NOTE: This is a “sticky” top post, new posts will appear below this one.
No, I’m not asking for money, only your ability to research and encapsulate an idea.
I have another big project in the works, and I’m inviting you all to be a part of it because this is an idea that lends itself to crowd-sourcing very well. I’ll have a press release forthcoming as to what it is all about, but in the meantime I decided to give you an opportunity to pitch in and help.
The concept is simple and revolves around the question “Did you know?” and climate science.
Here’s how it works.
Every one of us has some little tidbit of information they learned about climate science that isn’t being told by the MSM and doesn’t fit the narrative. I’m looking for a series of “Did you know?” tidbits to use in an upcoming presentation. For example:
==============================================================
Did you know?
The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear) as is often portrayed in science stories?
This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.
===============================================================
As shown above, the concept and supporting graphic fits on a single slide. That’s what I’m shooting for.
Using the example above, I’d be indebted to you if you could provide similar examples in comments. Please provide a URL for a supporting graphic if you have one, along with a URL that provides a source/citation for the information.
Concepts that are just words without graphics are acceptable too, provided they are short and succinct. They have to fit on a single slide.
Other readers are also welcome to fact check the submissions in comments, which will help make my job easier.
This post will remain a top post sticky for a few days. Thank you for your consideration.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did you know that CO2 should cause storms to be milder not more violent ?
Since CO2 retards heat from escaping into space it should act like a blanket and even out temperatures. Thermodynamics tells us that the work done by a system is proportional to the temperature difference not the absolute temperature.
So all of the scare stories of monster storms caused by global warming aren’t true !
Are you deliberately looking for made up psuedo-facts like the one you suggest ,or actual pieces of real information?
REPLY: It is in the IPCC report. Also on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
I’ll look for your apology in the next comment. – Anthony
Did you know that water vapor and CH4 have larger IR absorption cross sections than CO2?
Comment on prior slide: Water does not exist as vapor at the temperatures shown for “greenhouse effect due to water vapor”
My offering for MSM neglected points:
Due to the material properties of water, we know of no physical mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans.
Great idea. In manufacturing industry, I heard tell of something some have called ’10-minute trainers’ which were materials that could be deployed at the drop of a hat to take advantage of brief opportunities for training (e.g. if an upstream process shut down without warning’. The ’10-minutes’ is not to be taken literally, but just denotes brevity. I have made suggestions for quite few on climate in my blog, but I have not yet found time to develop them. For example, many of the various ‘gates’ listed by Gosselin (http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/) could each be packaged up into something snappy and memorable. Anyway, I think your idea is a good one and I look forward to any contributions you get to add to my lists!
Did you know contemporary climate models have long significantly
underestimated the cooling power of clouds
(Cess et al.1995, Pilewskie & Valero 1995, Ramanathan et al.1995, Heymsfield & McFarquhar 1996),
Did you know we are actually in a warm period (interglacial) in the middle of an ice age that began roughly 2,600,000 years ago?
Did you know that it has been proven that for many hundreds of thousands of years the changes in atmospheric CO2 lag the changes in global temperatures by approximately 800 years? The facts suggest that climate influences atmospheric CO2 rather than the other way round.
Did you know that 96% of Scientist DON’T believe in Global Warming? You might be surprised to hear this if all you listen to is the mainstream press. Every time you hear a story on global warming you hear the phrase “almost all scientists agree” or “97% of scientist believe in global warming.” Last year a study came out saying 97% of scientists believe in climate change, but almost the exact opposite is true.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/
The study in question surveyed 1,372 known working climate researchers. and found 97% of them still believe in global warming. I think this pool is tainted because these are scientist who get paid to study “Global Warming” which is a conflict of interest. That’s like asking PETA members if they’re vegetarian, but regardless we will use their number.
On the other hand the Petition Project has 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that they don’t believe in manmade global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php
So let’s do the math 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in global warming compared to 31,487 who don’t. That’s only 1 out 24 or 4% of scientists who still believe in global warming.
Gary
You must be poorly informed as the logarithmic relationship of CO2 is known by all but small children. Please read before you post !
I wonder if people like Gary enjoy making themselves look like idiots, next please.
Did you know? The Sun has been roasting the Earth for 4.5 billion years and that the Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium?
Did you know there are no observational based climate senisitivity studies that indicate high values?
A am not a scientist or economist here, but it seems to me that what Anthony is talking about in the post above is analogous to a concept in Economics known as the Law of Diminishing Returns. Correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns
Did you know that Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect? All computer models which predict a significant warming from CO2 rely entirely on a wild hypothesis that CO2 increases Water Vapor – that is how the models generate worrying rises on global temperatures over hundreds of years. Did you know that ALL observational data contradicts this wild hypothesis?
If I had the picture of a roasting pig over a fire I would have used it for my, did you know.
Did you know that …
” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
From the 3rd IPCC report, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.
Climate? – well – the root of most of the energy in our climate, at least.
The Earth, diameter about 8,000 miles, receives less than one part in two billion of the Sun’s energey output [assuming pi is 22/7; orbital radius of 93 000 000 miles; and that the Sun emits energy uniformly].
Area of the (circle of the) Earth facing our primarly [ pi R2] about 50 284 714 square miles.
Area of the sphere surrounding the Sun at the distance of the earth’s orbit [4 pi R2] – about 108 730 285 714 285 714 square miles.
The exact ratio between those two roughish estimates is 2 162 250 012, so I think one part in two billion is a slight over-estimate.
Anthony:
I suggest:
Did you know the AGW-hypothesis predicts more warming at altitude than the surface in the tropics and without this ‘hot spot’ there has been no discernible global warming from GHGs, but this ‘hot spot’ is missing? Measurements from satellites and other measurements from balloons both show the ‘hot spot’ has not happened.
The IPCC shows the predicted various temperature changes and their causes (including the ‘hot spot’ fingerprint of GHGs) in Figure 9.1 of the WG1 Report.
It is titled:
Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).
And it can be seen at (and copied from)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Richard
Contrary to the fictional scare stories about polar bears drowning in open water if they have to swim from ice floe to ice floe, polar bears actually float like a cork. In addition to a thick layer of blubber, which is buoyant, the thick layer of outer guard hairs are hollow, and trap a small amount of air inside each hair shaft. Unlike people, polar bears don’t have to expend much energy to tread water. When swimming, the energy they spend is to move forward through the water at speeds of up to 6 mph, which they are supremely adapted to do with partial webbing between the toes on their front paws, nostrils that they can close just like a seal, and a sloping back / head shape that positions the top of their head and their nose right at the edge of the water so they can easily breathe while they swim.
Although I hate using them as a source: <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
<a href=http://www.seaworld.org./animal-info/info-books/polar-bear/physical-characteristics.htm
Did you know that the gentle increase in average surface temperature on Earth, even if the doubtful calculations are correct, looks like this:?
[graph with time scale 1900-2012, temperature represented in degrees F, with a scale of -20 to 120 — basically a straight line]
upon outrage or laughter, show (one mouse click)
[graph with time scale 1900-2012, temperature represented in degrees F, with a scale of 32 to 95 — annual So. California temperature range alternately, use the average annual temperature range from Chico, California, “my home town” — basically a straight line]
more laughter — click to
[graph with time scale 1900-2012, temperature represented in degrees F, with a scale of 68 to 76 — average climate controlled office temperature range alternately, “in my office” — basically a straight line]
Label each scale accordingly.
One last click — add error bars to the last slide +/- .5 degrees C
Earth’s climate has been changing, rapidly or otherwise, for the last four billion years or more.
We have had thermometers – of increasing accuracy – for less than four hundred years – about one part in ten million of that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer#Development
Did you know that the US Navy keeps CO2 levels in it’s submarines at 8,000 parts per million or less, about 20 times current atmospheric levels? Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. -– Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer
Did you know of the mass migrations from western Europe in the early 1700’s were the result of widespread crop failures? Notwithstanding the perpetual state of war in the region, Germanic peoples emigrated from the Rhineland and the Alsace (Palatine), ~1700-1750, with the assistance of the English Crown, Queen Ann in particular. In 1708-1709, the war in the region was aggravated by a complete lack of summer.
The emigration was called the Early Palatine Emigration.
These people populated the USA and Canada making them the largest ethic group in North America.
A natural dip in the ambient temperature caused untold devastation and the upheaval of families and it it is well documented in the diaries of the people who sailed from Europe to the New world in hopes of better fortune.
Did you know?
Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2. The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb. Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.
I don’t remember where I got the information I used to write this paragraph. It was over 3 years ago and I was looking at a lot of different things trying to understand some of the science.
Radiative physics are slanted against excessive warming. Earth receives energy from the sun as a disc and radiates as a sphere – a 4:1 hill to climb there – plus increase in temperature radiates @ur momisugly T^4 – Stefan-Boltzman – another fairly steep hill for warming to climb.