Timeline for Why have "ozone-depleting substances" led to a third of all global warming and half of arctic sea ice loss?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2020 at 7:56 | comment | added | gerrit♦ | @FluidCode I agree that the phys.org article is insufficient, but even the main article has deficiencies. | |
| Jan 22, 2020 at 1:01 | comment | added | FluidCode | @gerrit Initially I didn't notice the link in the grey box, I searched in the hyperlinks.In any case, doubt 1: the abstract of the paper mentions only Arctic warming, while the article mentions also global warming. What are they referring to? Something in the full paper? doubt 2: The abstract of the paper didn't mention the underlying mechanism, but they may assume that people who want to know more would read the full paper, on the other hand the article on Phys.org should take into account that a lot of readers don't have access to the full paper, they should have added some explanation. | |
| Jan 21, 2020 at 22:19 | comment | added | gerrit♦ | Ozone does not reflect UV, it absorbs it. The phys.org article does link to the Nature Climate Change article, which raises questions but is not poorly written. By "a small increase may have a greater impact", an increase in what do you mean? | |
| Jan 21, 2020 at 19:04 | comment | added | FluidCode | @ebv I didn't mean to say that the article was just hot air, but that it should have included at least a basic explanation of the underlying mechanism. | |
| Jan 21, 2020 at 19:00 | comment | added | user18607 | Welcome. The phys.org article links to the Nature Climate Change paper (box under the article). The abstract there says they use specifical model integrations, I doubt that is just "hot air". But I have not read the original paper (no access). | |
| Jan 21, 2020 at 18:40 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 21, 2020 at 20:02 | |||||
| Jan 21, 2020 at 18:38 | history | answered | FluidCode | CC BY-SA 4.0 |