snowwrestler, it may vary by field, but my (non-climate) field relied almost entirely on informal communications, presentations, write ups being shared but not published.

I don't have direct experience with climatology, but from what I understand it's somewhat similar: conferences like AGU are really important to climatologists for that reason.

To present (even a poster) at a conference like AGU, you have to submit an abstract and it must be accepted by a committee of other scientists. It's not a paper, but still counts as a form of review and publication.

Edit to acknowledge: obviously a lot of work gets done informally during conferences as well.

But it's in the service of publishable research, is it not? I don't think many scientists are going to say, "I'm changing my research program based on something I read on Hacker News yesterday." There's a bar for serious consideration.

No offense, but those are the sorts of things that people say when their own research cannot pass muster for publication.

edit: misspelling

You just claimed not to be a scientist, yet you claim the high ground in knowing how science is conducted?

I made a jerk comment above.

I stand by the importance of published work in scientific discourse, but I apologize to schoper for taking a personal shot that was not called for.