Talk:Study: floods, droughts more intense in past 20 years due to higher global temperatures

Notes to reviewer

1. The authors of the study and the other scientists use "global mean temperature" and "global surface temperature" interchangeably; I went with the latter as that's easier to visualize.
2. CNN, and, to some extent, the AP, fall into the usual trap of "study finds", "confirmed", and completely missing the nuanced caution of correlation versus causation.
3. The paper is normally paywalled, but this URL has a CNN token in it, so it is open-access. --Heavy Water (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And I'm not calling it "a NASA study" because that implies NASA assignments, funding, etc., none of which is in the sources. The authors do both work for NASA. --Heavy Water (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Although Springer's description of how you may use SharedIt, this service, says it can only be reproduced for personal, non-commercial purposes, it does allow "more than 200 media outlets and blogs" to link to it, which is all I'm doing (CNN did it, after all). Heavy Water (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I also changed the tracking referrer in the URL from "www.cnn.com" to "www.wikinews.org", and it works. Heavy Water (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Invisible comments for sourcing are included, as usual. Yes, the explanation of "weather whiplash" does have to be there, it's an explanation of her quote, and that's how CNN did it, too. Please note: from Thursday afternoon UTC to Sunday night UTC I'll have sporadic availability on WN. Interestingly, the person who took the second photo is an inactive accredited reporter. Heavy Water (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it to 'global mean surface temperature' in the lead at least, because while a scientific term deserves clarification for those non-climatologists who may assume 'global surface temperature' is calculated otherwise. JJLiu112 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4716709 [Passed]

Revision 4716709 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I was a bit disappointed with this one, I think it had a lot of potential to go deeper into the science although I recognise the apprehension with a longer article. Solid work, if needing a bit of polishing up. Notice the pics, 'related news' specifically relate to the article at hand, rather than climate change generally; also key takeaways I had to append, just because otherwise it'd be all quotes about the study with a bit less for the...well...study. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4716709 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I was a bit disappointed with this one, I think it had a lot of potential to go deeper into the science although I recognise the apprehension with a longer article. Solid work, if needing a bit of polishing up. Notice the pics, 'related news' specifically relate to the article at hand, rather than climate change generally; also key takeaways I had to append, just because otherwise it'd be all quotes about the study with a bit less for the...well...study. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.