User talk:InformationToKnowledge/sandbox

Split causes into chapters?[edit]

Would it be OK to split causes into chapters:

Natural variability

Human forces

Uwappa (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in this draft, I decided to largely stick to what I considered to be the simpler framing of the Attribution article. That is, a list of the actual causes, all human-related, and then the two most important forms of variability - solar and volcanic - are under "Potential causes that have been ruled out" (@EMsmile's chosen wording), which is a separate heading already.

For now, I am not convinced that this article needs to discuss natural variability in any more detail. Yes, there could be a lot more details about ENSO and the other patterns, but I think it might be a better idea to cover that in the actual attribution science article - that is, to explain how the scientists can now separate out the human impact on climate from the impact of this variability. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a structure based on human-related versus non-human-related. But the current chapter heading and text do not support that structure.

The current "Factors affecting Earth's climate" makes a distinction between forcings, feedbacks and internal variations. Those terms are confusing, overlap, raise questions:

if forcings, feedbacks and internal variations are so important, why don't I see subchapters with those names?
Aren't all factors forcing? Would a non forcing factor be irrelevant, not worth mentioning?
Are feedbacks a causing factor? Wouldn't the factor that starts a feedback be a causing factor?
If internal variations, how about external variations?
Overlap: A feedback can be forcing. A feedback can be an internal variation. An internal variation can be forcing.

To get a simple, clear structure, with mutually exclusive terms, stick to natural versus human.

Describe the difference between human and natural forces at the start of Factors affecting Earth's climate.
The chart does support that structure, but it is hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page. Move it up!
Rename "Greenhouse gases" to "Human forces"
Rename "Potential causes that have been ruled out" to "Natural variability"
Check that subchapters are in the right main chapter, either Human or Natural.

I am not proposing to discuss natural variability in more detail. Uwappa (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of this text was taken directly from the corresponding section in Attribution of recent climate change. I didn't see any controversy about this phrasing, so I chose not to modify it, and focus on the other paragraphs. You should probably bring up these concerns on the talk page of that article? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this article is about the causes of climate change. This is the place to get a clear structure for those causes. Without a clear structure working on text is like wandering in a misty maze. When the structure is clear, it will be easy to move text to the right chapters, write new text, remove old text. I prefer to postpone working on text, work top-down, get a clear structure first.

What do you think about a main structure, based on mutually exclusive terms:

Natural variability
Human forces

I am not sure yet about the best sequence. It may be good to describe natural variability first. Get that clear so it is clear that human causes are a different story.

The alternative is to start with the main causes, the human ones.

I've boldly renamed the chapters as a first step. Please have a look and see how that works out. Reverse if you don't like it. Or move on and work on text? Uwappa (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take one or two steps back. This draft is only here because the other editors active in the WikiProject have effectively decided that they want to rename Attribution of recent climate change. I was the last one to (semi)-support that idea, and my support is conditional on the implementation of changes that are being drafted here. Nevertheless, it is clear that what is going with this sandbox is currently adjacent to the discussion on Talk:Attribution of recent climate change. Even if you can get me to agree to these changes to text you proposed above, it wouldn't really matter if the other editors active in that discussion do not like them and would move to reverse them, so why not bring those arguments to a place where all of them will see it now?

I'll also say that I'm not really in favour of that rename right now. Firstly, "Potential causes that have been ruled out" was probably rather clumsy, but I think it made the point that natural variability does not cause climate change a lot clearer. Secondly, carbon sinks are not a human force, and neither are the feedbacks. To be fair, they are not greenhouse gases either: the heading/subheading naming and order in this draft was probably never ideal - I simply combined the attribution article with the material from Climate change to do the best we could. Thus, I am not really going to revert it (yet). I do urge you to take these concerns to the attribution talk page first. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on getting the text right. That is just work to be done. So I would like to postpone text changes until the structure is stable.

Agree, the chapter heading "Natural variability" does make it clear that it is not a cause. The text further clarifies that point. Any idea for an even better chapter heading?

Also agree with your implicitly suggested next step: move subchapters. If carbon sinks and feedbacks are not human caused, where should they go to? And... are they really not human caused? Should those subchapters be in a new main chapter 'human amplified', 'human triggered', 'ripple effects'?

I will make a bold change again, move those two subchapters. And we take it from there? Uwappa (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The structure looks good to me now. Is it OK for you? Any fine-tuning required on chapter headings?

Suggested next step, move images, as images act as a visual introduction to chapters.

Move to lead, as main image. It acts like a visual introduction of some chapters.
Move to "Factors affecting Earth's climate". Or maybe remove it as it overlaps with

Move to a new image gallery in "Human forces"
move to same image gallery in "Human forces"
Move to same image gallery in "Human forces"

Move to a new image gallery in Carbon dioxide.
Move to same new image gallery in Carbon dioxide
Move to same new image gallery in Carbon dioxide

Move to a Aerosols
move to align text in Land surface changes
move to align text in Carbon sinks
move to align text in Climate change feedbacks

Shall I boldly implement these changes? After that, you take this draft to other editors to work on text changes? Uwappa (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I like the ripple effects change. I am dubious about the gallery idea, but I guess I can always revert it, so try it, and we'll see what it's like. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am not sure either about the galleries, images may be too small. I'll implement it and we will see how it works out. Uwappa (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please have a look. I am happy with how images are now in the correct chapters. I have doubts about the image galleries. Images may be too small and some captions may be too long. Uwappa (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to leave this sandbox be for a while as I was preoccupied with other matters, and to perhaps take a longer view on this. Having done so, I agree that those galleries a massive step back. On desktop, the graphs are actually shrunk in those galleries compared to the usual presentation, while the captions become stretched out and oversized, and there is no real improvement on mobile either. I have reverted them now, as well as providing additional images.

Further, there is a reason I decided to lead with the IPCC-style bar graphs and move the NCAR line graphic down. This draft is meant to be about what causes climate change, and not what doesn't; consequently, neither solar nor volcanic influences belong in the lead graphic in the first place. To me, the NCAR graphic is far better used for immediately demonstrating that those oft-blamed factors are irrelevant. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes to structure, however, and decided to keep them. I also removed or reworded some of the lines in variability section which you have crossed out. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm also happy with the structure, so go for it!

Did you have a look at the alternative, Multiple_image, see 14 Feb below?

Are you OK with the suggested next steps, see 17 feb below. Uwappa (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I didn't really like it either.

And all of these next steps effectively require the discussion over at the actual article to be concluded first. I know @EMsmile also wants to see it closed soon (even if we still may not fully agree?) and we'll see if anyone else is still paying attention to that discussion. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove image

as it is now redundant, following

providing more detail already in the lead ? Uwappa (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Template:Gallery by Template:Multiple_image in "Human forces" which allows bigger images.

Does that look OK for you? Uwappa (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this work. Good move. I've made some small changes right now. Those are just suggestions. My main point is that the bullet point listing of "lines of evidence" is important but was so far only mentioned in the lead. I actually used to think this is what the attribution science aspect was all about (e.g. how to attribute the rising CO2 emissions to humans activities) but I also get that "attribution science" is used for something else, e.g. "is this particular drought due to climate change?"). Either way, that "line of evidence" content is important for an article about causes, I think. EMsmile (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I've moved up "lines of evidence" to "Human forces".

My preferred next steps would be:

Implement the new chapter headings and image placement in the real article.
Move text to right chapter, no text changes yet, similar to moving the lines of evidence. Implement that in the real article too.
Work on text improvements, in the real article, chapter by chapter, bottom to top, lead last. Proposed writing style: Inverted_pyramid_(journalism), start with conclusion, followed by details. See rewrite of last chapter for example. Uwappa (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style[edit]

I wonder why the ref style is so messy here. Could we change it over to long ref style consistently please? Did this mixture of ref styles came about because text was copied from the climate change article which uses short ref style? EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since the hope is that the creation of this article would substantially lighten the corresponding section of climate change as well, so I moved everything I considered appropriate to here. Can you do the conversion on your own? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hate working with short ref style, it's so cumbersome... Can we agree that the ref style for the causes of climate change would be long ref style? It's just easier that way. EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Just to be clear that I understand what happened: a lot of the text of this new article was copied from climate change to here? Basically whereever I see a ref in short ref style then I can assume that that sentence came from climate change? At a later point you/we will then propose to cull some of the content in the section of "causes" at climate change ? EMsmile (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all. In fact, once the material in this sandbox is moved into the new article, I would like to use it to draft the shortened version of that section in climate change. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. I wonder if there is a more automated way of converting those short refs into long refs. I have done it manually in the past (for some other articles) but there are a lot of them here, so the tasks seems quite daunting. Probably 3-4 hours of work. Perhaps in some cases, not all the refs are needed anyhow or you'd want to use different ones than what was used in the climate change article? EMsmile (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]