Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1329  1330  1331  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  Next

Comments 66801 to 66850:

  1. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    #6, 8, 9 : this point of TSI-UV-EUV correlation, albeit probably marginal or null in terrestrial temperature trend, is still in debate among solar scientists. For example, see Frölhich 2009 : long term trends of TSI and UV seem to differ, the minimum of TSI for 2008 did not produce a similar minimum in UV irradiance.
  2. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    119. William Haas; Air temperatures are linked to sea surface temperatures pretty strongly, and higher temperatures mean a higher water vapour content in the atmosphere. Satellites measure a pretty constant relative humidity, so it suggests this is true. You asked in another thread about the GWP of water vapour. Global Warming Potential is defined as the integrated heating caused by a molecule over some time: typically 100 years after you've added it to the atmosphere. Water vapour's mean life is about 10 days in the atmosphere. Iirc, on a molecule-per-molecule basis, largely due to saturation, water vapour is weaker than CO2 by an order of magnitude or two. So the GWP of a water vapour molecule could be estimated as between 0.00003 and 0.000003 relative to CO2. However, this is an overestimate because water vapour evaporates and condenses. It will condense in the upper atmosphere, releasing heat which 'short circuits' a chunk of the greenhouse effect. The water vapour feedback is reduced by about half by this, so you're more likely looking at water vapour molecule = 0.000001 CO2 molecule. That's only water added by combustion and volcanoes etc: water vapour from the ocean is constrained by temperatures and can't act as a long term forcing.
  3. Ten temperature records in a single graphic
    I still struggle and fight with myself about global warming and the science behind it. It's hard to argue with the science and impact though. Theoretically it is very simple what is happening and what our actions are causing. The question, the debate, the argument is how much this is exacerbating this or conversely how much this would naturally occur and happen anyway without us.
    Moderator Response: See the Skeptical Science posts "It’s not us" and "It’s a natural cycle."
  4. Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
    Would be interesting to incorporate the Skeptical Science 'Interactive History of Climate Science' app (or a variation of it) with this one. Maybe as a visual that is shown in a box at the same time or can pop up on demand.
  5. Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
    Is it intentional that the narrator sounds like Stephen Hawking's computer voice? Great work on the app though.
  6. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
    I note that chirhophoros recent post has been deleted for moderation complaints, as had a previous comment. In light of the requested discussion of the comments policy above, I believe his comments where on topic on this thread, and that deleting comments critical of the comments policy or its administration on this thread is counterproductive to the aim of gathering a proper range of feedback. I understand that moderators are rightly cautious against the possibility that the aim of legitimate discussion of the comments policy may be used as an excuse for straightforward trolling. Never-the-less I believe it would be better if chirhophoros posts where restored. Regardless of the moderators decision, I should note that chirhophoros' examples where noted, and that several moderators have expressed a desire for more impartial administration of the comments policy in private conversation, thereby correcting any slippage from the normally very high standards of SkS moderation. chirhophoros and other readers should certainly not read into the enforcement of the comments policy on this thread any idea that his criticisms have simply been swept under the carpet. They have not been.
  7. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    William Haas @106: Suppose that increasing the temperature by 1 degree C brings about effects that result in a further 0.6 C increase in temperature. That 0.6 C increase will as a result bring about a further 0.36 C increase, which in turn will bring about a further 0.216 C increase, and so on. As can be easily checked, this series converges on a total increase (ie, the sum of all individual increases) of 2.5 times the initial input. The formula is that the total response, f, equals 1 divided by (1 minus the gain at each step, g), ie: f= 1/(1-g) which for a gain of 0.6 times the initial stimulus gives a feedback of 1/0.4 = 2.5 times the initial stimulus. I note that Sphaerica has already covered this ground in his response to you at 104. I have chose a slightly different example simply because with a gain of 0.6 times initial stimulus, and an initial stimulus from doubling CO2 concentrations of 1.2 degrees C, the expected climate response from doubling CO2 would be 1.2*2.5 = 3 degrees C. There is nothing unstable about that. There is no possibility of a runaway effect. The only thing there is a possibility of here is your continuing to ignore simple mathematics in pursuit of an agenda. Ergo, if you do continue to ignore this simple mathematics, that will be proof that you are in fact simply trolling. Either learn, or leave.
  8. Positive feedback means runaway warming
    I think that modeling this situation as a linear feedback system is both improper and incomplete. I can understand the idea of the amplification. But as a linear feedback system it is unstable yet we do not actuall experience runnaway global warming.
  9. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    ms2et @6 - ditto what Tom Curtis said @6, which was also pointed out in the penultimate paragraph of the post above. Anything correlated to TSI, which includes EUV and cosmic rays, is taken into account through this multiple linear regression approach.
  10. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    ms2et @6, because the solar influence is determined by a regression against TSI, that influence includes all influences of the Sun on Earth's temperature that are correlated with TSI. Svenmark's theory of the influence of cosmic rays on climate argues that low solar magnetic field (as when the TSI is low in the sunspot cycle) results in more clouds, and hence lower temperatures, and conversely when TSI is high. Hence it is correlated with TSI in its influence on temperature, and is therefore included in the regression. Therefore the solar influence detected by Lean and Rind is the sum of the influences of TSI, cosmic rays, and what have you.
  11. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    #6, TSI is not just visible light - it includes the radiation beyond visible light. As for solar wind speed and geomagnetisn (though the geomagnetic field is technically the Earth's magnetic field), you'd need a mechanism by which the solar wind, or charged particles from the Sun and beyond could affect Earth's climate. So far, no mechanism has been found, and there is no evidence of any event being caused by magnetic field variations. If you have evidence otherwise, reply on an appropriate thread. So really using TSI for the Sun's contribution is like measuring the entire orchestra's output, yet perhaps ignoring the slightly squeaky floorboard beneath the tuba player's foot...
  12. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    Interesting to see that they've used only used TSI to measure the sun's contribution. What about changes in EUV, UV, solar wind speed, geomagnetism etc...? To confine the sun's influence on climate to TSI is about as sensible as measuring the sound-effect of a symphony orchestra by reference to the volume of the first violinist.
  13. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    William - AGW is about global warming not your local weather. On global basis, the various interactions do indeed result in water vapour being closely tied to global average temperature. There are indeed decadal cycles associated with internal variability of the system (distributing heat around the globe) which is why climate is about 30 year averages not tomorrows weather. However, if you want to discuss this further put it on an appropriate thread, not here.
  14. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Your hypothesis that water is the dominant greenhouse gas is correct. No one in climate science is disputing that. The question is so what? Because it condenses, you cant change the global water vapour content without first changing the global temperature. Water vapour acts an amplifier to any temperature change caused by say sun, aerosols, GHG changes. CO2 is also an amplifier since its concentration is also temperature-dependent but over very long time-scales. How did I calculate it? Crudely. Including overlap, water vapour = 60% CO2 = 26% (From Keihl and Trenberth) 60/26 = 2.3 10 molecules of water for 1 of CO2 so per molecule cf CO2 = 0.23 If I used Schmidt et al 2010 I guess I would calculate 0.25
  15. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Thank you for your reply. So if the ocean temperature falls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will fall and vis versa. This seems to appear in the historical record. Yes the warmer the atmosphere the more water vapor it can hold but that does not assure that more water vapor will actually appear in the atmosphere. As ocean surface temperatures warm I would expect that more water will evaporate into the atmosphere but it also depends on humidity next to the water, winds,and sea state. I believe that much of the temperatures that I experience where I live are a result of convective heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere. Local ocean temperatures depend a lot on current and current changes. The ocean where I live has apparently had various cycles of warming and cooling that do not seem to be related to at least short term variations in CO2.
  16. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    William, the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold depends on the atmosphere's temperature. So if the CO2 were gradually removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall, which would cause a fall in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which would cause more cooling of the atmosphere. CO2 also falls as ocean temperature falls, because cooler water absorbs more CO2.
  17. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    William keeps posting, in probable innocence, asking the question:
    "What is the GWP of water vapor?"
    Without realizing that the question itself is a non sequiter. As scaddenp points out above, water vapor concentrations are a function of air temperature, and thus serve as a feedback to the other GHGs. As a condensable GHG, water vapor does not even have a GWP even calculated for it. Only the non-condensable GHG's like CO2 and CH4 have GWPs calculated, as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Values William, I strongly recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest temperature control knob.
  18. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    Thank you for your reply and for giving me a value for the GWP of water vapor. Water vapor alone is a green house gas and contributes to the insulating effects of the atmosphere as do the other gasses. Water vapor causes warming which causes more water vapor ... I doubt that the world would be at 0 degrees K if there were no CO2. How did you arrive at a value of .23?
    Response:

    [DB] "Water vapor alone is a green house gas"

    Vastly incorrect.  Read more, post less.

    "Thank you for your reply and for giving me a value for the GWP of water vapor"

    You ignore the caveats given.  Read my response to you here.

    "How did you arrive at a value of .23?"

    The GWP equation can be found here.

  19. 2011 Year in Review (part 2)
    See replies on the linked article. Continue discussion there. You might also like to more formally state you "hypothesis" since you think it somehow contradicts climate theory.
  20. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    To paraphrase the Bard, "The Trend is the Thing..."
  21. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    William, (linking from here) it doesnt make much sense to talk about GWP of water vapour as it is a feedback not a forcing. Water vapour concentration depends on temperature. If you tried to put water data into the GWP equation you run into a problem with the time part of the equation - residence time will depend on temperature. However, if you kind of ignored that, you would end up with a GWP of about 0.23.
  22. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    I am trying to understand this. Water vapor causes warming which causes more water vapor which causes more warming ... What is keeping the earth from vaporizing because of this? What is the GWP of water vapor?
    Moderator Response: The feedback is a gain less than 1. That means the increase gets progressively smaller. See Positive feedback means runaway warming.
  23. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    GC - whoops missed the link. Take the challenge here
  24. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    all good with me DB! The trend is, as ever, troubling.
  25. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    In that I took the simple route, you are correct sky. So let's take this a bit more step-by-step for the second part of the proof (is 2010/2011 hotter than 2004?). We know that, looking at 5 temperature records covering the past 100+ years, that the most recent decade is quite obviously the warmest in the instrumental record: And the same by looking at 10 temperature records: So, dialing it back to discerning between the years of the most recent decade we turn to Foster and Rahmstorf, who by removing the exogenous effects of various factors that add noise to the overall data, we can now see the most recent decade with increased clarity: Which was then summed up by this graphic (which I posted earlier): Lastly, we know that the 2 hottest years are: 2005 & 2010 Hindsight, being 20:20, shows the longer route does indeed provide clarity. For those preferring brevity, the route pursued in the earlier response should serve. Crumpets, anyone?
  26. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    GC, you seem to be subscribing to "anything but CO2" (an improvement from "we are not warming") - I mean ignore good physical explanation of climate and instead looking for magical cycles. Now what would be the motivation for that? Given your comments about "billions of dollars every year", I wonder what you will think when Scafetta turns out dead wrong? Look for another magical explanation? Perhaps you might like to take the challenge here.
  27. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    ... warmer than most of the Holocene.
  28. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    DB - a quick aside, I agree with you on graphic #1, but I think using graphic #2 to suggest that the present is actually warmer than 2004 is a bit misleading, as the graphic is adjusted temperature. Better to use GISS or whatever to show that temperatures now are similar to those in 2004, confirming your point. What the FR figure shows is the futility of hoping it will start cooling any time soon, ie the trend underneath the variation... The overall point of your green comment is, however, absolutely right! We are now warmer than the Holocene.
  29. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    James, You have repeatedly been asked to support your claims and assertions with links. You have yet to do so. Please support your assertions or retract them. Further comments along the same previous lines will be considered common trolling and treated accordingly.
  30. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    Actually, John, Tom Curtis has already ably explained that 1st graphic in his comment (#9) above.
  31. funglestrumpet at 10:12 AM on 11 January 2012
    2011 Year in Review (part 2)
    Glenn Tamblyn @11 "Anyone who knows a Republican Congressman, Tea Partier etc - get them to come to SkS and simply spend some time reading." Nice idea, but I think something a little simpler would need to be read first as a primer. The Smurfs' Pop-up Guide Climate Change would be ideal.
  32. 2011 Year in Review (part 2)
    (-Snip-). Everyine seems to agree that the majoriety of the green house effect is caused by water vapor. Just how much of a majoriety seems to be a point of contention. Since some very rare green house gasses have been assigned GWP values it seems that water vapor needs a GWP value assigned to it to. Where I live water vapor stays in the environment a very long time. I have lived here more than 40 years and the relative humidity has never fallen below 10%. Please, what is the GWP value for water vapor?
    Response:

    [DB] "Everyine seems to agree that the majoriety of the green house effect is caused by water vapor.  Just how much of a majoriety seems to be a point of contention."

    Then read the intermediate tab of the link you were given: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

    "Where I live water vapor stays in the environment a very long time.  I have lived here more than 40 years and the relative humidity has never fallen below 10%."

    Straw man.  Comparing local, anecdotal observations to regional/global metrics is a non-sequiter.  Water vapor is a well-mixed gas; additionally, local perturbations precipitate out in about 9 days time, especially near large bodies of water.  In times of rising CO2 concentrations, as now, water vapor acts as a feedback to the forcings from CO2, raising temps in a limiting fashion (with all other forcings/feedbacks being neutral).  This is well-known & well-understood.

    Perhaps a suggested new course of action for you:  Polite questions will get you better and more useful responses.

    Inflammatory tone snipped.

  33. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    I always find it fascinating how much people attribute to the IPCC as if they were some huge government body that was doing all the research on climate. The IPCC just produces a report on the latest research. If you have contentions with what is reported by the IPCC you have to go to the research they source and see what it says.
  34. 2011 Year in Review (part 2)
    Great summary Mark. A few years ago I would have classified myself as an Alarmist on Arctic Methane. That the magnitude AND pace of release from the north was cause for serious concern. My fears about the pace of that release have diminished in the last couple of years but I think concerns about the eventual impact of Arctic Methane still seem justified. Just because it may take centuries rather than decades doesn't reduce the ultimate threat to our descendents. The psychological impacts of living generation after generation knowing that, perhaps slowly, but inexorably, things will get worse and is virtually unstopable could be devastating I also tend to agree with Killian. The more immediate, shorter term impacts of AGW, compounding the worlds other resource and population pressures is more than enough to threaten the viability of Civilisation - in military parlance, AGW is the ultimate 'Force Multiplier' The good news from 2011 is that the SCience so far isn't saying that things are much worse than we previously thought. Unfortunately its not saying its any better either. Anyone who knows a Republican Congressman, Tea Partier etc - get them to come to SkS and simply spend some time reading.
  35. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    Glenn - re your 1st point, the lack of natural warming (due to flat solar and volcanic forcings since mid-century) also contributes to the increasing anthropogenic component. re your 2nd point, LR08 do include anthropogenic aerosols (see the inset in Figure 2d). The fact that their individual contributions sum to more than 100% is probably mostly due to the model not quite fitting the data over that timeframe.
  36. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    A couple of interesting observations. 1st, as the period becomes shorter and closer to the present the Anthro' contribution is getting larger, suggesting not just the dominance of the Anthro' part but its increase over time, just as you would expect as CO2 levels and emission rates rise. 2nd, for the last two shorter and more recent periods the sum of all 4 components is around 120%. Implying that there is another factor(s) that contributes some cooling. Yet this isn't there when the data covers a longer period. This means this other factor must have changed more recently. The key independent variable that L&R haven't analysed for (because they can't, we don't have adequate data on it) is non-Volcanic Aerosols. So what changed in the more recent period to change this? Us. Human air pollution from all sorts of sources. This might even be reflected in the values for those last 2 numbers in Table 2 1955-2005 is 120.4% total while 1979-2005 has dropped to 115.7% Does this reflect the fact that 1955-2005 includes the 50's, 60's and earlier 70's before the worlds various Clean Air Acts improved air pollution while the later period from 1979 was a world with somewhat cleaner air. That simple bar graph pretty clearly show the dominance of the Anthro' component, its increasing influence over time and Non-Volcanic aerosols look like strong candidates for a moderating effect, much as expected. It's always nice when new data and analyses show repeated confirmation of previous results. 'Settled Science'? Well just how settled does it need to be?
  37. 2011 Year in Review (part 2)
    Willian Haas - I suspect you are wasting time on misinformation sites. The actual science backs theory with data so the "religion" bit is pure rhetoric. This is great site to learn though. Pick a skeptic argument from the arguments list that you think is convincing and proceed from there. It sounds like you should start with Water is the most powerful GHG.
  38. 2011 Year in Review (part 2)
    "Fortunately, the latest work, which I covered in the post, suggests that it'll mean more global warming which will probably be disastrous, but not necessarily the collapse-of-human-civilisation level disaster we'd get with the full blown methane release hypothesised by some." The mistake here in logic, the fallacy, is only under a "clathrate gun" scenario can society collapse. News flash: with or without a clathrate gun, we're headed for collapse. Complex systems don't need many things to fail to break apart, just one key one. We have many failing all at the same time. The issues is not whether methane will cause collapse, it is how do we prevent the collapse underway, and does the methane make it a moot point? "Alarmist" is insulting. Please stop using it. The "alarmists" have been right so far, or are the indicators not well to the edges of the error bars thus far? Have some respect for the insight of those who have called the game thus far.
  39. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    tmac57 - Yes, Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future. The Andreae 2005 paper is well worth a read.
  40. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    James, what you are asserting is flat out wrong and repeating the claim does not make it correct. Better would be link to where you got that understanding. (eg that old IPCC paper where you thought sulphate was a positive forcing can be then seen as a misreading by you which you could verify by going to the 1995 report). So... "GHG ratings are calculated by the IPCC based on the IR frequencies that a molecule absorbs." No. Repeating this without attribution yet again. Look up GWP (Global Warming Potential) to find out actually done. "Does anyone have a link to actual experiments that show what rate Sulfates reflect light and what matter states they do so?" Look at the references in Penner as pointed out to you. You might also follow the IPCC references on how i See IPCC AR4 WG1 for detailed discussion of aerosols - it answers your point. As to direct methods, try here and follow cites. You "CFCs where listed as a cooling agent in 2007. So when I said that was junk in 2008 I was right. Interestingly it now appears that the IPCC is using Sulfates as a replacement for CFCs as a cooling agent. " This is tiresome. CFC were not listed as a cooling agent. You obviously continue to believe this nonsense is true, so for the last time, either put up where you got this weird idea from or take it back. IPCC lists aerosols as cooling agents in all the reports. You do understand that CFCs are not aerosols?
  41. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    JamesWilson - "Look at the graph of emissions. Why didn't the temperature go flat in 1980 when NA and Europe (twice as high than China now) had higher Sulfate emissions?" Not sure what you expect to have happened, but sulfate emissions (manmade pollution particles) from Europe and North America had begun to decline by about 1980 due to the clean air acts.
  42. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    Excuse me -- I was wrong: I should have said "CFC group gases are used as refrigerants . . ."
  43. Myth of the Mini Ice Age
    James, there are plenty of other threads at SkS for the discussion CFCs. I still can't find CFCs listed as a cooling agent in AR4. Total CFC forcing in 2005 was estimated at .268 W m–2. CFCs are used as a refrigerant, if that's what you mean by "cooling." I also don't see where the IPCC is "using sulfates as a replacement." There's no language that indicates a replacement. There's no scientific basis for "replacement." I suggest you make further replies on a more appropriate thread. Also, you strongly suggest that a theory that goes through minor changes is a fraud. If so, it would be a ridiculous charge. Even if what you say about CFCs were true, it would not affect the fundamental theory of AGW: human-sourced atmospheric increases of CO2 will lead to warming. Any cooling effect you can think of will not challenge the basic theory. If the planet's temperature over the last century remained flat steady or declined, that would still not be evidence of a fundamental failure in the theory. You should probably be more transparent in your purpose and targets, and of course you should provide evidence. Both of those actions will prevent you from coming off like someone who is incapable of being wrong or incorporating new evidence. Condescending? Yes, but all I have to go on is what you've written.
  44. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    tmac57, it probably isn't quite as bad as it looks because aerosol pollution is a short term effect while CO2 is long term and cumulative. Put another way... the warming due to CO2 is determined by the area under the red curve, but the cooling due to aerosols is determined by a point on the blue line. Given that the primary source of both CO2 and aerosol pollution is coal power plants it is likely that any significant reduction in CO2 output would be matched by an accompanying reduction in aerosols... and since the total atmospheric level of CO2 would then remain at the accumulated level for centuries while the aerosol load would fall within a few years we can expect a period of accelerated warming if/when this happens. However, because of the cumulative nature of the CO2 forcing we are already seeing a great deal of its resultant warming now... rather than the current temporary aerosol load masking all/most of it.
  45. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
    45 - against. If its long it'll either be great or go off-topic... Which is covered. 46 - yes. But not cartoons, it'll only spoil the jokes. (give or take copyright)
  46. Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
    That inverse correlation between aerosols and GhGs in Fig. 2 really has me concerned. That looks like a really serious problem looming if and when we get the Co2 reductions that are needed.
  47. Global Warming: Trend and Variation
    @ DB's Moderator comment in #52: The first graphic embedded in your comment is gibberish to the average reader without a key explaining what each colored line represents and what the heavy black line represents. In addition, the dashed horizonal line is presumably the "base-line" for determing the anomoly. How was this base-line computed?
  48. New research from last week 1/2012
    I found the paper "Time of emergence of climate signals" very interesting. Could somebody explain why according to this paper climate singals won't become significant, i.e. emerge before the year 2020 at the earliest and in some cases it will take until 2060? Even if you take into account that they are looking at regions and not global averages, I do remember reading about the heat wave and the fires in Russia being due to global warming. How compatible is that?
  49. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
    CBD, what is optimal is some form of linked attribution, such as: http://__________ or [Source]
  50. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
    Word limits: I'm against it. Yes, some people will ramble on interminably to little benefit... but then there are the huge posts which cover the science in exacting detail and provide tremendous value. Look through some of the posts by visiting scientists (heck, even the long discussions with Pielke) and you'll see what I mean. Better to have no limit and cut down purposelessly excessive posts as needed IMO. Graphic sourcing: Makes sense... though in some cases the URL of the graphic seems sufficient to identify its source. For instance, would we have to document the origin of images from other SkS posts? In general this might be better handled by having a 'standard response' along the lines of, 'without sourcing it is not clear what your graphic depicts / how it was developed'... rather than having people document information on graphics where that information IS clear.

Prev  1329  1330  1331  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us