "climate change". I'm not much impressed with the sentence.

"It is very hard for a specific definition of the term to gain PT over a general definition". Yes, it can be done. An example is water, which includes ice, but hen someone says "water" they almost always mean liquid water to the exclusion of ice and vapor. When someone says "climate change", do they exclude the distant past and possible distant future (eg Future of Earth#Climate impact.

"Many readers that come to climate change might conclude that this is the only information we have about climate change". Well yes, I have been aware of this for a long time, that the navigation between similar atmospheric and climate articles is very poor. It is as if they were made in an uncoordinated fashion. Huge overlaps and gaps. Unexpected titles. "Climate change" looks like a general title. "Global warming" looks like a POV title. Hatnotes? Paleoclimatology? You know, Wikipedia's hatnotes are a perverse idiosynchronicity. Editors seem to think they are reasonable, but they are clutter on so many pages, regular readers become blind to them. I had not even seen Paleoclimatology. I think a massive restructure is needed, and this proposed title change will not do, it is just a bulky bandage that adds to the ugliness. Yes, the lede is ugly and has long been. It is a thorny topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think your response might have to much information for me to digest in one go.

As I've stated before in previous discussion, I don't have a strong preference for climate change (general concept) over other titles. Climate change to most people does not sound general at all. It's what's happening now in communities, it's what elections are fought about, not something from a relatively obscure scientific discipline. In our discussions about the best title for this article, we've always come to the same pain points: naturalness vs precision. Many of the more natural titles we've discussed (climate changes/climatic changes, climate variability and change) we're considered not sufficiently precise. The first two were considered to have the same problem as the current title (albeit to a lesser extent): their primary topics are probably current climate change. Climate variability has a different problem under the precision criterion: it's a different topic with a different definition. ANY change in the climate system that is longer than 'weather' is captured under that umbrella. If we choose this title, we'll have a lot of overlap with the climate system article. According to WP:PARENDIS, Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.

Yes, most links to this page do exclude distant future and past. Let me link the Excel sheet that Thjarkur so kindly provided of links to this article + a snippet of text around it. In examining the first ten links, we see discussions of recent (last decades) impacts, near future (up to 2100) impacts and mitigation (next few decades) of climate change. (added later) The small percentage that do link correctly regularly specify further (past climate change/climate changes/cyclical climate change, whatever that may be). 12:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Made small 12:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC), because off-topic. I agree that this naming issue is not unique to this article. I've discerned four types of solutions:

• Use a term with a double definition (specific and general) in its specific definition: global warming
• Use a term with a double definition (specific and general) in its general definition: climate change
• Use a term with a double definition (specific and general) in its specific definition: sea level rise, where the general captured in Sea level#Change.
• Explicitly specify the current change: Retreat of glaciers since 1850, (with glacial retreat being a redirect to the unrelated glacial motion.)

They were made in an uncoordinated fashion, but note that consistency in titles is not always feasible. The balance of primariness might be different for each of these articles. I don't like global warming as article title, as it is old-fashioned. But POV? That's a new one to me? What makes you think this? Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, with the possible exception of WMC, everyone who has commented so far agrees with you that a "massive restructure needs to be done". Did you read the prior discussions I previously called to your attention? see also Femke's Sandbox and especially its related talk page. The problems with "massive" restructure discussions is that you get exactly the same results from stomping hard on a full tube of toothpaste but the latter is a hell of a lot more fun. Everyone (except maybe WMC) wants to do the massive restructure. We've been doing preliminary discussions for months (or years in my case). As a practical bit of wikireality it is only gonna happen in small bites. This is the first small bite. In keeping with KISS principle let's try to deal with this little baby step and accept that the rest of the ball of wax is a good faith discussion but in THIS thread its offtopic and premature.

Here is a summary of the discrete issue presented here as I understand it. I am speaking as proposer when I start by saying, The only issue in this thread is whether the article title could be improved with parenthetical disambiguation?' SmokeyJoe, please check this restatement of your views to see if you would change anything?

• (1) The PRIMARYTOPIC of "climate change" is the material now found at Global warming
• (2) The scope of the Climate change article is different
• (3) You believe that the difference described in (2) is nothing more than a "little bit of ambiguity" (quote from above, 23:57 Oct 18)
• (4) In your mind that "little bit" of ambiguity does not constitute a "good reason" to justify changing the title of this article, as required by WP:TITLECHANGES.

Is that a fair summary?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(1) I dislike this talk of PRIMARYTOPIC of “climate change” because I don’t think a good definition is commonly accepted.

(2) different to what?? Global warming? Global warming is a subset of climate change. The titles, and the structure of content on these topics is awkward.

(3) “little bit” may be understated, but I think it was being overstated. Can we talk instead about mislinking by editors?

(4) I think the proposed new title is an insufficient fiddle, and of negative net benefit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: re: "not your usual interest", I have actually written ~28 Wikipedia articles on climate change by state in the U.S. With respect to the phrase itself, historically it has very rarely been used, if at all, to refer to anything other than post-industrial anthropogenic climate change. bd2412 T 16:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You have too many edits, says the tool! I read Climate change in New York City. This is a poor use of the term “climate change”. There is a strong POV that “climate change” means “climate warming”. While most of us don’t doubt it, it is still POV. I don’t think this term should be used. It is ambiguous, and different people have strong and divergent opinions on what it means. I am strengthening my opinion that this page should be at “climatology”, overtly scientific and extremely broad is scope. Should “global warming” be at “climate change”? “Global warming” is a POV assertion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, is the prior comment talking about this article and this rename proposal? If so, please restate... you lost me when you said "this term" after mentioning at least two terms and I'm confused.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This article = “Climate change”. This rename proposal is for “Climate change (general concept)”. The “term” is “climate change”. To me, it means the general concept. For others, it is a euphemism for “global warming”. I don’t think the rename proposal makes anything much better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

SJ: You're not basing your assertions about POV on any sources. As the claims you're making is pretty strong (euphemism.. ), remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also remember from WP:TITLECHANGES: the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. You state: While most of us don’t doubt it, it is still POV -> We have clear policy on Wikipedia how to deal with Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The most important tenet is that we describe them as fringe theories, instead of giving them undue weight within the articles, never mind within the article titles. I reject your assertion that climate change is POV, but do note that even if it were: we'd still have to follow sources per WP:POVNAME.

It's great that for you climate change means the general concept. But as we've shown in as many ways possible, that's quite unique. Take your example of Climate change in New York City. Even if, reading the word climate change you are thinking of the technical (general) definition instead of current climate change, the fact that we're talking about New York, a city that's only been around for a few centuries, completely disambiguates which climate change we're talking about. Looking at the high percentage of wrong internal links here (this page was even linked wrongly on the front page in 'In the news'!), don't you think we should disambiguate in some kind of form? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "climate change" is an euphemism for "global warming", and I likewise have doubts about this proposed move. (See my comment further below.) While Femke (below) calls "euphemism" "pretty strong", and even "extraordinary", that is rather overreaching. There are sources, but should we turn this RfC into a debate on "global warming"? I can see such a debate as being relevant, and even needed, but if so then it further shows that the basis of this discussion is incomplete. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic. We're not asking (yet) for a redirect. We're discussion what article title should contain the information about the technical general definition of climate change. Later a discussion can (and will) be held about redirects (possible slightly POV as allowed per WP:RNEUTRAL), and whether the title of global warming needs updating. That discussion is very important and might need a RfC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's right. You don't want to discuss here your eventual goal of renaming Global warming. Yet it is relevant to this discussion, because renaming this article, then pointing "climate change" to Global warming, sets the stage for a supposedly "more appropriate" title. That is a direct consequence of the action proposed here, and thus warrants discussion here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't like my opposition, but I *Oppose* per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation aka WP:NATURAL, and per WP:TITLECHANGES. The proposed is a clunky parenthetical and is not good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for summary. I'm still welcoming alternatives. We've not been able to find a natural one that is also precise. Problem is big enough that incremental steps can be a huge improvement. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Currently a conditional oppose. I am somewhat of the view of ZXCVBNM (aside from the redirect to GW), but am feeling that any "counting of votes" here might overlook his "conditional", so I take this position to counter the effect of overlooking his conditional. While I agree that "climate change" needs to be handled better, the way this article has been trimmed makes it a less suitable destination. On the otherhand, I find a redirection to Global warming – which is the ulitmate intent here – equally unsatisfactory. I see CC and GW as distinctly separable topics, and that GW could be (and likely should be) trimmed in the same manner as this article was. Which won't happen if that article has to carry the traffic for "climate change". I suspect that most readers are more interested in the what of climate change than the why, which would make Effects of global warming a more suitable destination. Which has not been seriously discussed on this page. I am also not (yet?) satisfied that there has been sufficient discussion on this page to warrant rejection of a disambiguation page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

JJ, Those are all extraneous concerns to matching this content to this title. Do you agree the current content is about the general concept of climate change, due to any cause, whether warming or cooling or manifesting in some other way, at any time in earth's history? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the reasoning + oppose how your reasoning leads to an oppose. If you want climate change to be a disambiguation page, then this page needs a disambiguated title, leading to a support for the proposal, right? We're doing this in babysteps, solving one problem at a time. The current question is: what should the title be of the page discussion the general & technical definition of climate change. I very much welcome further discussion in the next steps. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC) I asked for clarification of off-topic comments on JJ's user page for those interested. 07:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

True, NAEG. I'm seeing from a few people, comments that are not related to the narrow topic at hand: renaming, and what to do with "CC" if it is renamed. Next step: Assuming this article is renamed, the tangential discussions don't seem to have recognized that article names are based mainly on RS and common usage of the term as a whole, not literal interpretation of its component words. (GW and CC are used interchangeably, even if distinct literally.) —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I know this is not a "vote" just based on number of people but I worry that we have become stuck in exactly the same situation as previously: Some of us want to make a significant change and improvement (including myself), others want to keep the status quo. We debate and debate with those "status quo people" even though they are few and are being unconstructive (mostly) (example: "oppose - pointless fiddling" by User:William M. Connolley) and in the end we all get tired, give up and the status quo never get changed just because of a few people who are blocking things. Maybe they could agree to disagree and we move on, based on this very detailed, well-researched and well-planned proposal for change. Why should the opinion of the few "status quo" people carry more weight than the opinions of the others, especially if the status quo people seem unwillining to consider compromise options. EMsmile (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be more careful how you characterize matters here. It is unhelpful to describe one "side" here as favoring needed change, and the other side as not. (E.g., I favor some kind of change, but I reject certain kinds of change.) I particularly reject your view that "the opinion of the few "status quo" people carry more weight than the opinions of the others". I think it is more like the few people who are orchestrating this move don't quite have consensus, and that the persistent log-jam is because some key issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. As to willingness to consider compromise options: isn't that just what SmokeyJoe did? (See #Merge alternative(s), immediately below.) Or do you consider that an instance of "blocking things"? (Would you consider that alternative?) Of course, it is off-topic for this discussion, which is asking for approval (or not) of a very specific action. That such an option was not previously considered (on this page) shows that the current proposal is not yet mature. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging was extensively discussed in the last big preliminary discussion before we launched this proposal, and since it hasn't been archived I am mystified why JJ claims it wasn't discussed on this page yet. (See the long thread Talk:Climate_change#Renaming_this_article_to_solve_confusion). I was the chief advocate of the merge idea and I agreed to put merging on the back burner. It isn't dead, it's just premature. The reasons for merging are distinct from the reasons for tweaking the title. Reasons for merging include reducing reader confusion. Although I want to merge, I admit there is value in trying out a better title to see if that alone reduces reader confusion. If not, the case for merging increases. There's no rule that says we HAVE to discuss these other things before turning "climate change" into a simple redirect. Later on we can merge this text if that makes sense and/or turn the "climate change" redirect into a diambig page if that makes sense and/or give it a new target. There is no requirement we even discuss those tangents now. The only thing we have to decide right now is whether the current title would better match the current text if we change Climate change to Climate change (general concept). Let's stay focused. JJ, you've had much to say about tangential issues. What do you think about the narrow specific questions presented here? Is the PRIMARYTOPIC of "climate change" the content now found at Global warming? If yes, would there be at least a little improvement if we make the title more precisely match the contents by addding "general concept" to the title? Thanks for addressing these key questions. 00:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify my statement above, I support changing the status quo in such a way that the title, climate change, primarily discusses the term as primarily used in sources, that being post-industrial anthropogenic change to the climate. Historically, the phrase has only rarely and incidentally been used to describe any other kind of change to climate. bd2412 T 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge alternative(s)

• Consider a Merge to Climatology. The general concept of climate change is a subset of climate changeability, which is a subset of climatology. The current content at that title is largely duplicate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose I believe it's very bad form to discuss a major term from a field solily in that field's page. It's similar to saying we shouldn't have an article about Fundamental interactions or Elementary particles because we an article about particle physics. (Furthermore, For some weird reason, there isn't even overlap between the pages. Climatology only mentions climate change once, and then only in the context of future climate change). Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Sources???? @SmokeyJoe, I'm thrilled to see new subject editors in the climate pages, regardless of prior subject knowledge. Welcome! I recognize your name from Wikipedia space, but not the climate pages and to your credit your userspace says you edit outside your areas of expertise. That's awesome! But it still requires following our core content policies. Where do you get the idea that climate change is a subset of climate changeability? Just working from my gut, I supppose Sex change is a subset of Sex changeability. A hypothetical patient could be told "sorry, won't work". But I would be making stuff up. Likewise Earth's orbit is a subset of Earth's orbitability. So when I hear a new topic editor toss out a claim that I've never heard or seen, I am dubious. As you may know the IPCC's every-seven-years literature reviews are prepared in three parts. THe first part is the scientific basis of climate change. The most recent one is the Fifth Assessment Report, where WG1's contribution is over 1500 pages long. The phrase "climate changeability" is not even in the top science panel mega seven year literature review. Sure, you can find that phrase in a mere 1750 regular google hits. Moving to GoogleScholar, there are only 48 hits on that phrase since 2015. But I feel like you're inserting opinions while shooting a bit from the hip. Can you provide a rock solid RS that climate change is a subset of "climate changeability"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are you ranting about “climate changeability”. I said consider climatology. I see the issue as laid out in the proposal, but I don’t think the proposed climate change (general concept) is serious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for RSs to support the first thing you said to support your merge proposal, i.e., your naked assertion that The general concept of climate change is a subset of climate changeability.... I and (hopefully THE CLOSER) would like to know if your opinions are based on our core content policies, or are WP:Original research? If you'd like to take that back, no problem. Otherwise, please support it by showing RSs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support! We should consider merging the content of this article into Climatology. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you then also want to merge fundamental particles into particle physics? Do you see the analogy? An important topic of research from a research discipline should never be solily discussed in that discipline's page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Fundamental particles and particle physics don’t have severe title and scope issues, as does climate change. Your third sentence doesn’t make sense. Could you rephrase it please? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm replying in small because this is off-topic for the narrow discussion above. The reason fundamental particles is called that and not simply particles, is to make sure it doesn't have severe title and scope issues. They decided to go for a natural disambiguation. We don't seem to be able to do this. We should surely follow them and allow a page on the clear technical definition of climate change. To remind you, the IPCC and other equally high quality technical RSs define it as: Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use and all note one alternative definition: current human-caused climate change.

In terms of WP:CIVILITY, could you rephrase 'doesn't make sense' to 'doesn't make sense to me'? I find it difficult to rephrase, as to me that sentence is perfectly clear, but I'll try. We have a climatology page, which is a page about the scientific field of climate science. In pages about disciplines we give an overview what those scientists study, how the field is related to other fields of science, what the history is of the field on science and a quick overview of topics studied by them. The content of these topics are not discussed in any detail. Climate change (general) is only one of the many topics studied by climatologists. Currently, it's not even mentioned on the page (only future climate change is). It's quite a big topic, and should be discussed somewhere in detail in this encyclopedia. If we decide to merge, which I am against at this stage, we should put it in an article about a topic studied by climatologists, namely the climate system article. There it can have 1/4 of a page, instead of a single sentence. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Premature, off topic, and wrong target We should first work through the rename proposal and then we can debate merging. The text will still be here, so there is no reason to undermine the rename logic-processing by simultaneously debating other related tangents. Merging has its own set of policies, and trying out a different name will provide additional data for weighing the merits of merging (specifically how will a different name impact reader confusion?). When it becomes timely to talk about merging, a better target is described in this very talk page in section #Alternative_-_Merge_this_content_to_Climate_system NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Burying the worldly phenomenon "Climate change" inside the broader field of study "Climatology" discredits the importance of "climate change (general concept)". Also, per NAEG above, urges to "consider" a merger are indeed off-topic, and promote endless inaction on a long-existing problem (namely, readers arriving at "climate change" when they're actually searching for content that has long been in "Global warming". —RCraig09 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about process

If this was a normal workplace or an academic research consortium or alike, now would be the time to stop typing on a keyboard and to get onto a phone call or video call and try to speak to each other more directly. Is there any chance that this could be possible here or is it totally against Wikipedia policies? I think it would be great if a small group of people (perhaps 5) who are very familiar with the history of the Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming and who are very active editors on these pages or otherwise very involved and responsible, and who are possibly of opposing views now got together in a virtual room in real time and together came up with a good solution to this difficult problem. But I suspect this won't be possible and we'll have to continue to type... Maybe it would help if we had a summary table listing how many people have supported the move proposal that is on the table, how many want to stick with the status quo and how many support a change but just not this one. I know it is not meant to be a "numbers game" and not a vote but it could help the CLOSER to get an overivew, particularly because we have head that "a few people want A" or "many people want B". It might also be that some few people are very vocal and write lots and often on this talk page and drown out (and dominate) others who provide short & targeted responses but don't have time or inclination to engage in a long & detailed discussion. EMsmile (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion! As nobody here is proposing we stick to the status quo, I have full confidence the closer will either relist or close with a change (WP:NOGOODOPTIONS explicitly mentions that if there is support for multiple options, but not the status quo, the closer will make a choice and further discussion between the alternative options can occur). IRL contact is considered to be frowned upon I think. NEAG is making a summary table with arguments & nonvotes, including whether people have actually addressed the question at hand. (sorry if I write to much, trying to make everything small that can help unsure people to reconsider but is off-topic) Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@EMsmile: That would indeed make it easier, but is against policy. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors and the discussion of offwiki content discussion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect alternative(s)

From the requested move proposal it seems clear that people want to make a disambiguation between the technical definition of climate change and what normal people (scientists and laypeople alike) use the word for. A future step is to decide what climate change should redirect to. There are three tabled proposals. As we need to discuss the narrow question first, I'll put placeholders in the two redirect proposals that came up in previous discussions and might need further discussion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to global warming

Or a gazillion other ideas including renaming global warming

PLACEHOLDER. First, please discuss the PRIMARYTOPIC of the phrase "climate change" and the proposal to add disambiguation to the current title of the climate change article as proposed at #Requested move 18 October 2019. We can always take this up when that is finished.

Redirect to a disambiguation page

PLACEHOLDER. First, please discuss the PRIMARYTOPIC of the phrase "climate change" and the proposal to add disambiguation to the current title of the climate change article as proposed at #Requested move 18 October 2019. We can always take this up when that is finished.

Redirect to effects of global warming

This topic was split off from #Requested move 18 October 2019, above.

I propose we consider redirecting this article to Effects of global warming, as what most readers are most likely interested in is not "climate change" in the abstract, nor the cause of the current climate change, but the effects thereof. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Malformed proposal we redirect titles, not article content. So I don't really know what is proposed here. And I really hope you'll take time to answer the small narrow questions in the original proposal at some point. All these tangential issues aren't helping focus on the narrow proposal. Whatever you want to do, we can still do after renaming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose redirect to "Effects" of GW. Beyond the distracting proposal to "consider" a redirect, the proposed destination, Effects of global warming, misses the causes of current anthropogenic global warming (the likely desired destination of readers searching for or linked to "CC"), its mitigation, and adaptation, that have been the focus of the "Global warming" article. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose A quick Google Scholar search shows that topic is divided equally between the complete topic (causes/physics, effects, adaptation and mitigation) and those four subtopics. A Google search has a similar outcome, but with an extra topic: many pages describe it as an 'issue' (the defining issue of our time). If not a reading of RSs, what did you base your assertion on that people want to read about the specific subtopic of effects of global warming when they are searching climate change? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)