2012-01-09 11:54:51A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Overview of recent attribution studies.  I'm hoping the first graphic might go viral.  This will also result in updates to a number of rebuttals, but I haven't done that yet.

A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming

2012-01-09 12:29:59
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
69.138.162.85

Nice. You might include a bit noting that 'skeptics' show no such consensus, have no such data, and the incoherent arguments are simply unreasonable.

2012-01-09 12:39:08Me likee
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Great summary, Dana. I recommend a simplified, shorter version that you email as a word doc directly to TH.

Okay, this is where I make my usual comments which will have you gnashing your teeth about the "flow of the blog post". Basically, I think you bury the lead. The concluding paragraph is fantastic and the most important text in the post. But it's also the text that will get read the least because it's at the end. Your opening paragraph needs to contain your take-home message: "a wide range of independent methods all provide evidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming".

Here's another real nitpicky thing - the first graphic is great but with all that white space above the natural contribution, I'd move all the labels (T00, M04, etc) to above the natural contributions. This is a more efficient use of space, allows you to make the graph wider. I also wonder whether it would be better to use the first author in the graph. Eg - Tett et al 2000 rather than T00. That's a style choice - maybe it looks too busy with all that extra info, your call.

Just wondering - is HK11's natural contribution in Figure 1 positive?

How about in this paragraph, have the words "increasing the greenhouse effect" link to our CO2 effect page.

As we know, human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions warm the planet by increasing the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus increasing the greenhouse effect.

2012-01-09 12:59:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.206

*gnash*

Nah, that's a good point.  I can tweak the intro.  I'm not sure how much simpler I can make the post though.  I was trying to keep it at TH level.  Maybe I can ditch some of the detail in the individual study discussions.  With 6 studies and 5 contributing factors and 3 timeframes, it's hard to keep it short.

I just emailed you the Excel file so you can work your magic on it, John.  HK11 is just barely positive in Fig 1 - like less than half a percent.  I inflated it to 2% just to make the bar visible.  Otherwise it looked like it was missing.

2012-01-31 21:41:28
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
194.144.161.27

I just noticed typos in the figures - G11 instead of G12.

Also under figure 2, there is no mention of G12.

--

p.s. I´m translating this post into icelandic - is there any change that I can get the originals so I can translate the figures easily :)

2012-01-31 21:46:02
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
194.144.161.27

Also - the text under Figure 4 says it is the last 100-150 years - should be 25-30 years.

2012-02-01 05:58:17
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
157.157.189.17

I guess nobody looks at this - since the thread is green ;)

See the last two posts above.

2012-02-01 06:28:02
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Dang, thanks Hoskibui, good catches.  I'll have to update the figures tonight with the correct G12 label.

Did you want the Excel files for translation of the graphics?

2012-02-01 07:08:04
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
157.157.189.17

Dana - now I´m mostly wondering if I can have permission to change the figures into icelandic - might do it in photoshop if its okay - but if it is easy to do in excel, than it might be helpful if you send it to me at hoskibui@gmail.com

Thanks in advance :)

2012-02-01 07:10:26
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Sure feel free.  I'll send along the Excel files tonight.