2011-07-27 20:30:19Bunch of new graphics for the SkS Graphics resource
John Cook


I'm talking in Sydney tomorrow with Haydn Washington - talking Climate Change Denial. I'm debunking skeptic arguments so I created a bunch of slides then thought I should put them on SkS so audience members can go to the website and download the slides. So I set up a new database table 'Graphic Categories' and for now, quick rush job, have set up a category Myth Rebuttals. The idea is communicators can grab any of these slides if they want to debunk a myth in their talk. The general gist of the slides is to pick a core message one-liner that is your answer to a myth and make it the headline of the graphic. The category page is:


Here are some of the new ones (feedback welcome):

2011-07-27 21:14:06
Paul D


Not sure about the first one.

On the one hand you have the SkS database that is full of research papers not directly related to climate science or conducted by climate scientists, then you are saying a petition with a mixture of signaturies is flawed.

I think you either need to stay away from the subject or apply a similar technique to the petition as to the database. eg. include researchers that signed that might work in environmental areas, such as geology or marine biology.

2011-07-27 21:35:28


I don't agree with Paul's reservation on first graphic: researchers in "related fields" are in "related fields," not in climate science.

The importance of the SkS database should be: a) the papers are written by experts in their respective fields; and b) the conclusions of the papers have relevance to climate science, specifically wrt AGW.



On the last graphic, I would say: "We are giving it a big shove!"

2011-07-27 22:01:51
Paul D


I agree neal. But I suspect that it is a point that would be highlighted in a discussion.
Say the slide was presented and the audience was allowed to ask questions at the end, it could be a awkward moment.

Having thought about it in advance John can be prepared for that response and have an answer.

2011-07-28 02:23:37
John Garrett

Hi John,

Nice work.

I'd recommend increasing the contrast on the OISM illustration. The little green figure gets lost. I'd even put a circle around it or point a little arrow but these are style choices and not essential.

I don't understand the 2nd panel in the 2nd figure (Understanding the Warming Effect). It's the dashed curve and label "Total man-made forcing" that confuses me. Why is total man-made forcing separate from greenhouse gas forcing?

In the last figure, I'd recommend connecting the sources cited to the data. (Perhaps a blue line segment with Moberg, red with HADCrut and orange for Crowley with change of graph to orange.)

And a personal request: can you give me a link to the Crowley data?



2011-07-28 06:36:38
Dana Nuccitelli

jg - aerosols are man-made too.  The dash is the combination of the two.

Very nice graphics John.  I like the suggestion of somehow drawing more attention to the little green dude in the first one.  And I like neal's suggestion of "shove" for the last.

2011-07-28 07:34:24
Andy S


These are great but is it possible to include on the climate graphs page some more detailed comments and links on where the data came from and how the graphics were made. (I'm not suggesting cluttering up the images themselves.)

For example, I have some questions about number 2:

  • What year/period do those curves refer to?
  • Is this a redraw of an IPCC graph or is it an original SkS compilation of IPCC data, if so, which specific IPCC AR4 graphs or tables?
  • How were the three curves derived?

I'm not looking for anybody here to answer those questions, just asking for some pointers so that I can find out additional info more easily than having to crack open AR4, search around it and do some reverse engineering.

(Obligatory nit-pick: The top title of #2 refers to "greenhouse gases" but aerosols are not gases. Maybe just "air pollution" would be better.)

If you are going to highlight the little green man, why not put him somewhere in the middle?