Dear readers – your help needed in fun crowdsourcing project

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?

click for larger image

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.

About these ads

546 thoughts on “Dear readers – your help needed in fun crowdsourcing project

  1. 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 !

  2. 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

    The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

    The same logarithmic formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane, N2O or CFCs, with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[7]

    I’ll look for your apology in the next comment. – Anthony

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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),

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Gary

    You must be poorly informed as the logarithmic relationship of CO2 is known by all but small children. Please read before you post !

  9. Did you know? The Sun has been roasting the Earth for 4.5 billion years and that the Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium?

  10. Did you know there are no observational based climate senisitivity studies that indicate high values?

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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 @ T^4 – Stefan-Boltzman – another fairly steep hill for warming to climb.

  21. Once the scales fall from the eyes, deceit & deception can be seen almost everywhere. Barry Groves is a British blogger who writes about fraud in medical matters as well as the global warming scam. http://barrygroves.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/fraud-in-published-scientific-papers.html

    Andrew Bolt deplores the efforts of Labor politicians & supporters in Australia. See below.

    “Julia Gillard yesterday couldn’t even bring herself to say Tony Abbott doesn’t hate his daughters:

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you think Tony Abbott hates his wife and daughters as a misogynist?

    JULIA GILLARD:

    I gave a speech about this in Parliament as you might be aware and I said what I wanted to say, and said what I wanted to say about sexism and misogyny. I stand by every word of that speech and as I indicated in that speech, when I see sexism or misogyny, I’ll call it for what it is.”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/now_that_is_real_hate/

    The most plausible explanation of the misogny row is Gillard’s misandry.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9614172/Australian-misogyny-row-leads-to-dictionary-definition-change.html

  22. Did you know?

    That life evolved and thrived under carbon dioxide levels vastly higher than current levels and have done so for most of the history of life on this planet.

  23. Hi Anthony

    You might like the illustrations that I have prepared which come close to some of the points you mention for you new project but I don’t have a URL for the story so I ned an email adress to send you the text with illustrations.

    besat Ed

  24. did you know that the last 100 years warming is well within natural variability

    and that 2004 shouldn’t be on this slide because the temperature record is smoothed over 300 years

  25. When I was first looking for information on the CO2 “pollution” question, I ran across a graph that put things into perspective for me. Unfortunately, I don’t have a link. It was a graph/picture that had what presumably was one million dots. Then it showed the percentages of various atmospheric gasses as different color dots. ( In this particular graph, the different gasses were grouped together as different colors ie: water vapor was blue, methane was green, oxygen was red etc ). At the very bottom of the graph, way off on the right, a few itty bitty dots, were the 394 dots that represent CO2. You could barely even see them there were so few. How could those few dots create runaway warming? ( Another idea would be to find a picture of a stadium seating 100,000 people. Color in the percentage of CO2 “fans” wearing one color and everyone else in the stadium wearing another color. If the CO2 fans were randomly spaced in the stadium, I bet you could hardly even find them.)

    All I could think of as I looked at the graphics, was to wonder what all the fuss was about. Good luck on your project.

  26. - the earth has spent the majority of it’s 4 billion year life much hotter than this

    - atmospheric CO2 is low when looked on a geoiloigical timescale

    - ice at the poles is rare

    - keep calm and carry on

  27. Did you know that …

    There are raised sand beaches on the north coast of Greenland dated to be 6000-7000 years old that were formed by the action of ice free open Arctic ocean waves over a long period of time. This contradicts claims that observed Arctic sea ice loss over the past 30 years is “unprecedented” and suggests that recent declines are well within natural climate variability.

    http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

  28. 1 The temperature in Antarctica, apart from the Peninsula, is always dozens of degrees F below freezing. It’s not going to melt.

    2 The temperature in Antarctica, apart from the Peninsula, has been steady for 30 (or whatever) years.

  29. - Did you know global warming alarm does not come from the “greenhouse theory”, but from another theory they never talk about called strong positive water vapor feedback theory?

    You will need a very simple graphic comparing 1 – 1,2ºC from greenhouse theory to 3 – 6ºC form strong positive feedback theory.

    - Did you know greenhouse is a mature theory, but strong positive water vapour theory is pure speculation?

  30. Did you know that:

    – Trees are poor proxies for temperature as several variable contribute to growth rate of which temperature is only one.

    – Arctic ice distribution changes more due to wind and storms than air temperature

    – There is a cyclical trend in the temperature anomolies

    – Due to there being a fourth power in stephen boltzman’s law, anomolies are not useful for comparing temperature trends of cities that are at very different latitudes.

    – Scientists have been surprised at the high rate of hydroxyl creation in the atmosphere which allows the earth to clean itself.

    John M Reynolds

  31. Did you know that according to prof. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

    “We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

  32. - Have you ever asked a climate scientist how many years without a significant warming (compared to models) is needed to falsify global warming alarm?

    A graph of this sort:

    - You should ask.

  33. What is the big deal about climate change, it happens almost as often as breathing in and out.
    insert graph – 5 Mil Years of climate change from URL below

    This figure shows the climate record of Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) constructed by combining measurements from 57 globally distributed deep-sea sediment cores. The measured quantity is oxygen isotope fractionation in benthic foraminifera, which serves as a proxy for the total global mass of glacial ice sheets.

    http://what-when-how.com/global-warming/five-million-years-of-climate-change-from-sediment-cores-global-warming/

  34. climate models can’t recreate the 1000 year warming and cooling cycles in the holocene. so this current warming looks just like the natural cycle

    climateprediction.net removes any simulations from its ensemble ‘forecasts’ that show any drift in temperatures before the doubling of CO2. ie even if the models recreated multidecadel internal variability, the resulting predictions are thrown away

  35. referring to arctic ice rather than global sea ice means you are a) talking about regional climate – interesting but nothing to do with global warming b) cherry picking

  36. Scientists explain that about 93% of their calculated “Global Warming” is being absorbed by the oceans:

    Water had a huge capacity to absorb heat, and the oceans are large: When they explain how much the oceans have warmed up in 55 years (0 to 2000 meters only) the resultant measured figure is that this mass of water has increased in temperature over 55 years by 0.09 degrees C.

    This implies a remarkable degree of precision in measurement now, and even more so 55 years ago when buckets and ropes were the instruments of choice. (Ref Levitus etal 2012)

    Did you know Climate Scientist purport that 93% of Global Warming is going into the ocean?

    And that means the oceans supposedly have increased in temperature by 0.09 degrees C in a 55 year period?

  37. Anthony, presumably you’ll substitute a simpler diagram for the one in the example above?

    Also, from from my perspective as a non-scientist, it is far from obvious that one can conclude _just_ from the logarithmic infra-red response of carbon dioxide that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.

    Finally, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a report claiming that carbon dioxide’s infra-red response is linear. Are such stories common enough to be worth mentioning? I’d have thought that the limited space might better be used in explaining the practical consequence of the logarithmic response – needing to double the previous increase in carbon dioxide to get the same increase in temperature.

  38. Anthony, this is an excellent idea. I wish I’d added it to my “Notes from Skull Island” (here, FYI: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/out-manned-but-what-happened-to-the-science/#comment-760039 ). One suggestion: Be very sure of your facts, and if unsure, hedge your assertions. Similarly, avoid overstatement. Similarly, acknowledge alternative explanations, even silly ones, where they exist. Any errors, overstatements, or omissions, however minor, will be used by the other side to mis-characterize your presentation as a whole. This smear tactic has been used effectively against Monckton, alas.

    Here’s an example: You wrote, “This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on earth.” But that’s a bridge too far. Warmists claim the runaway effect will be an indirect, knock-on effect of higher CO2 concentrations, not a direct one.

  39. solar activity has risen in step with the last 100 years temperatures (not exactly, but sunspot number is just a proxy for any number of effects solar variability coud have on the earth’s climate).

    clouds are the most important and least well known feedback mechanism. the current CLOUD work at CERN shows this important variable is being taken seriously but until we know it a lot better, climate models are incomplete

    i defy anybody to look at the actual temperature record for the last 100 million years at a number of different timescales and still believe we are somehow heading into unkown territory

  40. gymnosperm says:
    October 20, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Water can exist as a vapor at any likely atmospheric temperature. One major route of snow loss is sublimation, even at temperatures well below zero °C, i.e. solid going directly to vapor (gas). Which is one reason why you can’t count on measured snow depth as necessarily becoming runoff that could provide for agriculture or domestic use.

  41. Did you know that some authors of the IPCC climate assessment report are active members of Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defence Fund (to name a few)?

  42. Probably not the sort of thing you are looking for:

    Did you know that Al Gore has made an awful lot of money out of global warming?

    Did you know James Hansen was awarded $250000 by the Heinz foundation for his work on global warming? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Award

    Did you know Carter Roberts, the CEO of the US branch of the World Wildlife Fund, was paid a total of $455,147 in 2009? http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/28/the-enormous-ceo-salaries-behind-earth-hour/

    Did you know the Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference? http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

  43. I like this idea. My suggestion is to keep this rigidly to ONE SLIDE per DID YOU KNOW?

    Each having:

    1. Factual or observed and supported statement that rebuts commonly held myths or propaganda point.

    2. A graphic, graph, or visual that drives it home succinctly.

    Basically point-by-point made slide-by-slide – point PER slide.

    This will also have the benefit of being almost automatically printable page by page for use in one page handouts, brochures and even business cards.

    =8-)

  44. Anthony, in your reply to Gary( October 20, 2012 at 9:09 am) you say
    “The same logarithmic formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane, N2O or CFCs, with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[7]”

    It is true that Wikipedia says this, although I have great trouble trying to follow its link to where an IPCC report actually says it. However, in the first assessment report, Section 2.2.2, the IPCC say

    “The existing concentrations of a particular gas dictate the
    effect that additional molecules of that gas can have For
    gases such as the halocarbons, where the naturally
    occurring concentrations are zero or very small, their
    forcing is close to linear in concentration for present-day
    concentrations Gases such as methane and nitrous oxide
    are present in such quantities that significant absorption is
    already occurring and it is found that their forcing is
    approximately proportional to the square root of their
    concentration Furthermore, there is significant overlap
    between some of the infrared absorption bands of methane
    and nitrous oxide which must be carefully considered in
    calculations of forcing For carbon dioxide, as has already
    been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so
    opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are
    even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in
    concentration”.
    . I can find no update to this information in later Assessment Reports (it may be there but many cross links on the IPCC site seem to fail for me). Can anyone find an update?
    So, although CO2 has a logarithmic effect, methane and nitrous oxide have a square root effect and CFCs have a linear effect.

  45. Anthony:

    In addition to my previous suggestion, I offer this.
    Did you know that each climate model is of a fundamentally different climate system so at most only one of them models the climate system of the real Earth and there is no reason to think any one of them does model the real Earth’s climate system? This is because they each use very different forcing values that are balanced by completely different aerosol forcing values.

    The information can be referenced to
    Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007

    Kiehl’s Figure 2 shows the pertinent information and, thanks to Bill Illis, it can be seen at

    Richard

  46. Did you know that around 1980 7 Pinatubos worth of man-made SO2 entered the atmosphere and because of clean air legislation that dropped to 6 Pinatubos worth of SO2 by 2000, and has been climbing since due to China/India coal power plants?

    One less Pinatubo’s worth of SO2 should warm the earth by .5C. More SO2 after 2000 should stop the warming and in fact temperatures have been flat.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/are-we-cooling-the-planet-with-so2/

  47. Did you know that CO2 by itself causes only 1 degree of warming for a doubling. Any further warming depends upon water vapor which has been going DOWN since 1950.

  48. did you know that the Russians were using the Arctic NE passage commercially from the 1930′s – 1980′s .

    I believe in the last few years it has been blocked on and off.

  49. “This means that a runaway ….is not possible on earth”
    This is not true:
    let’s take an example;
    x=sun irradiation =1=constant
    x1=greenhouse forcing
    T=earth equilibrium temperature
    T=sqrt(x+x1) (in some appropriate unities)
    let’s have a logarithmic feedback: x1= a*ln(T)
    If a=0 we have T=1
    But if a=43 we obtain T=10
    With a=2.2 we still obtain T=1.1(10% increase in temperature )
    I have no idea of the actual value of the parameter ‘a ‘,but the logarithmic nature
    of the feedback does not protect against a tremendous warming.
    PETM (some 55 My ago) is a probable example of such greenhouse “runaway”

  50. Did you know:

    That if Global Warming was really happening, Phil Jones wouldn’t have had to have fiddled the figures to try to ‘prove’ it was happening?

  51. Did you know that

    1. Geologically three were much higher levels of CO2
    2. CO2 only begins to produce toxicity at about 25000 ppm
    3. CO2 is plant food: plants use CO2 to produce glicose
    4. Farmers raise artificially CO2 levels up to 1200 ppm in greenhouses to get bigger plants

    http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/04/os-niveis-de-co2-em-perspectiva.html

    5. Cold kills more people and for a longer time then heat
    6. More people die in winter

    http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/02/frio-mortalidade-de-inverno.html

    http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/05/mortes-pelo-frio-resumos-de-20-artigos.html

    http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/02/morre-se-de-frio-em-lisboa.html

    http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/02/frio-36700-mortos-nos-uk-em-2008-9.html

    Sorry that the Pages are in portuguese, but then have links to sources and hopefully not all will be dead. No pun intended :-)

  52. Did you know?

    Life exists here on Earth. Humans exist. You exist. Even idiot climate “scientists” exist and live.

    This means that Nature works almost entirely by NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. If positive feedback played even a moderate part in Nature’s workings, the whole shebang would have gone crazy a couple billion years ago. We’d be the moon instead of Earth.

    The idiot climate “scientists” can’t understand this most basic principle of Nature, even though they wouldn’t exist without it. But you can understand it.

  53. I wonder if people like Gary enjoy making themselves look like idiots, next please.

    He can’t help it, poor soul.

  54. Did you know that, green house operators intentionally inject CO2 into their hot houses to improve growth and reduce water demand for their plants. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically increase food production and growth of almost all plants.

    Did you know that the human respiratory system requires the presence of CO2 to function properly. It is the trigger that helps your body regulate breathing. CO2 is not a poison it is a requirement for life on a green planet.

    Did you know that the clouds of vapor rising from these towers (show picture of cooling towers) is harmless water vapor not smoke. These cooling towers, and similar roof top cooling systems use evaporation to cool water for the air conditioning systems and process cooling in office buildings,industrial plants and factories.

    Did you know that the output of a climate model is not “data”. It is a calculated number based on a complex mathematic formula which includes a large number of values which are nothing more than educated guesses by the researchers who built the model. NONE of the current climate models can be started with the known conditions of a previous year and accurately calculate the actual weather and climate at some later date greater than about 2 weeks in the future of the starting point.

    Did you know that the real world operational errors in modern temperature measurement equipment used for calculating the global average temperature substantially exceed the current estimates of recent changes in global average temperature. That means that there is no way to know if the changes in calculated global average temperatures are real or simply random noise or errors in the measurement.

    Did you know that temperature measuring systems used for most of our global average temperature calculations were never intended or designed for that usage? They were designed to measure the atmospheric conditions on hot concrete runways so that pilots can properly adjust for changes in atmospheric conditions which result in major changes in safe aircraft take off and landing speeds. They are not “weather stations” they are really aircraft flight safety equipment.

    Did you know that a poorly placed thermometer can give temperature readings which are several degrees hotter than the real local average temperature due to simple things like being placed too close to a paved parking lot, being located where sunshine reflecting off a nearby buildings windows heats the thermometer temperature enclosure at certain times of the day, or being down wind of a heat source like a window air conditioner.

    Did you know that historically the driest periods in earths history are during the ice ages when it is cold and dry, not when temperatures are warmer than average. Hot air actually holds considerably more moisture than cold air.

    Just a few off the top of my head.

    Larry

  55. A simple graph of temperature versus CO2 from 1900 to the present would amply demonstrate that the two measurements are not correlated.

  56. the scary predictions from climateprediction.net took a number of poorly known variables (parametrizations) and estimates of the upper and lower bounds they could take. they then ran thousands of climate models with a mixture of high/low/medium for the parametrizations.

    the resulting temperatures after a doubling of CO2 they mistakenly implied was a probability distribution function. what they actually calculated was an error bar.

  57. The current volume of the Greenland ice sheet is about 5 million km^3.

    The current melt rate is around 230 gigatonnes (Gt) of ice per year:

    This equates to about 0.005% of ice mass loss per year.

    At the current rate, it would take 1,000 years for the Greenland Ice Sheet ………
    ………..to lose 5% of its volume.

    (OR to lose 10% of its volume… see below)

    (very roughly a Km^3 = 1 Gigatonne)
    Note: Total Volume: – note discrepancies in ice volumes: Total volume of ice contained in the ice sheet: 2.931 x 10^6 km^3 (Bamber et al. 2001)
    OR 2.5 to 5.2 x 10^6 km^3 (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml)

    Loss estimates (more agreeement):
    220 km3/year “Greenland Ice Loss Doubles in Past Decade, Raising Sea Level Faster”. (Jet Propulsion Laboratory News release, Thursday, 16 February 2006.)
    239 km3/year (Science Nature)

  58. Did you now that if the earth were perfectly smooth and spherical it would be entirely covered by ocean several miles deep?

    Bear that in mind if you have any doubt that this is a watery planet and that water is by far its most important constituent part.

    Did you know the average depth of the oceans?

    Average depth in feet …………………… Area in Million Sq Miles

    Pacific ……. 15,215 ……………………………….. 64 million
    Atlantic …… 12,881 ……………………………….. 33 million
    Indian ………13,002 ……………………………….. 28 million
    Southern ….15,000 …………………………………..8 million
    Arctic …………3,953 …………………………………..5 million

    The Arctic is BY FAR the shallowest of the oceans more accurately described in the past as “The Great Polar Basin”.

  59. Did you know ? : That as far as actually observed measured values for CO2 in the atmosphere; we only have data from 315 ppm to just under 400, and none of that data fits either of the two model graphs in the first example; nor does it fit any straight line.

    Did you know ? : That when a cloud passes between you and the sun; it ALWAYS is cooler (lower Temperature) in that shadow zone, than out of the shadow zone; it NEVER heats up in the shadow zone.

    Did you know ? : That H2O and CO2 and O3 (ozone) absorb MORE incoming SOLAR energy, so it never reaches the surface, than they absorb long wave outgoing infrared, energy emitted from the surface.

    Did you know ? : That when floating sea ice melts, the sea level actually goes down; it does NOT go up. Most of the heat energy to melt the ice; 80 calories per gram, comes out of the surrounding water which cools and shrinks, lowering the sea level.

  60. Did you know, what old german encyclopedias tell about the average temperature in cities?

    Prag (Praha)
    Pierer Lexikon 1857 : 9,5° C
    Today: 9,4° C

    Bremen (Germany)
    Meyers Universallexikon 1911 : 8,7°C
    Today : 8,7°C (Bremerhafen)

    Venice:
    Pierer 1857 13,6°C (10,88°R)
    Today : 13,5°

  61. 3 If you took five reams of copy paper (2500 sheets) and stacked them atop one another, the upper sheet would represent the percentage of CO2 in the air. And man’s contribution to that sheet would be a small slice of it. And your country’s contribution to that slice would be a similarly small slice. And your country’s costly mitigation efforts would reduce that small slice and a yet smaller slice.

    4 CO2 isn’t a “pollutant,” in the common meaning of that term. Submariners live in an environment up to five or ten times richer in CO2 than we do, without ill effects.

    5 Plants like and need CO2. It’s commonly added to commercial greenhouses.

    6 The world has been “greening” in recent decades, and most deserts contracting, thanks primarily to increased CO2.

  62. Did you know that the Sept 19, 1955 issue of Life magazine ran a Story title “forests aflame in the US; Pacific Coast timberlands are charred by worst fires in 30 years.” The reason cited: “abnormally hot weather.”

    jvp

  63. Did you know that famed environmentalist James Lovelock (“Gaia”) has reported that senior climate scientists say different things to their friends than what they say to the rest of us?

    “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

  64. Did you know that while open water absorbs up to 90% of the solar energy that strikes it the average is much less, just as the average amount of sunlight that is reflected by ice covered arctic sea water is much less than the upto 90% we hear about. Did you also know that open water in the Arctic night radiates more energy spaceward than sea ice covered water. Did you know, that while sea ice conducts thermal energy better than sea water does, open water radiates from the surface, while sea water under the ice has to radiate through all that ice. The sea ice and snow acts like an insulator… think igloo.

  65. EVIDENCE CONSENSUS Scientific Understanding
    Stratospheric water vapour from CH4   Strong   Insufficient   Low  
    Direct aerosol   Strong   Moderate to Insufficient   Medium to Low  
    Cloud albedo effect (all aerosols)   Medium   Insufficient   Low  
    Surface albedo (land use)   Strong   Moderate to Insufficient   Medium to Low  
    Surface albedo (BC aerosol on snow)  Medium   Insufficient   Low  
    Solar irradiance   Medium   Insufficient   Low  
    Volcanic aerosol   Strong   Insufficient   Low  
    Stratoswater vapour not CH4 oxidation   Insufficient   Insufficient   Very Low  
    Tropospheric water vapour frm irrigation  Insufficient   Insufficient   Very Low  
    Cosmic rays   Insufficient   Insufficient   Very Low  

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

  66. Did you know that while the most of the Anthropogenic contribution of CO2 was post WWII, the warming in the early 20th century does not look appreciably different than the latter half.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000

    or just the regression lines

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend

    Moreover while Temperature is supposed to follow CO2 at least in the modern era, we have this:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

  67. Jeremy Das says:

    Finally, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a report claiming that carbon dioxide’s infra-red response is linear. Are such stories common enough to be worth mentioning?

    The claim isn’t directly made, because it could be knocked down, making the claimant look bad (like an alarmist). But the claimant’s audience is not warned about this diminishing danger, and so they make the inference that the response is linear. In effect, alarmists are lying by omission.

  68. 1. Did you know that the East Antarctica Ice Sheet, by far the largest on the planet, has not receded for 3000 years?

    2. Did you know that it has been just as warm as now often in the past 10,000 years of the present interglacial phase? This was especially true during much of the Holocene Climatic Optimum five to eight thousand years ago, but also during subsequent climate cycles such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

    3. Did you know that the earth has been in a cooling trend for about 3300 years, since the Minoan Warm Period? Although cold & warm periods alternate, the longer term trend has been down.

    4. Did you know that it is was much warmer than now during the previous interglacial phase, 130 to 114 thousand years ago, when Scandinavia was an island, the raised beaches of Alaska formed & hippos swam in the Thames at the site of London? This was without benefit of a Neanderthal Industrial Age in Europe.

    5. Did you know that there was an ice age in the Ordovician Period, when CO2 levels were many times higher than now? The sun was perhaps 4% less hot then, but that alone cannot explain the glaciation, given perhaps 7000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, vs present 390, very low by the standards of most of our planet’s history.

    6. Did you know that carbon dioxide is plant food, and that crops and forests flourish when its concentration is higher?

    7. Did you know that climate “scientists” systematically “adjust” raw temperature data higher for recent time frames and lower for earlier decades?

    8. Did you know that, contrary to the hypothesis of CAGW via greenhouse gases, the air is warming less and more slowly than the land? This falsified (in both the scientific and ordinary senses of the term) hypothesis requires just the opposite to occur.

    Would you like more? Sorry for no graphics.

  69. did you know that Hubert Lamb wrote numerous articles and a succession of books on climate in the 20th century – he was the most important climate scientist of his time. Modern climate scientists now reject his life time work, and he is accused of being so wrong that anyone that reads or takes his work seriously is a flat earther (John Mashey, poodle extraordinaire)

  70. Did you know that Harlech Castle was built between 1282 and 1289 on the shore of the Irish sea in Harlech, Gwynedd, Wales. Its water gate allowed the castle to be resupplied by sea.
    From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlech_Castle: “A water gate overlooks a protected stairway of 127 steps that runs down to the foot of the cliffs.[36] In the 13th century, the sea came up close to the stairway, allowing resupply by sea, but today the sea has retreated significantly, making it more difficult to envisage the concept in its original setting.[33]”
    As a matter of fact the sea is now located about three quarters of a mile away on the other side of the Royal St Davids Golf Course.
    How does this square with the contention that sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years?
    Just asking. I really don’t know. If the answer is that the land rose, then what effect does that have on sea level? The Hawaiian islands are relatively small, but there are huge mountains that grew to allow them to pop above the water level. How much sea level rise is geologic as opposed to climate based?

  71. Sorry if this appeared before. Didn’t take the first time:

    1. Did you know that the East Antarctica Ice Sheet, by far the largest on the planet, has not receded for 3000 years?

    2. Did you know that it has been just as warm as now often in the past 10,000 years of the present interglacial phase? This was especially true during much of the Holocene Climatic Optimum five to eight thousand years ago, but also during subsequent climate cycles such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

    3. Did you know that the earth has been in a cooling trend for about 3300 years, since the Minoan Warm Period? Although cold & warm periods alternate, the longer term trend has been down.

    4. Did you know that it is was much warmer than now during the previous interglacial phase, 130 to 114 thousand years ago, when Scandinavia was an island, the raised beaches of Alaska formed & hippos swam in the Thames at the site of London? This was without benefit of a Neanderthal Industrial Age in Europe.

    5. Did you know that there was an ice age in the Ordovician Period, when CO2 levels were many times higher than now? The sun was perhaps 4% less hot then, but that alone cannot explain the glaciation, given perhaps 7000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, vs present 390, very low by the standards of most of our planet’s history.

    6. Did you know that carbon dioxide is plant food, and that crops and forests flourish when its concentration is higher?

    7. Did you know that climate “scientists” systematically “adjust” raw temperature data higher for recent time frames and lower for earlier decades?

    8. Did you know that, contrary to the hypothesis of CAGW via greenhouse gases, the air is warming less and more slowly than the land? This falsified (in both the scientific and ordinary senses of the term) hypothesis requires just the opposite to occur.

  72. Did you know… there is no global temperature?

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

    Abstract:

    Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there
    is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue
    of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of
    local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible
    if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and
    equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the
    results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given
    temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously,
    making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically
    ill-posed.

    Conclusion:

    There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state
    governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics. Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning. Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other extensive thermodynamic properties.

    Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which
    would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes
    in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as
    simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some
    free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data,
    and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.
    The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted.
    Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is
    not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select
    among them.

    The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called
    global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of
    the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible.

    It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some
    special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those
    who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dynamical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly
    encountered.

  73. Did you know that senior officials of the IPCC admit that they are advocating for for wealth redistribution and that it has nothing to do with environmental issues?

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

  74. Did you know that 25% to 33% of Finland’s population died during the Great Famine of 1694 to 1697 caused by severe cold?

    ^ Neumann, J.; Lindgrén, S. (1979). “Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 4, The Great Famines in Finland and Estonia”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 60 (7): pp775–787.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Finland_%281695%E2%80%931697%29doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1979)0602.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477.

  75. Did you know that leading climate scientists reject actual data in favour of artificial models?

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

  76. Did you know that vegetation grows by a process called photosythesis in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere, the Carbon is stored and the Oxygen released?
    Did you know that coal is fossilised vegetation, so all of the carbon in coal was once in CO2 in the atmosphere, at which time growing conditions were evidently ideal since there are still gigatonnes of coal reserves?
    Did you know that the ONLY scientifically proven effect of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased plant growth and higher crop yields, which is why market gardeners increase the level of CO2 in their greenhouses? (Smokey had a link for this)

  77. Did you know the sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 or so years?

    I have often searched for a website that simply gives the best reasons why we are not that concerned with global warming.

  78. 7 The “gold standard” US temperature monitoring network that was recently set up (and not publicized) gives a reading that is one degree F less than the reading given by the stations on which the warming trend is based. This warming bias probably exists in the networks used in other countries.

    8 If the scary numbers you may have heard about the rate of melting in Greenland and Antarctica were true, the rate of sea level rise would be accelerating. Instead, it’s flattening.

    9 The U. of Colorado recently redefined “sea level” as something other than sea level (ocean basin volume), which has had the effect of hiding the decline in the rate of sea level rise.

    ==========
    Anthony, you should keep this thread a “sticky” for WEEKS! MONTHS!!

    And you should post, in a parallel thread, the first drafts of your slide-show, for us to critique. Far better for us to wring out the debatable points, etc. than for THEM to do so.

  79. Did you know that the fact that a model reproduces the data it was created with does not prove the model can predict the future.

  80. ……………………………………………………Evidence…………..Consensus ………..Scientific Understanding
    Stratospheric water vapour frm CH4………Strong…………..Insufficient…………………….Low
    Direct aerosol……………………………………..Strong………….Moderate to Insufficient…..Medium to Low
    Cloud albedo effect (all aerosols)…………..Medium………..Insufficient……………………..Low
    Surface albedo (land use)…………………….Strong……….Moderate to Insufficient…….Medium to Low
    Surface albedo (BC aerosol on snow)…….Medium………..Insufficient………………………Low
    Solar irradiance……………………………………Medium………..Insufficient………………………Low
    Volcanic aerosol…………………………………..Strong………….Insufficient………………………Low
    Stratos water vapour not CH4 oxidation…..Insufficient…….Insufficient……………………Very Low
    Tropospheric water vapour frm irrigation….Insufficient……Insufficient…………………….Very Low
    Cosmic rays………………………………………….Insufficient……Insufficient……………………Very Low

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

    also emailed word doc

  81. 1. Did you know that the East Antarctica Ice Sheet, by far the largest on the planet, has not receded for 3000 years?

    2. Did you know that it has been just as warm as now often in the past 10,000 years of the present interglacial phase? This was especially true during much of the Holocene Climatic Optimum five to eight thousand years ago, but also during subsequent climate cycles such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

    3. Did you know that the earth has been in a cooling trend for about 3300 years, since the Minoan Warm Period? Although cold & warm periods alternate, the longer term trend has been down.

    4. Did you know that it is was much warmer than now during the previous interglacial phase, 130 to 114 thousand years ago, when Scandinavia was an island, the raised beaches of Alaska formed & hippos swam in the Thames at the site of London? This was without benefit of a Neanderthal Industrial Age in Europe.

    5. Did you know that there was an ice age in the Ordovician Period, when CO2 levels were many times higher than now? The sun was perhaps 4% less hot then, but that alone cannot explain the glaciation, given perhaps 7000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, vs present 390, very low by the standards of most of our planet’s history.

    6. Did you know that carbon dioxide is plant food, and that crops and forests flourish when its concentration is higher?

    7. Did you know that climate “scientists” systematically “adjust” raw temperature data higher for recent time frames and lower for earlier decades?

    8. Did you know that, contrary to the hypothesis of CAGW via greenhouse gases, the air is warming less and more slowly than the land? This falsified (in both the scientific and ordinary senses of the term) hypothesis requires just the opposite to occur.

    Apologies if you already received this. Am having trouble logging on from South America.

  82. Did you know that despite millions of man-hours spent in attempts to prove rising CO2 levels are a result of petroleum-based combustion by humans, it still hasn’t been established to a consensus level?

  83. Did you know that (dates vary a little according to the source) the Laurentide Ice Sheet covered essentially all of what is now Canada, and much of what is now the United States Of America, from around 120,000-90,000 years ago up to around 12,000-20,000 years ago, and that the sheet was up to 2 miles thick around what is now Quebec, and was up to 1 mile thick in what is now the Chicago area? One graphic version of the sheet here: http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/17222laurentideicesheet.jpg
    One explanation of the ice sheet here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

    Optional questions…
    Question1: Was it a bad thing that the ice sheet (AKA a glacier) melted?
    Question2: Did mankind have anything to do with its melting?

  84. “””””…..NetDr says:

    October 20, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Gary

    You must be poorly informed as the logarithmic relationship of CO2 is known by all but small children. Please read before you post …..”””””

    And I must be a small children. A logarthmic relation for CO2 means going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm gives the same Temperature change as going from one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere to two molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere. The logarithm is a very well defined function for positive real numbers.

    There’ is NO experimentally measured data, that better fits a logarithmic cuve than the linear one (Between 315 and 400 ppm for which we have data) and there’s also no theoretical basis for believing it is logarithmic. The Beer-Lambert law does not apply, since the absorbed energy does not stay absorbed; it is re-emitted at some other frequency range.

  85. Did you know that solar cycles strongly affected the price of wheat in Europe over the last 700 years, and in the USA during the 20th century?

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=price+wheat+solar+cycle&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C15&as_sdtp=

    INFLUENCE OF SOLAR ACTIVITY ON STATE OF WHEAT MARKET IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND
    Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312244.pdf

    SPACE CLIMATE MANIFESTATION IN EARTH PRICES – FROM MEDIEVAL ENGLAND UP TO MODERN USA L.A. PUSTILNIK, G. YOM DIN
    Israel Cosmic Ray and Space Weather Center, Tel Aviv University

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0411/0411165.pdf

  86. Did you know we are all carbon based life forms?
    Did you know that every cell in your body contains carbon that has once been part of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere?
    Did you know that the difference between animals and plants is that plants can make their own food (out of CO2 by a process called photosynthesis). Animals cannot make their own food and have to eat plants (or other animals which in turn eat plants). Without CO2 the plants would die – and soon after, so would all the animals. CO2 is the single gas essential to all life on Earth. Did you also know that the EPA classify it as a pollutant?

    Did you know we are technically still in an ice age? In geological terms an ice age is whenever there are permanent ice sheets on the planet. We have been in the current ice age for about 3 million years. This ice age is punctuated by interglacial periods in which the world warms up temporarily. These interglacial periods occur in a regular pattern about every 100, 000 years. We are in one now. This is a pattern that has been repeated about 30 times as far as we know over the last 3 million years. This current interglacial is called the Holocene.
    Did you that our interglacial is cooler than previous interglacials, although CO2 levels are a lot higher now?

    Did you know that temperatures have increased by only a fraction of a degree Celsius since 1880? Did you know that about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas period,, temperatures rose abruptly by up to ten degrees Celsius within a decade or two?

  87. biological and geological processes naturally strip atmospheres of CO2 and lay it down in mineral deposits. planets full off life will eventually die of cold.

    luckily we humans are getting some of the carbon back out and putting it in the atmosphere. we are #saving# life on the planet and should be thanked for it.

  88. Did you know that a large part of the “measured” warming comes from ill explained temperature adjustments. “Recent audits of surface temperature networks have found that official
    homogenized networks show more warming than the raw temperature data: in Australia +0.9C vs +0.7C per century [1], in New Zealand +0.9C vs +0.3C per century [2], and globally +0.7C vs +0.4C [3] respectively. A recent study by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) also reported a similar variation of +1.09C vs +0.69C between the homogenized ACORN and the non-homogenized WNAWAP networks respectively [4, 5].”

    From a paper “Is temperature or the temperature record rising?” by David R.B. Stockwell dated September 26, 2012

    http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/temp.homogenization.pdf

  89. Did you know that some technology built to combat climate change, can actually change climate?

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html

    Did you know the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding is costing us a fortune and jobs right now and much more in the future no matter who you are.

    http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-0702.pdf

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/09/30/the-epas-endangerment-finding-is-very-endangered/

    http://www.masterresource.org/2012/07/new-science-endangers-epa-endangerment-finding/

    http://www.misi-net.com/publications/APA-0310.pdf

  90. David L. Hagen says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 20, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Did you know that the next ice age will start in about 1500 years if we don’t cause enough warming.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/increased-co2-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=next+ice+age

    Technically the next glaciation or glacial period.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/

    Popularly the next “ice age”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109

  91. Did you know that most the of 20th century warming occurred before 1940, while most of the 20th century increase in CO2 occurred after 1940?

  92. Re “CO2 is not poisonous”, maybe this is strictly true, but generations of coal miners and the crew of Apollo 13 might disagree. CO2 is an asphyxiant and causes suffocation at sufficiently high concentrations (about 200 times normal atmospheric concentrations). Of course human activity is not going to cause an increase of that magnitude.

  93. @stew
    fermi paradox. if the universe is teeming with life, why hasn’t it got in contact?
    one potential answer is that biological processes which could lead to intelligent life also strip CO2 out of the atmposphere (gas, coal and oil). If this process goes too far before an intelligent species arises to put it back, then CO2 disappears and so does life.
    I’m going for a drive to save the planet.

  94. Did You know, that during my 100 km-drive home on Christmas two years ago, temperature fell from +5 C to -12 C on the first 30 kms, then slowly rising up to +2 C while reaching my destination. I checked the temperatures later on with the DWD (German weather service) but couldn’t find this big freeze, so I’m sure the thermometer in my brand new car had an initial defect, which mysteriously healed itself later on.

    Did You know, climate scientsts claim their predictions get better, the further the date in future is.
    So I’m really interested what temerature our beloved computer models predict for the year 2525? Or maybe year 10000?

  95. Bill Williams:

    At October 20, 2012 at 11:34 am you ask about Scotland rising from the sea and say

    How does this square with the contention that sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years?
    Just asking. I really don’t know. If the answer is that the land rose, then what effect does that have on sea level?

    You are making an important point pertaining to the request which is the purpose of this thread.

    It is an example of isostatic rebound which causes difficulty in assessing paleo global sea level changes.

    In the last glaciation Scotland was covered in kilometers thickness of ice. The region which is now Scotland sank down under the weight of the ice and SE England rose up (like a see saw). Then the glaciation and the ice melted so it was gone about 10,000 years ago.

    Removal of the weight of ice allowed Scotland to rise back up and SE England began to sink back. This is an example of isostatic rebound. It continues to this day so Scotland is still rising and e.g. London is sinking,

    Geological effects can be very rapid when an Earthquake occurs but isostatic rebound occurs over millenia. They all alter local sea level at places around the world and they need to be assessed and accounted for when determining global sea level change. The accuracy of this process for paleo data is debatable.

    IPCC AR3 used graphs of northern European isostatic rebound to give a false impression of rapid global sea level change.

    Richard

  96. Did you know that the Romans grew grapes and olives north of Hadrian’s wall……obviously all that co2 from the industrial Greeks ! Sorry no ref. ( Maybe Plimer )

  97. The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear)

    The first derivative of any curve defines a straight line tangent to the curve at each point. The difference between that straight line and the curve itself, over the range of 300ppm to 400ppm, is negligible using an R^2 test. The only real question is what the slope of the line is. When a partial analysis is done, like shown in the graph, the slope is obviously positive and larger than zero.

    As far as I can tell, the IPCC reports have left out one of the feedbacks – the morning temperature inversion. Including that feedback indicates, to me anyway, that the slope is indistinguishable from zero.

  98. Did you know that without positive feedback in temperature then greenhouse warming cannot be harmful?

    Too many mass-market articles on climate change imply or even state directly that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas so must cause warming which will be dangerous.

  99. “The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear) …”

    Actually, the logarithmic curve is a model, not a fact. It is a better model than a purely proportional fit, but the logarithm is not based on fundamental theory. Besides, for the region of interest (say from 300 ppm to 600 ppm), a straight line fits nearly as well as a logarithm so either is a perfectly reasonable approximation.

    ” … as is often portrayed in science stories?
    I haven’t seen this “often” portrayed this way. In fact, the mere phase “per doubling o CO2 ” directly implies a log curve, not a straight line! So that means just about every report is directly assuming that it IS a curve, not a straight line!

    What percentage of the “science stories” out there actually state (or even imply) a straight line ? Can you find some and link to them? Does this percentage constitute “often”?

    This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.

    I don’t see how this follows. What is the proof that this particular model for CO2′s effect will guarantee that the greenhouse effect will not “run away”? It certainly means that CO2′s effect diminishes, but even a diminishing rate of increase (ie a log curve) means that with enough CO2, the warming would go to infinity.

    I am not saying there WILL be run-away warming, but the conclusion seems like a complete non-sequitur based on the data given. (Maybe OTHER data and/or models (eg cloud feedback) will prevent runaway warming, but this slide doesn’t cut it).

  100. Did you know that infrared radiation from from the surface of the Earth can warm carbon dioxide gas molecules in the atmosphere to MINUS EIGHTY DEGREES CELSIUS?

  101. Did you know carbon dioxide is plant food?

    I give plants carbon dioxide for free from my exhaled breath that plants breathe in, and plants exhale oxygen for free that I breathe in for food.

    Plants and people have a symbiotic relationship.

  102. Did you know that the British Courts exposed nine blatant falsehoods in Al Gore’s Academy award winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”?

  103. gymnosperm says:

    Comment on prior slide: Water does not exist as vapor at the temperatures shown for “greenhouse effect due to water vapor”

    Actually, at -20C and 500mb, water vapor over ice is about 2,000 ppm, depending on which formula you use.

  104. Martine,

    I don’t think that the Romans grew grapes north of Hadrian’s Wall, not only because the Picts would probably have objected to such a trespass, but also because it might have been too inclement there. They certainly did grow wine grapes as far north as Lincolnshire, however.

    Another climate proxy are Alpine passes that open up only in warm periods, as confirmed by archaeological finds:

    http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

  105. Did you know some “Climate Scientists” are so attached to, so endeared by, so in love with the CAGW theories that they would be “worried” to learn that the Earth is NOT in mortal danger?

  106. Apologies if others have already covered these, and apologies Anthony for not providing the supporting graphs etc as requested, but I’m off into the Tasmanian wilderness for a week, in an hour or so…..

    Roy Spencer provided a great graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration over time. Scaled 0-100% you can guess what it looked like. He then rescaled 0-10%, 0-1% etc.

    Others have produced graphs showing how global temp matches PDO etc. not CO2.

    Afraid of a 2ft rise in sea level? Afraid of sea level rising at 3mm p.a.? Did you know the sea has already come up 120 metres (about 400 ft) since the last ice age? That’s an average rate of nearly 6mm p.a. Did you know that the current sea level rise started during the 19th century long before any serious man-made CO2 emissions? (both in IPCC report FAQ 5.1) Did you know that the rate of sea level rise has now dropped below 2mm p.a.. (Uni Colorado data)?

    Clouds – Did you know that “Clouds, which cover about 60% of the Earth’s surface, are responsible for up to two thirds of the planetary albedo, which is about 30%. An albedo decrease of only 1%, bringing the Earth’s albedo from 30% to 29%, would cause an increase in the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature of about 1°C, a highly significant value, roughly equivalent to the direct radiative effect of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.” IPCC report Ch.1.

    Did you know that the global warming predicted [I use this word deliberately but you may prefer 'projected'] by the IPCC is nearly 3 times the warming that they claim is caused by CO2? All the rest supposedly comes from indirect effects involving water vapour and clouds, for which there is no actual evidence, and on which even the computer models can’t agree. (from memory, it;s in the last paragraph of IPCC AR4 8.6.2.3).

    re the tropical troposphere hotspot that others have referred to: the diagram of the hotspot is IPCC AR4 fig 9.1, panels (c), (f).

  107. Did you now that there is a theory that states petroleum is not of biological origin. It is not a “fossil fuel”. It is a geologic formation that is hugely abundant.

  108. Did you know that on four major data sets, 1998 is still the warmest year on record?
    (The sets are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2.)

    See the following four sets, each with a mean of 12 samples and note that the 1998 peak is highest.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1995/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1995/mean:12

    Did you know that the air you exhale has 4% carbon dioxide, which is 40,000 ppm CO2 and that this exhaled air can revive an unconscious person via artificial respiration?

  109. One problem with this thread from the get-go is that most people’s knowledge of science is amazingly poor. When a big chunk of the population rejects evolution and can’t articulate what causes seasons and believes in astrology, then pointing out the subtle misconceptions in climate science will go right past most people.

    There is also the problem of worrying about what the “mainstream media” thinks. For one thing, their science knowledge is often also very poor. For another, what constitutes “mainstream media”? Is any pro-CAGW blog part of the mainstream media? Or only major networks & newspapers? Is Fox (surely a major network) exempt from the label “MSM” and if so, by what specific criteria?

    It is easy to find misconceptions, but are the misconceptions truly widespread and truly important? Are the misconceptions deliberate misdirection, or simple ignorance (like belief in astrology or failure to know what causes phases of the moon)?

    I see lots of “did you know?” ideas put forth in the posts that are themselves either so obvious that any scientifically literate person should indeed know them, or that have significant errors (or are at least misleading).

  110. Did you knowthat the Urban Heat Island effect can result in temperatures in large towns being 10degC above those in the surrounding countryside.

    http://www.urbanheatisland.info/

    But that this project has now been shut down (It could have been very useful for assesing the impact of UHI on station siting.)

  111. Did you know that the EPA has declared a naturally occurring, essential atmospheric gas a pollutant. This declaration made in order to gain control of Human activity that produce this gas;
    although nature produces much, much more of the same,chemically identical gas.

  112. alexandriu doru says:
    October 20, 2012 at 10:51 am

    “let’s take an example;

    T=sqrt(x+x1) (in some appropriate unities)

    The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that blackbody radiation is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, not to the 2nd.

    “PETM (some 55 My ago) is a probable example of such greenhouse “runaway””

    CO2 levels were not extreme during the PETM.

    What source do you have to state that the PETM is an example of runaway feedback? Even the warmist NPOV of the wikipedia doesn’t assert that:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petm

  113. did you know GISS estimate temps up to 1200 kilometers from weather stations around the world.
    Amazingly this estimation gives them data with a precision of fractions of a degree,

  114. If all the air above you was compressed into a column of constant pressure and constant temperature, that column would be 5.280 miles long (8.498 km) at 1 atm and “surface temperature”. (This value is know as the “scale height”.) Of that column, CO2 at 350ppm would be about 9.76 ft.

    27,880 ft * 0.00035 = 9.76 ft

    At the same temperature and pressure, the amount of CO2 on Venus would fill a tube about 312 miles long.

    http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html

  115. Did you know the official historic temperature record supplied by NOAA is not based on measured temperatures? The true measured temperature readings that they’ve gathered have been altered, changed, falsified. ADJUSTED

  116. did you know that prairies grass has adapted specifically to withstand droughts, but when there is a drought nowadays in the US it is proof of a AGW.

    Lands typically referred to as “prairie” tend to be in North America. The term encompasses the area referred to as the Interior Lowlands of the United States, Canada and Mexico, which includes all of the Great Plains as well as the wetter, somewhat hillier land to the east. In the U.S., the area is constituted by most or all of the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and sizable parts of the states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and western and southern Minnesota. The Central Valley of California is also a prairie. The Canadian Prairies occupy vast areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

  117. Did you know that 99% of politicians repeat what their leader says without checking for themselves. Check by asking any of them any of the above did you know comments.

  118. Did you know that the deserts are greening due to increased CO2?

    Plants need less stomata to breath when CO2 is higher. This means they lose less water through transpiration and can survive in drier climates. The greening of the Sahara has been observed by NASA.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

    Video interview of a researcher who has visited the same spots in the Sahel zone for decades and never saw as many plants as now.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/03/der-spiegel-the-ground-zero-of-climate-change-is-becoming-green-expanding-sahara-is-a-myth/

  119. Did you know the life of an ozone molecule is about 30 minutes? (NASA website)

    Did you know that 98% of incoming UV rays are absorbed by O2 not ozone? (Mrs.Harrison fifth grade), (O2 absorption spectrum)

    Did you know one of the causes of the ozone hole over Antarctica is that ozone will not form below certain temperatures? (WUWT)

    Did you know that ozone formation is proportional to the angle of incidence of incoming sunlight. The further from the vertical the lower the rate of ozone formation… morning low, noon high, Evening low. The nearer the poles lower, the nearer the equator higher. Picture a big target with proportionally less ozone as one moves toward the outer rings. (Geometry, Mrs. Tidwell )

  120. Climate hanky panky; the moving gif in;

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/ushcn-2-5-new-temperature-cheat/

    there is similar stuff for noaa, and others.

    James Yogi Bear Hansen, (it must be the hat); part of New York is meant to be under water.
    and that graph where co2 is going up at 45 degrees but temperatures are horizontal

    Tiljander

    Yamal

    Santer not Santa

    Goodbye to sunspots and all that that implies Penn & Livingston & Svalgaard

    and there’s that lovely graph that shows the sun magnetism doing a sine wave, but for the last few years it has given up on the sine wave thing and is nearly going in a straight line.

    and dependant on your audience, if you want to scare them, the next glaciation started in 1998 (David Evans ?)

  121. Did you know that measuring sea level rise is not at all a simple task?
    Sometimes apparent sea level changes are actually due to changes in elevation of the land, not changes in sea level (give examples such as Harlech Castle, Venice, ancient Roman sea ports that are now land locked. Give reference to sudden land subsidence in the Alaska Good Friday earth quack and Japan’s recent Tsunami quake.)

    Did you know that there are historic high tide markers around the world which show no detectable sea level change in over 100 years?

    Did you know that local sea level can change by inches or feet simply due to changes in the wind direction? Great storm surge in Britain’s 1953 North Sea flood

    Did you know that the “name small pacific island of choice” is not sinking.
    Attach picture of the fresh water lens that forms in a pacific coral island which if over pumped by residents causes sea water intrusion into the local water supply.

    Show example of coral reefs that grow vertically in step with sea level changes (and have for thousands of years) or they would not exist.

    Did you know that sea level has risen hundreds of feet since the end of the last Ice age and humans have had no problem adapting to those very slow changes?
    Show image of continental shelf and sub sea level terrain with river gorges over what were in ice age times vast areas of habitable land.

    Larry

  122. during the last glaciation the cooling oceans absorbed so much co2 that co2 levels fell to 180ppm, plants stop growing at co2 levels of 150ppm and there are people suggesting we capture and bury co2 ?!
    is that really a good idea given that the average interstitial lasts 11,500 years which we have now had.

  123. Did you know that there is another naturally occurring odorless, colorless substance that has literally killed millions of Humans. Yet is ignored by the EPA. This dangerous substance is not a toxin per se. Yet it is a constituent of many highly toxic substances. Historically this chemical has killed Humanity by the shipload. The Chemical: dihydrogen monoxide.

    http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

  124. That is dihydrogen monoxide is ignored by the EPA for it’s danger. The EPA does indeed pay attention to it.The EPA watches what we mix with it.

  125. Did you know that less than 20,000 years ago the ice covering the Seattle, WA area was thicker than 5 Space Needles ~~ about 3,412 feet; more than 1 kilometer. As that ice and other land ice melted the sea level rose by almost 400 feet; about 120 meters.

    Quick note with small graphic here:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/tour/geology.html

    Better text here:

    http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?displaypage=output.cfm&file_id=5087

    Full description here (see Fraser Glaciation a page or so down):

    http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_ice_sheets.html

    Another map here showing location of Seattle with ice depths:

    http://flightline.highline.edu/jloetterle/153F05pdfs/G153_FieldGuide.pdf

    Photo of Space Needle here:

    Post-glacial sea level chart here:

  126. This one fits well with Richdo’s contribution at October 20, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Did you know that the two most northerly ice cores, (of nine in total) taken from Greenland (which are used to reconstruct past temperatures), show that there was no ice cap at those locations 3500 and 4000 year ago?

    Centre for Ice and Climate
    Niels Bohr Institute
    University of Copenhagen

    http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/

    [Click the interactive map, top right -camps Hans Tausen and Flade Isblink]

  127. Did you know that in addition to global warming, Al Gore also invented the internet?

    Ok, ok, I’ll try to think of something more serious =P

  128. Did you know that malaria was one of the diseases suffered by builders of the Rideau Canal built after the War of 1812 as a strategic defence waterway from Ottawa, Ontario to Kingston on Lake Ontario. Yellow fever was also reported.

    http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=Rideau%20canal%20malaria%20and%20yellow%20fever&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA

    So much for malaria expanding into more northerly climes with global warming (of <1C). The period was still coming out of the Little Ice Age, too. What happened to a colder N. American malaria – I suppose draining standing water and insecticides probably helped irradicate it.

  129. Did you know that while the Arctic set a record low for sea ice amount last winter, two weeks later the Antarctic set a record HIGH for sea ice amount?

    See your sea ice page.

  130. Did you know?….

    Increased moisture in the air is a coolant? As the evaporation process takes place moisture absorbes heat and the resultant vapour transports heat away from the abject that is wet and now drying. Lookup the “coolgardie fridge”.

    Experiment with wet (not dripping) Towels hanging on the inside of a car’s doors (jammed by the closed doors) and slightly open windows (about 2 inches) on a sunny day.

    It’ll be tropical humid in there but cooler than the car next to it that in not using the evaporative cooling effect.

    Try it for yourself. Your own little greenhouse and greenhouse gas expriment.

  131. Did you know that reported increases in US temperatures since 1900 are largely an artifact of “adjustments” to measured temperatures?
    See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/

    This could be illustrated using a split graphic that plots the ushcn cumulative adjustment by year in one pane (ref: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/monthly-global.png) with smoothed raw and adjusted temperature in the other pane (ref: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif)
    The linked graphs are just illustrative. It would be preferable to use the v2.0 data set and present the data in C for consistency with other figures.

  132. Jon Salmi says “A simple graph of temperature versus CO2 from 1900 to the present would amply demonstrate that the two measurements are not correlated.”

    Evidently, Mr Salmi, you never bothered to plot such a graph, though to do so is extremely easy. Here’s one:

  133. Did you know that not a single model used by the IPCC successfully predicted temperature variations between 1997 and 2012? Related: Did you know that averaging multiple wrongs doesn’t make a right?

  134. Did you know that our current warming period is the sixth to the warmest in the last 10,000 years? In order from warmest to least warm: the Holocene Climate Optimum, Egyptian Warming, Miocene Warming, Roman Warming, Medieval Warm Period, and current warm period. Each warm period was not as warm as its predecessor, and our current interglacial period, the Holocene, is much cooler than its predecessor, the Eemian of 125,000 years ago.

  135. Did you know that Venus has more than a quarter-million times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth, and receives about twice the solar energy? The “runaway Venus” comparison is not realistic.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  136. Did you know that an article in the Oct. 16, 1998 issue of Science showed America to be a net carbon sink, based on higher concentrations of CO2 over the North Pacific Coast than the North Atlantic Coast, with the prevailing winds blowing West to East?

    Peter Huber has written about this little-publicized study in a number of articles and in his book, The Bottomless Well.

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0405/6307126a.html

    Huber has received a lot of dismissive criticism over this claim and there are later studies that dispute it. In his Feb. 2000 Manhattan Institute debate with Bill McKibben, he stated that the later studies were based on inventories of CO2, and that there were a lot of ways to miss inventory. The debate can be downloaded as an MP3 here:

    http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/events_audio.htm

  137. Did you know that there is no empirical data to prove that adding C2 to the atmopshere from current levels causes global temperatures to rise?

    Did you know that there is no CO2 signal in any temperature/time graph?

  138. Did you know your skin experiences air temperature via atmospheric molecules colliding with you? Did you know that for 2,500 collisions between your skin and a molecule of air, approximately one will be from a CO2 molecule?

  139. Is Fox (surely a major network) exempt from the label “MSM” and if so, by what specific criteria?

    Fox is most definitely MSM, and they most definitely toe the line w.r.t. climate change on average. They do, however, offer up counter points on occasion that other MSM outlets tend to ignore. The only people that think Fox is in the tank for the Republican Party in the US are those that don’t actually read their webpage or watch their news (or understand the difference between analysts and reporters).

    Mark

  140. to impress the lay person anthony, try

    Did You Know -

    the hypothesis of manmade global warming relies on just 3 manmade temperature data sets, not raw data:

    UM Met Office: Results for surface temperature
    Overview
    Met Office scientists have compared the three datasets. The long-term trends and large-scale patterns of temperature are similar, but the three analyses do not agree on all the details. These differences arise from slight differences in source data and the different choices made by the three centres in processing the data.
    Met Office-CRU (HadCRUT3): Data are averaged on to a regular grid. Where there is no data, the grid boxes are left empty.
    NCDC (NOAA): Data are averaged on to a regular grid. Where this is no data some of the gaps are filled by interpolation, in a way which is consistent with the surrounding observations.
    GISS (NASA): Data are interpolated over much wider regions where none is available (such as the oceans and near the Poles) to a maximum distance of 1200 km.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring

  141. For this to work you could only display known scientific facts and with so many people like Gary around they would need to be bullet proof.

  142. Did you know?

    “There is a credible risk that the Earth will be attacked by aliens within the next hundred years, perhaps as soon as ten years from now. Because no evidence has been uncovered to refute this theory, then there is a high probability that it is true.

    In light of the virtual certainty that there will be an attack, and due to the tragic consequences if we do not take preventative measures – even if you believe the probability of an attack is low – we must all change the way we live and devote significant resources to warding off this threat.”

    Explanation: The theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is no more valid than the theory of an alien invasion, discussed above. Both theories violate the Scientific Method, whereby observations or evidence must support a hypothesis (theory) before it can be accepted. The absence of proof that a theory is wrong does not make it right.

    (The above needs some “word smithing” but hopefully you get the gist. I was reminded of this issue when a recent caller to a radio show said that he knew CO2 was a dire threat because he hadn’t seen one study that supported the theory that it wasn’t. He had it backwards.)

  143. Did you know that large scale ocean circulation is not a heat engine?

    That is, it is not driven by temperature and salinity differences between different parts of the oceans, but by pure mechanical energy input, supplied by internal waves due to tidal breaking and surface wind stress (mostly over the Southern Ocean), causing intermittent deep turbulent mixing over restricted regions at some continental margins and/or over rugged bottom features.

    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
    Vol. 36: 281-314 (Volume publication date January 2004)
    DOI: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.36.050802.122121
    Vertical Mixing, Energy, and the General Circulation of the Oceans
    Carl Wunsch and Raffaele Ferrari
    see also: citations of this paper

    The following humble note in the review is a killer blow to GCMs (computational General Circulation Models) in itself: “little is understood of the physics that controls where, how often, and with what properties (depth, temperature, etc.) convection occurs”

    That’s how settled the science is.

  144. Have you heard of water vapour positive feedback?
    If you were not aware, water vapour positive feedback IS the theory of CAGW yet the MSM never mentions it. Its how the computer models turn 3.7w/m2 (1.2 deg C)of warming into 14w/m2 (for 4 deg C.) The reason its not mentioned is that observations show it doesn’t exist as water vapour in the upper troposphere is decreasing instead of increasing (where CO2 is supposed to have the greatest effect)

  145. 10 “The science is settled” about only half of global warming, the easy half. 97% of scientists agree that there’s been some warming since 1950, and that some or most of it is due to increased emissions of CO2. And they agree that continued emissions will raise the global temperature by about one degree C by 2100. What’s unsettled is the climate’s sensitivity to this rise—whether there will be positive feedbacks that will amplify this trend, or negative feedbacks that will dampen it. In other words, settled Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) doesn’t necessarily imply Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

    11 The imposition of a modest paywall on a scientific paper that is the topic of discussion on a WUWT thread is sufficient to prevent any of its thousands of readers from quoting it, except for the free press release and abstract. (Unless a free duplicate is located elsewhere online.) This would not be the case if any WUWTers were funded by Big Oil.

    12 Fox News has not pushed skepticism about global warming.

  146. Did you know that all the models show that there is no chance of dangerous SLR for the next 300 years. In fact these two graphs from the Royal Society show Antarctica is negative for SLR until 2300.

  147. Did you know that the IPCC has consistently failed to perform it’s scientific duties as specified by the UN charter on which it was founded?
    The IPCC was supposed to produce two reports known as Majority and Minority(for and against) report using two separated working groups. This is to satisfy the scientific method’s demand for “equal consideration of both thesis and antithesis”

  148. did you know that water vapor in our atmosphere holds more than 100,000 times the heat that CO2 does?
    latent heat of vaporization does not occur with CO2 on our planet.

  149. Did you know that the purported increase in global temperature in the last 150 years is said to be point 8 degrees but the instruments used for measuring temperature during 70% of that period can only discern the temperature to the closest HALF to ONE degree ?

    Did you know that only one measurement of minimum and one measurement of maximum temperature per day forms the basis of 80 – 90 percent of all global temperature observations ?

    Did you know that we can NOT know the error or variance of any value from ONE observation and therefore almost the entire history of temperature observations are statistically useless ?

  150. Did you know—we are all being ripped off.
    Did you know—That for the billions spent we have nothing to show for it.
    Did you know—$X of your Energy costs go to people on the ‘Gravy Train’.
    P.S.
    Did you know—If we all donated $1 Anthony Watts could produce a World Wide Science Magazine.

  151. Did you know that you can take a Warmist and bang his head repeatedly against a FACT (even ‘facts’ which are acknowledged by all reputable parties in the debate) but that fact will not penetrate due to the great density of Warmists.

    For example the second post on this article….

    Gary says:
    October 20, 2012 at 9:09 am
    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:

    Love it.

  152. Mike Jonas says:
    October 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    “Roy Spencer provided a great graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration over time. Scaled 0-100% you can guess what it looked like. He then rescaled 0-10%, 0-1% etc.”

    Here are Spencer’s charts. The first one shows a normal y-axis:

    Can’t see the CO2? OK, let’s magnify the chart by 10X:

    Still can’t see the CO2? OK then, let’s magnify the y-axis by 100X:

    Ah. There it is. CO2 is actually a minuscule trace gas. So to make the charts scary, they have to magnify them by 100X. Climate shenanigans by climate charlatans.

    [And did you notice the hockey stick rise in the last chart? Look close.]

  153. Append to my item 12 above, “(I.e., not the news broadcasts. The commenters are another mater, although they’ve been mostly silent too.)

    13 About 1/3 of US climate stations show a cooling trend.

    14 The IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers is not in fact a summary, but a slanted interpretation of the Assessment Report it summarizes, written not primarily by scientists but by representatives of governments with an eye to motivating governments to Do Something.

    15 If Europe and North America cut their emissions in half, and the rest of the world continued along its current trend (which it will do unless compensated by amounts in the unaffordable trillions), the effect would only be to delay a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by a few years.

  154. Surely you’re aware that C02 at the 1000Mbar range is the only level known for the past several decades. Do you know what the concentrations are at 800, 500, 300 and right on up to the 10mbar levels? No you don’t and you also do not know what effects the full electromagnetic spectrum of outgoing & incoming radiation have on the particle matter above 6 miles, nor do you know what the full range of EMR have on molecular matter within our troposphere.
    Do you know what effects and relationships the Indian dipole, AMOC, NAO, AO, PDO and Antarctic stream have upon out ocean-air circulation?
    Did you know that individuals with smoking high IQ’s do not dream about or pursue the prospects of becoming journalists or climatologists?

  155. Do you know that if you just used the raw temps and global warming was real and serious, before too long (20 years?) it would assert itself without all the machinations to add half a degree to 150 year old trends?

  156. Did you know that current versions of non-equilibrium thermodynamics ignore radiant heat?

    This being the state of affairs, is it not a bit funny to claim climate science was settled? For climate is a prime example of a closed non-equilibrium thermodynamic system, coupled almost exclusively to its (cosmic) environment radiatively (if tidal breaking is ignored).

    Was this review paper cited (or discussed!) by any climate scientist ever?

    Variational and Extremum Principles in Macroscopic Systems
    H. Farkas and S. Sieniutycz, eds.
    Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2004
    The Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics of Radiation Interaction
    Christopher Essex, Dallas C. Kennedy and Sidney A. Bludman

  157. Did you know there is ample archeological evidence that Greenland was much warmer than it is now just a few hundred years ago?
    Examples such as graves hand dug in what is now perma frost, etc.

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-climate-greenland-idUSTRE74T52920110530

    http://paleoforge.com/papers/EnvironArchaeo.pdf

    Ogalvie, A. E. J. 1984. Past climate and sea-ice record from
    Iceland, Part 1: data to A.D… 1780. Climatic Change 6,
    131–52.
    Ogalvie, A. E. J. and Jónsson, T. 2001. “Little Ice Age”
    research: a perspective from Iceland. Climatic Change 48,
    9–52.

    Koch, L. 1945. The East Greenland Ice (Meddelelser om
    Grønland 130, 3). Copenhagen: Kommisionen for Videnskabelige
    Undersøgelser in Grønland.

    Larry

  158. Richard111 says:
    October 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Did you know that infrared radiation from from the surface of the Earth can warm carbon dioxide gas molecules in the atmosphere to MINUS EIGHTY DEGREES CELSIUS?

    I knew it was sub zero C. Do you have a cite for that?

    Did you know that, (if it means anything at all,) the mean temperature of the Earth has warmed ~0.7°C?
    The mean temperature of the Earth is ~15°C.
    So obviously, the temperature has increased by 0.7/15*100%=4.66666%, right?
    Wrong The temperature has increased by 0.7K & the mean temp is ~288K so that’s 0.7/288*100=~0.25%

    Not so scary now.

    Is temperature a useful metric for energy?

    Take the following extreme…

    A sauna is usually between 70°C & 100°C but can be higher. I think the record is in the region of 160°C. That’s air for you and you can survive that for several minutes depending on humidity.

    Don’t try this at home…

    Now jump into water at these temperatures. Oh forgot, except at pressures above atmospheric, water won’t ever exceed 100°C. I think survival above 70°C is measured in seconds.

    So now we know temperature is not a useful metric, where do we go?

    DaveE.

  159. Great idea. Graphics suggestion: feedback loop between sunlight on ocean causing warming, evaporation, convection, latent heat release, condensation, cooling? Or heating causing increased cloud formation thus higher albedo thus cooling?

    Maybe also the incredible negative feedback effect of Stefan-Boltzmann with a fourth power “restoring force” to radiate energy away as system temperature rises. “Did you know that the warmer it gets, the faster it cools?” (I may have this wrong but I hope somebody with better science skilz can help build this out).

  160. did you know that since the first comment this morning, until this comment, the worlds population has increased about 100,000, for 30 years of agw cries of doom this has happened,

    In fact the country to supposedly be hit the first by agw- Africa , has the fastest growing population.

  161. Did you know that the current climateologists think 67 thermometers randomly placed in the USA is sufficient to determine the surface temperature to within 0.1C. But a chemical engineer given 67 thermometers would not be happy making that same claim about a single square mile?

  162. 16 One prominent climate scientist e-mailed a person he thought was an ally, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”—and that shortly thereafter it was gotten rid of, by Michael Mann.

    17 Michael Mann recently addressed a cheering crowd of lefties with the fist-pumping exhortation that “The people, united, will never be defeated.” He’s also a fan of the “environmental racism” thesis.

    18 Hugo Chavez used his ten-minute speaking period at the IPCC’s Dopenhagen climate confab to fill it with an hour-long anti-American rant, which was rapturously applauded by the attendees. Ditto, approximately, for Robert Mugabe.

    19 The IPCC has ignored most of the reform recommendations made by the Inter-Academy Council (IAC).

    20 Georg Kaser’s e-mails to the IPCC and his letter to the head of the Asia working group about the absurdity of the Himalyan glaciers melting by 2035 were ignored.

  163. Here’s my old Pop Quiz, a bit out of date -

    Global Warming Pop Quiz

    1. How many years after a global temperature increase do CO2 levels start to rise?
    a) 10 years
    b) 30 years
    c) 800 years
    d) None of the above. CO2 rises first, causing temperature increases.

    2. Global warming and cooling periods coincide most closely with:
    a) Warming and cooling cycles of the oceans
    b) Variations in the Earth’s orbit and axis tilt
    c) Variations in the Sun’s activity
    d) Greenhouse gas increases

    3. Cities tend to be warmer than surrounding open countryside (UHI – Urban Heat Island effect). Up to how much warmer?
    a) 1 °C
    b) 2 °C
    c) 5 °C
    d) 9 °C

    4. The government determines UHI temperature adjustment for a station by:
    a) How bright the neighborhood lights are in satellite night photos
    b) Systematically comparing with nearby countryside stations
    c) Comparing with satellite temperature measurements
    d) If the thermometer/sensor is in calibration, no adjustments are made

    5. The government surveys stations to look for things affecting temperature readings how often?
    a) Yearly
    b) 5 years
    c) 12 – 15 years
    d) never

    6. Global warming peaked in what year?
    a) 1938
    b) 1998
    c) 2005
    d) 2007

    7. If you grab 1000 air molecules, how many will be CO2?
    a) 30 – 40
    b) 3 – 4
    c) 1
    d) Better than even odds, none.

    8. What percentage of US temperature stations have a “siting” error (proximity to a heat source, etc.) at least 2°C or worse?
    a) 13%
    b) 18%
    c) 22%
    d) 71%

    9. A CO2 molecule can expect to stay in the air how long before a plant eats it?
    a) 3 years
    b) 17 years
    c) 50+ years
    d) 230+ years

    10. NASA reported October 2008 was the warmest October ever. What caused this?
    a) Melting of Artic ocean ice releasing heat into the atmosphere
    b) The start of the new solar (sunspot) cycle
    c) The warm El Niño off the South American Pacific coast
    d) Russia mistakenly sent in a repeat of the September temperatures

    11. Which was the hottest year in the past 100 years for the U.S. ?
    a) 2007
    b) 2004
    c) 1998
    d) 1934

  164. Tim Folkerts;
    but even a diminishing rate of increase (ie a log curve) means that with enough CO2, the warming would go to infinity.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Did you know that earth’s radiance to space increases with T^4 making the statement above utterly ridiculous?

  165. Did you know that rain transports large amounts of energy up and out. 365mm rain a year equal to 1mm every day gives a constant 15W/m2 every hour, every day year round. Many places like Scandinavia has 2mm/day equal to 30W. A few percent change in rain means more than 10 or 20% change in CO2.

  166. Re my items 17 & 18: These suggest that many of those those propounding and applauding the warmist thesis seem to have an ax to grind.

    21 One tree is the shaky foundation for most of the hockey stick.

    22 Papers supposedly supporting Mann’s hockey stick paper were not independent replications. Rather, they either used his flawed statistical methods or his suspect proxies (bristlecones, Tijander, etc.).

    23 The Climategate e-mails reveal that many warmist scientists have reservations about the “strong” warmist theory, but are silent in public about them.

    24 The Climategate e-mails received virtually no attention in the MSM for the first two weeks, and virtually no attention thereafter outside the Anglosphere. Skeptics were unprepared to capitalize on them, and failed to lobby the media effectively. Not the fingerprint of a well-funded, well-organized “denier” machine.

  167. Did you know that the UHI effect in reality means that more heat is radiated.
    Consider the average global temperature do not count the UHI, then the areas subject to UHI must radiate more heat than a calculation based on the global temperature alone.

  168. 1. Did you know that the basis of the 33 degree centigrade “greenhouse effect” is a model where the sun shines 24 hours a day at one quarter power ?

    Page 9 and 34 of – http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Lecture/Lecture_3.pdf

    2. Did you know that the sun is capable of heating the Earth’s surfaces to about 87 degrees C maximum and not minus 18 as climate scientists suggest ?

    Page 11 of – http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf

    3. Did you know that the Moon is heated to approximately 120 degrees C during the lunar day and the Moon has no ‘greenhouse gases” – no atmosphere at all ? Doesn’t this strongly suggest Earth’s Oceans and atmosphere act to reduce the surface temperatures during the time when the Sun is shining – which after all is the only time that matters when talking about heating – and not raising temperatures as suggested by climate science ?

    Page 10 of – http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf

    4. Did you know that every planet in the Solar System that has a substantial atmosphere (Mars excluded as it’s atmosphere is very slight and doesn’t reach 0.1 Bar pressure) has a temperature significantly higher than that calculated by blackbody considerations alone thus proving the calculations used in climate science are incorrect ?

    (All of the planets quoted except Venus and Earth do not have any “greenhouse gases” in their atmosphere and receive radient energy less than ~50 W/sq metre. Planetary facts are supplied by NASA.)

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Rethinking_the_greenhouse_effect.pdf

    5. Did you know that if glass greenhouses heat up by trapping IR radiation (because glass filters and absorbs IR) how do they heat up at all because the Downwelling Longwave Radiation – DLR – would be excluded by the glass and the ~170 W/sq Metre the IPCC claim is shortwave Solar Insolation would be incapable of raising the temperature above minus 39 degrees Centigrade ?

  169. This from CO2 Science Web site;
    “Reference
    Booth, B.B.B., Dunstone, N.J., Halloran, P.R., Andrews, T. and Bellouin, N. 2012. Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability. Nature 484: 228-232.
    Background
    The authors write that “a number of studies have provided evidence that aerosols can influence long-term changes in sea surface temperatures,” citing Mann and Emanuel (2006) and Evan et al. (2009); but they say that “climate models have so far failed to reproduce these interactions,” citing Knight (2009) and Ting et al. (2009). And they consequently note, as they phrase it, that “the role of aerosols in decadal variability remains unclear.”

    What was done
    Hoping to bring some much needed clarity to the subject, Booth et al. used the Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model version 2 (HadGEM2-ES) – which is a next-generation Climate Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) model – to determine whether older CMIP3 models “contained the complexity necessary to represent a forced Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.””

    The Impact of Atmospheric Aerosols on North Atlantic Climate

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N42/C2.php

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I would say this is an admission of someones guilt on current Geo Engineering going on right now.

    My brothers don’t go out on the golf curse much any more, spending their money, because they don’t want to be outside all day under that toxic soup.

    Jet contrail chemicals, JCCs, make what would be an enjoyable day, a sickening day, and their scores are lower because of the poison raining down on them from the sky.

  170. Hmm, sounds like Anthony is going to copy the SkepticalScience model.

    Like this
    —————–
    This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.
    —————–
    I am sure you will be able to provide the same tired old list of debating points which for one reason or another are just plain wrong. Convincing to superficial thinkers but still wrong.

    What’s important in the end is right or wrong, not debating points. With clever debating points you can convince people to wear a body belt filled with explosives and to detonate it in a crowd of people they don’t know. It’s still wrong.

  171. Did you know that average water vapor concentration of the atmosphere has no discernible relation to its IR optical thickness?

    This fact calls into question the so called water vapor amplification, which accounts for most of the warming projected by computational climate models.

    For atmospheric distribution of water vapor is always fractal-like, and average optical thickness of a fractal absorber depend on the fine details of its geometry, not on sweeping averages. Computational climate models, due to their limited spatial resolution, are unable to represent scale invariant features of fractals.

  172. Did you know that the trend for the last 30 years is no higher than a 30 year period about 70 years ago? See

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.58/to:2012.58/trend

    “#Selected data from 1912
    #Selected data up to 1942
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0154488 per year”

    “#Selected data from 1982.58
    #Selected data up to 2012.58
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0151816 per year”

  173. Hi Anthony, as you know I am a skeptic. May I suggest that your first “Did you know” should be

    “Did you know that co2 is a greenhouse gas without which………..”

    I know it’s obvious but it serves to disarm some of those who are convinced you are a ‘denier’ about the warming effects of co2.

    Another did you know could be about the theory of positive feedback runaway warming. Others could be:

    -The missing hotspot being part of the theory.
    -Flat temps for 16 years.
    -Coral island atolls rise with sea levels.
    -Rate of sea level rise flattening since the last post glacial meltwater pulse.
    -The Pacific being populated during the Roman Warm Period???
    -Higher co2 in the past with no runaway warming.
    -Arctic ice free in the Holocene.
    -Higher temps in the Holocene.
    -Co2 rise follows temperature rise.
    -Polar bear numbers up from around 5,000 in the 1950s to over 20,000 today.
    -Antarctic sea ice extent hit a record this year.
    -Soot, wind and currents have affected the Arctic ice extent / volume.
    -Bioshere has in recent decades greened.
    -The Sahel has been shrinking in recent decades
    -Bangladesh has gained land mass in recent decades.
    -Polar bears survived the Holocene Climate Optimum.
    -There are other drivers of climate apart from Co2.
    -Living beings are made up of carbon.
    -Geologically we are at the low end of co2 and cooling in the Holocene.

    I will stop here for now.

  174. Did you know that there was plenty of sea level rise between 0-1900 AD? the IPCC FAQ page says:

    “Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.”

    My answer to this point is there are plenty of physical monuments that were built more than 1000 years ago that can show there was plenty of slow continuous sea level rise since roman times, as I try to show here:

    http://farsouthofi-10.blogspot.mx/2009/10/theodorics-tomb-and-sea-level.html

  175. George

    That is right going from 480 to 960 PPm gives the same warming as going from 10 to 20 ppm theoretically.

    What is hard to understand about that??

  176. By the way Anthony I was once on the Guardian comments and this lady was convinced I was some sort of denier about co2 being a greenhouse gas. I pointed out (as above) words to the effect:

    The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear) as is often portrayed in science stories?

    I also pointed out that water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than co2 while referencing the IPCC and other peer reviewed sources. I didn’t hear from her again and she was a Guardian ‘Super User’. I got a lot of recommendation votes. (a consensus) ;-)

    Just thought I’d let you know.

  177. Did you know according to climate science averages used in the calculations for temperatures of the Earth and energy flows are the appropriate metric ? Do you think a recipe calling for 240 degrees C for one hour would still work if cooked at 10 degrees C for 24 hours ?

  178. What is so strange is that just yesterday I was thinking to myself why doesn’t WUWT create a sort of bullet pointed page (like Skeptical Science!!!!!) which simply puts the known ‘facts’ in an easy to digest manner that clearly and simply puts the sceptics case with a link for further reading.

  179. Just to clarify about the Guardian lady. My response to her was due to a comment she made that

    “co2 by itself can lead to dangerous warming”.
    (I paraphrase)

    She believed this until I showed her otherwise, that’s when I heard no more from her.

  180. Gary says:
    October 20, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Are you deliberately looking for made up psuedo-facts like the one you suggest ,or actual pieces of real information?

    Gary, can you let me know whether the IPCC is “looking for made up psuedo-facts”…….”or actual pieces of real information?”

    IPCC
    Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. ”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

  181. Tim Folkerts;
    but even a diminishing rate of increase (ie a log curve) means that with enough CO2, the warming would go to infinity.

    That’s irrelevant, because you are assuming that CO2 is being added to the bulk of the atmosphere. Since CO2 is replacing an equivalent amount of O2 there is no increase in atmospheric volume, CO2 volume is limited by atmospheric volume and therefore the log relationship CANNOT increase to infinity – it will saturate.

    Anthony: A Couple of takeaways from prof Carter and myself
    Show this right after the log chart

    1. If the temperature rose 0.8 degrees out of the little ice age until now for 100PPM CO2 rise – why is it that governments are claiming up to 2 degrees change for the next 100PPM when each equal rise is supposed to cause less warming than the last?

    2. How much money has the attempted mitigation of a fraction on one degree diverted from the search for a cure to cancer. (Show relationship)

    3. Min 0 Max 40 = average temperature of 20 (Temperate)
    Min 23 Max 33 = average temperature of 28 (Tropical Island)
    Oh S*** were all going to die – it’s 8 degrees hotter in Fiji than Melbourne

    Takeaways When is gets hotter temperature evens out, Mins are higher, Maxes are LOWER we know this from experience or Hotter average doesn’t necessarily mean hotter, it usually means “More tropical” or When it is hotter (Winter Vs Summer, Night Vs Day) is very important, have the Climate brainiacs worked out exactly when in each day/year it’ll be warmer and by how much?

    I’ll try to whip up some graphics in the next few days

  182. Did you know that just a few decades before the Little Ice Age, the climate was warm enough for young peopel to swim in the Rhine River on the Swiss-German border at Schaffhausen the first week of January 1541?
    Reference:
    Pfister C (1995) Monthly temperature and precipitation in central Europe 1525–1979:
    Quantifying documentary evidence on weather and its effects. In Bradley RS, Jones PD (eds)
    Climate Since A.D. 1500, Routledge, p. 118–142
    (No doubt Pfister gives earlier references/original sources.)

  183. James Padgett says:
    October 20, 2012 at 10:06 am
    Did you know?

    That life evolved and thrived under carbon dioxide levels vastly higher than current levels and have done so for most of the history of life on this planet.

    My favorite chart!

    I think you’ll find some of these points in Jonova’s Skeptic’s Handbook: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

    /Mr Lynn

  184. Did you know that the last time CO2 levels were over 600 ppm, there were no continental glaciers even on Antarctica and sea level was 70 meters higher?
    Did you now that the last time CO2 levels were 400 ppm was 20-30 million years ago, ten times longer ago than the start of the ice ages?

  185. Not quite this, but I think a good idea would be to get an FLIR camera and take an infrared picture of all those temperature measuring stations. They should be nearly invisible if they are the same temperature as the surrounding field…

  186. Did you know that due to the weight of the kilometres thick Antarctic ice sheet the Earth’s crust beneath the ice sags, so forming a depression?

    Did you know that the Antarctica (and Greenland) ice sheet collapsing problem does not exist based as it is on Hansen’s incorrect model of the ice sheet sliding along an inclined plane leading to the coast lubricated by meltwater, that is itself increasing because of rising temperatures?

    Did you know ice sheet glacial movement is not dictated by increased meltwater resulting from natural or anthropogenic warming but that its flow or creep is dependent how close the glacial ice sheets’ base is to the freezing point of water and that this temperature is not dependent on the atmosphere but rather it is dependent on geothermal heat? (In this way ice sheet dynamics vary from valley glacier dynamics.)

    Did you know the depression of the continental crust beneath the ice sheet, with its inclined sides turned inwards away from the coast, that slippage of the ice sheet by meltwater towards the coast cannot happen, even if that was the operative mechanism.

    Reference: Based on Ollier, C., November 01, 2007, The Greenland-Antarctica Melting Problem Does Not Exist

    Sorry, cannot find full reference. Try Google: The Greenland-Antarctica Melting Problem Does Not Exist

  187. I believe I made that original chart in the post header almost four years ago.

    In that time, my understanding of the theory has changed somewhat.

    The only thing i would change, however, is that I would make the chart look a little nicer. Its not the best after all. BUT all the data and curves are still valid.

    Andrew Lacis, Gavin Schmidt, Rind, Ruedy, 2010 (the main GISS priests after JamesHansen) confirmed the chart’s principles in: “Atmospheric CO2, Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf

    In my mind, the feedbacks on water vapour levels and clouds are the biggest failing of the theory. In the theory, CO2 controls virtually all of the 21C to 33C greenhouse effect through its feedbacks on water vapour and clouds. The empirical data to date, however, is contradictory and the warmers are not ready to admit that yet (or ever will it seems).

  188. After reading much of the above:

    Did you know

    That there is a lot we don’t know about what changes our climate?

  189. Question.
    If CO2 at concentrations of 400ppm (1/25th part of ONE Percent) is capable of ‘trapping’/amplifying sufficient solar radiation to heat the atmosphere of an entire planet…it stands to reason that at concentrations of 100% CO2 should be able to capture vast amounts of energy. The gas which is the cheap by product of all combustion could be piped through solar type arrays and the captured/amplified heat recovered using conventional heat pump technology.
    Why have scientists/engineers not harnessed this incredible property?

  190. Did you know that CO2 is a trace gas and comprises less than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the atmosphere?

    Did you know that CO2 is vitial for life to exist on this planet?

    Did you know that without CO2 there can be no plants? And without plants there will be no animals? And without plants and animals there will be no humans? Did you know that?

  191. Did you know that an estimated three million subsea volcanoes spew CO2 into the ocean/atmosphere?

  192. Did you know that

    Abstract
    “……………..a radio-collared adult female polar bear in the Beaufort Sea made a continuous swim of 687 km over 9 days and then intermittently swam and walked on the sea ice surface an additional 1,800 km………..”

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24131717

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110720-polar-bears-global-warming-sea-ice-science-environment/

    But about the poor polar bear cubs?

    Abstract
    “…..We describe an observation of a polar bear cub on its mother’s back while the mother was swimming among ice floes in Svalbard, Norwegian Arctic……”

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=22445528

    Did you know that Polar bears will eat food other than seals. They will eat berries, seaweed, Arctic Charr, goose eggs and garbage.

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40508662?uid=3738096&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101176628683

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749101002780

  193. Did you know (Anthony) that this is a really neat idea?
    Did you know I have already learned a great deal just going through this thread?
    Did you know I’m eagerly looking forward to the next step in this project?

  194. Did you know that… the average date for the State record hottest temperatures (50 of them for 50 states in the United States) is an earlier date than the average date for the State record coldest temperatures?

  195. Great idea, Anthony. Having read the suggestions, you might consider doing two versions – one for scientifically literate people (eg science students and practitioners) and one for the general public. I doubt if 1 in 100 people know what ‘albedo’ means, for example.

    Could I suggest some points on ‘renewable’ energy? For example, dyk that to produce the same amount of power as an XGW conventional power plant, you would need Y thousand acres of solar arrays, or Z thousand windmills. And then you would still need the conventional power plant for when they are not producing.

    The recent work on the CO2 footprint of windmills is another possibility.

    The environmental costs of battery-powered cars is another (whole of lifecycle issues).

    I think it is important to address not just the basic science, but the dodgy science underlying the policy responses.

    Thanks for the chance to comment, and best wishes!

  196. Also (maybe?) try breaking up you DID YOU KNOW into sections ie:

    Scientific climate – (Known ‘facts’)
    Consensus – (?)
    Political climate – Government taxes, power, control
    Follow The Money – Oil funding for climate scientists like CRU and Stanford.

    “Follow the money” is what is driving this massive scientific fraud.

  197. MangoChutney says:
    October 20, 2012 at 10:50 am
    Did you know the Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

    it’s more interesting than that, in the Himalayas, Greenland, the Cascades, glacier retreat is in south facing glaciers, while north facing glaciers have retreated much less and in many cases have advanced. Which atmospheric warming can not cause.

    On Mount Rainier the 2 north facing glaciers, Carbon and Winthrop have advanced since 1896.

  198. Did you know that based on this science there are regulations and standards that directly affect product development and design. One such standard for medical devices requires the identification and documentation of environmental aspects and impacts including hazardous substances, emissions to air, releases to surface water and ground water, waste, use of natural resources, energy and raw materials, noise, vibration, odor, dust, electromagnetic fields, transport (material, services and employees), risk for environmental accidents, and the use and contamination of the biosphere.

    Environment impacts include the depletion of natural resources where the examples provided are “fossil fuels or minerals”, another is climate change caused by “Transportation, energy generation, domestic/industrial heating”.

    Every medical device using energy has a Environmental Aspect of energy usage with an Environmental Impact of global warming based on CO2 output.

    Consider the challenges and cost of receiving and documenting this information for every item within a devices Bill of Materials. There is a bright spot however, if the requested information is not available the device manufacture is allowed to estimate the missing information.

    Medical electrical equipment – Part 1-9: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance – Collateral Standard: Requirements for environmentally conscious design

  199. Did you know that Al Gore is an idiot?

    (Sorry. Couldn’t resist. Although proof could be provided in chart form I’m sure!)

  200. I’ve been trying to find references in scientific papers to airplanes dumping aerosols in the upper atmosphere that people don’t know is happening, what are those aerosol chemicals and why are they doing that?

    Possible influence of anthropogenic aerosols on cirrus clouds and anthropogenic forcing
    “and from aircraft that deposit their aerosols directly in the upper troposphere”

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/879/2009/acp-9-879-2009.html

    I found in the studies, “We use sulfate aerosols as a proxy for pollution aerosols”. Why not metallic types of aerosols?
    Anthropogenic aerosols may have increased upper tropospheric
    humidity in the 20th century

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4577/2011/acp-11-4577-2011.pdf

    This is interesting;
    “Present US aerosol concentrations are sufficiently low that future air quality improvements are projected to cause little further warming in the US (0.1 °C over 2010–2050). We find that most of the warming from aerosol source controls in the US has already been realized over the 1980–2010 period.”
    Climatic effects of 1950–2050 changes in US anthropogenic aerosols – Part 2: Climate response

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/3349/2012/acp-12-3349-2012.html

    So much goo reading on anthropogenic aerosols at ACP site.
    Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
    An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/full_text_search.html?q=anthropogenic+aerosols&x=3&y=6

  201. Did you know the whole world has the answer to whether there is any warming at all, or not, through their own experiment in optical & infrared astronomy?

    No heat has been detected or it would be part of the news as inarguable.

    Scientists have had filters and used them to study heat at the earth’s energy level since infrared energy has been known about, basically.

    Did you know the measure of heat on a gas is motion, and that the twinkling of the stars, also known as ‘Atmospheric Scintillation,’ is a direct, visual measurement of that effect?

    Did you know if someone checked photos through various telescopes through time they could find no heat building, leading to more of the stars twinkling, effect?

    Did you know that to offset these effects, telescopes are fitted with multiple motor array mirror flexing apparatus which offset the direct-and-unalterable effect measuring heat in the atmosphere known as atmospheric scintillation? Did you know these electrically and electronically controlled apparatus show no increase in atmospheric heat distortion?

    If they did, do you believe there is some way we wouldn’t all know about these stunning developments in astronomy?

  202. Dr. Jasper Kirkby Explains Prior and Ongoing Atmospheric Geo Engineering by Jet Airplanes

    In the beginning of this video to 21 seconds in, you can see him pointing with his laser pointer to an image example of what cloud patterns look like, that are formed in the sky as a result of, “jets dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere.” Quote is Dr Jaspery Kirkby from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland.

    “There’s plenty of evidence that large regions of the climate are lacking sufficient aerosol to form clouds. Contrails are a well known example of that. These are not smoke trails, these are clouds which are seeded by jets dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere.”

    Full lecture here;
    Cosmic rays and climate

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

  203. Did you know that the oceans are not in the least acidic but decidedly basic. Neutrality on the PH scale is 7 which is neither acidic nor basic. Numbers below 7 are progressively acidic and above are progressively more basic. The oceans average well over a PH of 8 so there is no acidity whatsoever. Measurements of the NRDC confirm this.

    http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/figures.asp

  204. Did you know that the electronic communications fields, radar included as part of homing signal generative returns from them, have noticed zero change in atmospheric response characteristics, with all frequency variance and other weather induced phenomena remaining unchanged in spite of constant claims of ever rising energy in the atmosphere, which must, and would result in, differing radio & satellite communications operational demands, as well as radar responses showing no change?

    Did you know man has had the weather radar data worldwide generated on a daily basis, to tell if the world at large is likely heating

    Why do you think there isn’t a book called ‘our ever warming world’ with photographs of weather radar scopes from their earliest time till now?

    Because there is no change in the responses of weather radar to the atmosphere around they sample, because there is no change.

  205. johanna says:
    October 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Great idea, Anthony. Having read the suggestions, you might consider doing two versions – one for scientifically literate people (eg science students and practitioners) and one for the general public. I doubt if 1 in 100 people know what ‘albedo’ means, for example. [snip]


    I think you are greatly underestimating the audience that attends
    .

    Perhaps you could provide links to information on the 1,700 wind turbines that could replace one small coal fired power plant in a 25% efficiency state, or Wind Farm footprints, or the ultimate environmental costs of battery power.

    Did you know that it takes “net” more energy to produce Corn Ethanol than it provides?

    C’mon, step up and share it!

  206. Did you know that water vapor is a trace gas comprising only four tenths of one percent of the atmosphere? Hard to believe when you see the rain and clouds that are due entirely to this trace gas.

    • Jim,

      The concentration of water vapor in the air varies from very little over deserts hot & cold to 4% over the moist tropics. The global average is closer to the high end of this great range.

  207. ….. likely to raise sea level 15 cm by the year 2050 and 34 cm by the year 2100.
    There is also a 10 percent chance that climate change will contribute 30 cm by 2050 and 65 cm (approx 2 ft) by 2100. ……..

    A two foot rise in sea level (USA) would eliminate approximately 10,000 square miles of land including current wetlands and newly inundated dry land, an area equal to the combined size of Massachusetts and Delaware (EPA, 1989).

    That is an area of 100 x 100 miles. And includes current wetlands.

  208. LazyTeenager says: October 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    “…….Hmm, sounds like Anthony is going to copy the SkepticalScience model……
    …….. What’s important in the end is right or wrong, not debating points.”

    In this case, Lazy makes a good point.

    Jimbo says: October 20, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    “….. why doesn’t WUWT create a sort of bullet pointed page (like Skeptical Science!!!!!) which simply puts the known ‘facts’ in an easy to digest manner that clearly and simply puts the sceptics case with a link for further reading…..”

    I think Anthony plans a presentation.

    But I hope he does not in any way try to copy the Skeptical Science layout; Debate and facts are chopped, categorized and sliced in a manner apparently designed to create a most frustrating read. (Perhaps in the ‘reference page’ on the title bar may work).

  209. 1) Did you know that Arctic ice and snow cover has been retreating for the past 18,000 years, with minor speedbumps along the way like the Little Ice Age? So why are we so concerned about about the last 30 years of retreat? See http://exhibits.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/LP_extinction.html

    2) Did you know that current temperature and ice cover are not unprecedented. See

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

    > Climatic Cooling from 60 million years ago to present day
    >
    > Between 52 and 57 million years ago, the Earth was relatively
    > warm. Tropical conditions actually extended all the way into the
    > mid-latitudes (around northern Spain or the central United States
    > for example), polar regions experienced temperate climates, and
    > the difference in temperature between the equator and pole was much
    > smaller than it is today. Indeed it was so warm that trees grew in
    > both the Arctic and Antarctic, and alligators lived in Ellesmere
    > Island at 78 degrees North.

    [...snip...]

    > The Earth was once more released from the grip of the big chill
    > between 5 and 3 million years ago, when the sea was much warmer
    > around North America and the Antarctic than it is today. Warm-weather
    > plants grew in Northern Europe where today they cannot survive,
    > and trees grew in Iceland, Greenland, and Canada as far north as 82
    > degrees North.

  210. Did you know … that the average annual wind speed at the Blue Hill Weather Observatory south of Boston Massachusetts has been declining for the past 30+ years? From 1880 to 1980 it varied between 14.2 and 16.6 mph. From 1980 to 2011 it has dropped from 15.1 to 12.5 mph. One reason (did you know) is a reduction in severe storms, both nor’easters and tropical storms.

    Anthony – I started writing a post about this in 2010, but had forgotten it was essentially already covered in 2009, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/16/a-few-thoughts-on-the-climate-change-lowers-wind-speeds-study/ I’ll probably finish it and post it next year after the 2012 Blue Hill average is posted. I’ll also try to address some of the questions in the 2009 post.

  211. Judy F. says:
    October 20, 2012 at 10:16 am

    When I was first looking for information on the CO2 “pollution” question, I ran across a graph that put things into perspective for me. Unfortunately, I don’t have a link. It was a graph/picture that had what presumably was one million dots. Then it showed the percentages of various atmospheric gasses as different color dots. ( In this particular graph, the different gasses were grouped together as different colors ie: water vapor was blue, methane was green, oxygen was red etc ). At the very bottom of the graph, way off on the right, a few itty bitty dots, were the 394 dots that represent CO2. You could barely even see them there were so few.

    Exactly what I do when I have this “discussion”.
    First, I explain to them that we’re not talking about “climate change”. The climate has always, is now, and always shall – change. What we’re talking about is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). If they won’t at least admit that, there’s no point continuing.
    I have a php script that puts 100k zeroes on the page. Randomly, 30 of them are blue and 10 of them are red. I explain that this is a 1/10 scale of the atmosphere and the 30 blue zeroes are natural CO2 and the 10 red zeroes are mankind’s CO2 contribution. Now, as we all know, that is a huge exaggeration – but I explain that. That I’m actually over representing CO2 and more than tripling mankind’s contribution and it’s still insignificant.
    Then I go on to explain (as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread) that CO2 only absorbs IR in certain very narrow wavelengths and that its warming potential is logarithmic (thanks for the above graph, very helpful when next I conduct this exercise).
    Then I ask them to explain to me why we should be hysterical about CAGW. Haven’t gotten a decent answer to that question, even from the one’s that bother to try. Most go about doing a little research at places other than the Huffington Post (for a change). Subsequent conversations on the topic are, suddenly, much more pleasant.
    It’s hard – really, really hard – to be a skeptic in the Democratic National Socialist Workers Party Peoples Republic of Maryland. There are skeptics here. But most, like myself, are “in the closet”. We need to be. The vituperative riposte and bile cast at me should I, ever so politely, call into question even the most minor aspect of their dogma is – quite frankly – alarming. We have to remain in the closet to protect our homes from vandalism, our tires from being slashed, or from being physically assaulted. I..AM…NOT…KIDDING.

  212. LazyTeenager says:

    October 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm
    =============
    I never really understood the term “projection”, until reading your comment.
    Now I know.

  213. Here is the Wikipedia link to the State temp. records:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

    I tried to average the dates again (I did it once before) but EXCEL does not handle dated before 1904 properly (I can’t remember how I handled it years ago when I did this the first time to determine for myself that CAGW is BS).

  214. Dear TomB — It would be interesting to discuss with you what else holds you captive there. I think you’d find the other side to be rather friendlier, if nothing else, and in my estimation they are technically correct as well. Drop me a line if you’d like to discuss it; my website is simply my last name with an appended dot com.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  215. VERY GOOD IDEA!
    Thank you Rosco October 20, 2012 at 5:02 pm! I read this years ago and hadn’t found an online reference so I haven’t said it.
    I am looking for another online reference. It was first shown in 1938 by Samuel Ruben and Martin D Carmen using radioactive O16 as a tracer that ALL oxygen released by photosynthesis comes from water and NOT carbon dioxide. The elementary and intro college texts STILL get this wrong! It has been confirmed many times. Detailed charts of photosynthesis in some texts show this. The carbon dioxide is all in structures: carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, etc.
    The great majority (all most people know of) of animals, including humans, react hydrogen and oxygen for energy producing water. Again, detailed charts show this. Again, introductory texts get this wrong.

  216. Hoser, Robert clemenzi,

    I stand corrected. I believe that most of the coluds above 500mb are ice. I was thinking about the difference in absorbtion between ice and water above 8 angstroms.

  217. Anthony,

    I am afraid you have too many responses for me to have time to check if you have these already (so I apologise for any repetition):

    1. The infrared absorption spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide are substantially coincident. Most of the planet’s atmosphere contains substantial levels of water vapour, even over deserts. Consequently the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is minimal in most areas. The atmosphere lacks water vapour only over the highest mountains and the poles. Consequently the greenhouse effect of additional carbon dioxide is largely limited to the atmosphere over the poles and high mountain ranges. Everywhere else it has a minimal greenhouse signal because of the overwhelming (saturating) presence of water vapour.

    2. Over the last 200 million years or so the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been trending downwards from about 2 or 3 thousand ppm. Plants stop growing at about 150 ppm which is not far from where we are today. The dangerous trend that needs to be explained and reversed is not up (as the alarmists claim) but down. At least that is what the idiot “precautionary principle” would strongly suggest!

    I hope these help.

  218. There should be a slide showing how much CO2 is absorbed by the melting of how much ice. This is being completely ignored because the implications are so large. Prof P and I could provide an example-in-principle. Unless an awful lot of CO2 comes out of the oceans or fossil fuels, an ice-free Antarctica would end almost all CO2-based plant life.

  219. I’ve been trying to find references in scientific papers to airplanes dumping aerosols in the upper atmosphere that people don’t know is happening, what are those aerosol chemicals and why are they doing that?

    The main pollutant from airplanes is black carbon.

    This study says that a large reduction in aircraft black carbon emissions would eliminate all warming caused by aircraft. Estimated as 15% to 20% of total warming in the Arctic.

    And note, they don’t seem to take surface deposition of black carbon into account, which IMO is a major factor in Arctic surface warming. So the warming effect in the Arctic of aircraft is likely larger than 20%.

  220. Did you know that C02 is the source of all food supplies sustaining life on this planet, and every bit as essential to our existence as O2 and H2O?

  221. Anthony,

    A brief one I omitted from my previous post (it didn’t seem a big deal to me when I thought of it, but it seems to have an impact on alarmists):

    There are somewhere around 20 or more GCM’s. The IPCC takes an average of the results of many of them for its reports. Each uses different feedback levels in determining temperature. If the science were settled there would only be one model and the feedback levels would be settled science as well.

  222. Did you know that GCM models predict analogies and not absolute temperatures?

    Did you know that GCM models fail dramatically at high altitudes? fig 1.

    Did you know that there is practically no correlation between CO2 rise and anomaly of temperature rise?

    Specific humidity is falling, not rising. fig 3 contradicting the high sensitivity scenario. (This goes with the no hot spot mentioned above icecap seems to be on the blink and I was not able to check that the plots are still there).

    The rise in infrared radiation that the GCM models predict is not seen in the data ( related to sensitivity and hot spot ).

    The heat content as given in a post in wattsup, fig. 2 is inconsistent with projections of models.

    And the hydrological study by Koutsoyannis et al which concludes:

    The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not credible. Whether or not this conclusion extends to other locations requires expansion of the study, which we have planned. However, the poor GCM performance in all eight locations examined in this study allows little hope, if any.

    All these I have been using in my talks about AGW (and now climate change) to point out that even one contradiction disproves a theory and the GCMs that predict catastrophies are theory in computer clothing.

  223. Hi Larry,

    I’m very confused about this statement that you made:

    “Did you know that, green house operators intentionally inject CO2 into their hot houses to improve growth and reduce water demand for their plants. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically increase food production and growth of almost all plants.”

    Please explain how additional CO2 could possibly reduce water demand for plants since during photosynthesis water and CO2 react together in a 1/1 ratio. What’s more, beyond the photosynthetic role, water plays a substantial part in the structure and transport within plants – CO2 doesn’t.

    I’m planning to add to Anthony’s discussion once I pull out my old books yet, again, I will address the temperature trees, but I’ve got to pull my facts together first and copy a few graphs..

    Thanks

  224. Did you know… that if you average the dates for the record high state temperatures (there are 50 of them for the 50 states in the United States) you will get a date in 1945. And if you do the same thing for the record low state temperatures you will get an average date in 1948. Therefore the average date of the record low State temperatures occurs LATER than the average date for the record high State temperatures. I did this exercise years ago to prove to myself that CAGW is BS.
    Wikipedia provides the data for record High and Low state temperatures.

  225. Did you know that the net effect of radiative gasses in Earth’s atmosphere is cooling?

    Alarmists use flawed physics to claim that Earth’s near surface temperature would be 33 degrees cooler in the absence of “greenhouse gasses”. The simplest way to understand how wrong this is is not to ask what would happen if more radiative gasses are added to the atmosphere but rather to ask what would happen if all radiative gasses were removed from the atmosphere.

    Imagine an Earth with no “greenhouse gasses”. No CO2, no water vapour, no clouds no methane and no nitrous oxide. The nitrogen and oxygen remaining would still heat through conductive contact with the Earth’s surface, but would have almost no way of losing this heat. Convection would lead to stratification of the atmosphere, so transfer of heat back to parts of surface cooled by radiation would be limited.

    It may appear that the lower tropospheric air temperature would steadily rise to the hottest daytime temperature of the hottest desert under a cloudless sky, but the situation would actually be far worse. The atmosphere would in fact rise to near the temperature of the hottest points on the Earth’s surface. This is a volcanic planet, so the hottest material in conductive contact with the non-radiative atmosphere would be liquid magma.

    Without radiative gasses in our atmosphere we would truly see some catastrophic global warming.

  226. A simple equation – heat into the atmosphere equals heat out.
    Some of the heat in is absorbed by Greenhouse gases, the rest is from sensible heat (convection) and latent heat (evaporation of water). 100% of the heat out is via Greenhouse gases.
    Heat-in = S + L + s(T-surface)^4*absorptivity
    Heat-out = s(T-air)^4 * emissivity * 2
    The *times 2* for Heat-out is because some comes to the surface and some goes towards space. I know it is a crude approximation, but without something like that the equations can not be balanced with the air temperature less than the surface temperature.

    When the amount of CO2 changes, so does the absorptivity.
    Assuming a constant temperature, it is obvious that increasing the amount of any Greenhouse gas will increase the amount of radiation both absorbed and emitted.
    However, it should be obvious that since the amount emitted is significantly greater than the amount absorbed, an increase will cause the temperature of the atmosphere to decrease.

    Since
    Heat-out = Heat-in
    emissivity = absorptivity
    S + L + s(T-surface)^4*absorptivity = s(T-air)^4 * emissivity * 2
    S + L + s(Ts)^4 * e = s(Ta)^4 * e * 2
    Ta = [(S + L)/2es - (Ts)^4]^0.25

    Assuming that everything on the right hand side of the equation, except emissivity, is constant yields

    Ta = (K1/e – K2)^0.25

    Which indicates that as the amount of Greenhouse gases increase, the temperature of the atmosphere decreases. The questions then become – By how much? followed by – Does this change the surface temperature?

    Following the IPCC report, where a doubling of CO2 causes about 4W/m2 to be absorbed, it follows that at current temperatures about 5 W/m2 will be emitted and that the net effect will be to reduce the temperature of the air. Assuming that about 3 W/m2 of that are returned to the surface (and the rest to space), an air temperature decrease of about 0.6C would cause the amount of energy returned to the surface to remain the same.

    In my opinion, this is one of several negative feedbacks not considered by the IPCC.

    By the way, this is discussing air temperatures half way between the surface and the clouds.

  227. Did you know is global warming is definitely happening. The Earth has been warming, naturally, for 12 thousand years since the last ice age ended. The warming resulting from our civilization, however, is so minor it can barely be measured. There is no man-made global warming crisis.

    There are numerous long term temperature graphics that support this statement.

  228. page488 asked

    Please explain how additional CO2 could possibly reduce water demand for plants

    Land plants get water from their roots and CO2 through pores (stomata) on the lower side of the leaves. With more CO2, the stomata do not need to be open for as long. Since open stomata is a major source of water loss – additional CO2 reduces water demand.

  229. Please explain how additional CO2 could possibly reduce water demand for plants since during photosynthesis water and CO2 react together in a 1/1 ratio. What’s more, beyond the photosynthetic role, water plays a substantial part in the structure and transport within plants – CO2 doesn’t.

    Higher CO2 levels result in less water loss to evaporation/transpiration by the leaves since they do not need as many stomata to absorb the necessary CO2 to support their photosynthesis. It has nothing to do with the chemical reactions of photosynthesis, but rather the incidental water loss the plant suffers as it tries to gather the necessary CO2.

    Larry

  230. Anthony,
    After establishing with your audience, (BTW, are they lay or scientific?), that water vapour is the big GHG, then:
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Did you know that…. Part 1
    According to accepted theory, the nominal warming from increased CO2 is around one degree C, but alarmists claim that this is much amplified by positive feedback notably in consequent increased evaporation of water, (the major GHG). However, if there is increased evaporation (including biological transpiration) then to be sensible, there must be consequent increased rainfall overall. Thus logically there would need to be an increase in rain-clouds which would sensibly result in cooling. (negative feedback, not positive).

    Did you know that…. Part 2
    According to the IPPC in 2007 extended in a recent revision by their source Kevin Trenberth et al in 2009; evapotranspiration plus thermals which are interlinked comprise ~60% of the heat leaving the surface, (compared with only ~ 14% hindered in radiative greenhouse effect from ALL GHG’s, alongside ~25% radiated unhindered directly to space).
    See Fig 1 in: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf (but note that regardless of the claimed numbers, net radiative HEAT transfer from the surface is 396 -333.)
    Thus if there were to be increased evaporation then there is logically also increased evaporative cooling and latent heat transfer up into the clouds enabling greater upward radiation to space from up there. (a negative feedback promoting stability)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Anthony, I entered correspondence with Roy Spencer a year or more ago and my translation of his responses was that he agreed that “convection” was important but that everyone was too busy competing on the radiative effects to find time to look at what he called “convection”. (even though Trenberth et al 2009 claim that radiative GHG effect is only about a quarter of the “convective” heat loss!)

  231. Glad to help, Anthony!

    In his colloquium presentation to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory on May 10, 2010, Dr. Joel Norris of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography gave an excellent presentation titled “Cloud Feedbacks on Climate: A Challenging Scientific Problem.” The link to the archived video presentation is found here (there’s also a real barn-burner presentation by Richard Lindzen, very highly recommended!):

    http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/Past_09_10.html

    In his presentation, Dr. Norris speaks very eloquently about the problems caused in climate calculations due to cloud forcings. His first slide says:

    4th IPCC: Key Uncertainties

    “Cloud feedbacks (particularly from low clouds) remain the largest source of uncertainty [to climate sensitivity].”

    “Surface and satellite observations disagree on total and low-level cloud changes over the ocean.”

    “Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change.”

    “Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of intermodel differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity…”

    ….as I recall, he said that satellites cannot easily distinguish between clouds and snow cover on land, which complicates calculations used for snow cover. Good stuff!

  232. Capell
    The natural carbon cycle

    If it hasn’t been mentioned before, there’s the presentations given by Prof Murray Selby on the natural CO2 cycle. He makes this point:

    “emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.”

    He goes on to demonstrate that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not necessarily attributable to human emissions.

    (See http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/)

  233. Probably too long and too many: Idiotic statements by CAGW modelers and “scientist” v reality. Years ago I saw an interview with one of the early modelers who said the melting of the Arctic OCEAN ice would raise sea level disasterously. I at first thought it was a slip of the tongue, but he persisted, and it was on the news, just that way, the next night.

  234. Did you know that UHI is present at most rural sites as well?

    Population class “Rural” of stations in the documentation of Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly (GHCNM) Version 3 is defined as having less than ten thousand inhabitants in a nearby settlement.

    Excerpt from the README file of GHCNM Version 3:
    “POPCLS: population class
    (U=Urban (>50,000 persons);
    (S=Suburban (>=10,000 and <= 50,000 persons);
    (R=Rural ( 100,000 persons, population data were provided by
    the United Nations Demographic Yearbook. For smaller cities and
    towns several atlases were uses
    (sic!) to determine population.
    POPSIZ: the population of the city or town the station is location
    (sic!) in
    (expressed in thousands of persons).”

    On the other hand, it is documented, that UHIE (Urban Heat Island Effect) is present at sites with a population well under that limit.

    International Journal of Climatology
    Volume 23, Issue 15, pages 1889–1905, December 2003
    DOI: 10.1002/joc.971
    The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska
    Kenneth M. Hinkel, Frederick E. Nelson, Anna E. Klene, Julianne H. Bell

    Population of Barrow, Alaska in 2000: 4,570 persons (it was around 300 in the year 1900)

    Overall polulation of Earth has doubled almost twice in the 20th century.

    At the same time distribution of population / economic activity over the continents is fractal-like, the NASA Satellite Night Lights Composite is a good proxy to it (source: Astronomy Picture of the Day: Earth at Night, 2000 November 27).

    As fractal dimension of this network is considerably less than 2, the area populated is minuscule compared to the total area of continents. This being the case it follows that no matter what temperature trend is measured over this fractal, it only gives a negligible contribution to the average surface temperature of land masses.

    But distribution of GHCN stations is not random relative to this fractal, for operational / maintenance costs of a station would skyrocket if it were located far from any human settlement and/or place of vigorous economic activity (like airports). Therefore GHCN only measures temperature trend over populated areas.

    Selecting sites classified “Rural” does not help, because the quasi-logarithmic dependence of UHI on local population density only breaks down at utterly unpopulated areas, where almost no GHCN station is located.

    Therefore the so called UHI correction applied to current land surface temperature datasets is rubbish.

    In general spatial UHI studies have shown that surface temperature increases by about 0.25°C for each doubling of local population density. As world population doubled twice in the last century, the bulk of warming measured by GHCN (~70% of it) has to be attributed to temporal UHI.

  235. Anthony, you have luckily started a incredible mess!
    Looking at the comments made so far much are just opinions, few are about facts.
    But I understood that you [genuine] intention was to collect valid information in forms that deserve attention. For example:
    All energy consumed by mankind (women included of course) corresponds to approx. 0.03 W m-2 or 0.01% of all solar energy received by the Earth.
    But in your blog the impossibility to edit comments with figures or tables will limit the type and the quality of the contributions that you are seeking.

  236. How about this one – did you know that suggesting that the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temp disproves runaway climate change is as stupid as suggesting a big global conspiracy, or that it’s the position of the thermometers that is wrong?
    Why don’t you first check to see if scientists have really overlooked something before making stupid statements Anthony? I suggest you check exactly what the term runaway climate change means. Wikipedia is probably your level.

  237. The most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia, is an unreliable source for global warming/climate change – due to this man – William M. Connolley

    http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

    “Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.”

    “All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

  238. Despite the frequently repeated claim by warmists that solar irradiance is a constant, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory knows otherwise.

    Article: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/

    Graph: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/02/05/05feb_sdo_resources/sorcetim_strip.jpg

    For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.

    And;

    To the amazement of many researchers, the solar constant has turned out to be not constant.
    “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”

    The numbers;

    At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.

  239. The adiabatic lapse rate is -g/Cp.
    This tells us that the atmospheric temperature gradient is set by gravity through the heat capacity of the air. The heat capacity of air is dominated by atmospheric abundance ie, NITROGEN then oxygen and water.

    The average adiabatic is -6.5K/km

    -50.5deg C at 10 km, is the same as -18deg C at 5km, is the same as 14.5deg C at sea level in terms of total thermal and gravitational potential energy.

    Who needs’ back radiation’?

    (Just Wiki lapse rate, then Wolfram alpha Cp for air and nitrogen)

  240. Robert Clemenzi says:
    October 20, 2012 at 11:03 pm
    page488 asked

    Please explain how additional CO2 could possibly reduce water demand for plants

    Land plants get water from their roots and CO2 through pores (stomata) on the lower side of the leaves. With more CO2, the stomata do not need to be open for as long. Since open stomata is a major source of water loss – additional CO2 reduces water demand.

    Excellent explanation,

    Besidess, there is plenty of empirical data proving that with additional CO2 plants need less water. check http://www.co2science.org for peer reviewed papers.

    Also, page488´s statement that “…since during photosynthesis water and CO2 react together in a 1/1 ratio.” is not correct, They do not react together. That is an oversimplification of photosynthesis. H2O is splitted into H2 (as NADPH2) and O2 during the light dependent phase of photosynthesis and CO2 reacts with ribulose-1.5-diphospate during the light indpendent phase. Later, plants use hte H2 stored as NADPH2 to reduce the products of ribulose carboxilation and complete Calvin´s cycle.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

  241. Did you know that to apply thermodynamic equations the system being studied must either be at thermal equilibrium or demonstrably close to equilibrium. I am unaware of any climate models test the thermodynamic state or show that the climate system is in thermal equilibrium or are close to it. It is clear that the climate cannot be in thermal equilibrium or even close to it——- That’s why we have variable and interesting weather. So non of the so-called climate models are valid or can be shown to have any predictive value — which is self evident from the models. QED

    Tony Berry

  242. bobby b on October 20, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    Did you know . . .

    In 2006, Al Gore purchased a condominium in San Francisco that would be under water if the predictions he made in his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth were to come true?”

    Probably the single best “DYK” on this whole thread!!!! We need more facts like this. Facts that show the prophets don’t believe their own prophecy, or profit from it,

  243. Did you know that net primary production is increasing due to recent changes of climate?

    In other words: Earth is greening.

    Science 6 June 2003:
    Vol. 300 no. 5625 pp. 1560-1563
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1082750
    Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999
    Ramakrishna R. Nemani, Charles D. Keeling, Hirofumi Hashimoto, William M. Jolly, Stephen C. Piper, Compton J. Tucker, Ranga B. Myneni, Steven W. Running

    cited by 997

  244. I posted several graphs in this recent Arctic thread:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1114284

    Through using all 365 days of ice coverage data from each year , and not just cherry picking the annual minimum we get a much clearer pattern of how it has progressed in recent decades.

    Two clear ‘did you knows’ come out of this.

    Did you know that the accelerating melting in Arctic has ended?
    The period of the big slide in Arctic ice coverage was from 1997-2007.

    Did you know that the duration of the Arctic melting season has been getting rapidly shorter in recent years and is now shorter than 6 months.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1114284

    I have not seen this last analysis done anywhere else yet. It is done by finding summer min and winter max and taking the difference. All available daily data are used and a 13 day low-pass filter is used to remove the effects of short term weather events before detecting the turning points.

    Data sources annotated on the graphs.

    [ NB. Our new friend Gary has already dismissed all this a pseudo science and seems to think using all the data is "cherry picking" so he may not let you use it ;) ]

  245. Data from the Vostok ice core show that during transitions between glacial and interglacial periods rises and falls of temperature tend to precede rises and falls of atmospheric CO2 by approx 1000 years. So for any given temperature, contemporary CO2 levels tend to be higher during cooling episodes than during warming episodes. In other words on the timescale of ice ages temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way round.
    This should not however be taken to suggest that the post-industrial revolution increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by warming – the increase is too large.

  246. Did you know that in the last 16 years global temperatures have plateaued while CO2 emissions continue to rise? The two sets of data don’t run parallel any more.

    [Kindergarten level - but this time period is within current adult life experience, so easy for general public to relate to.]

  247. 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA « Tory Aardvark
    The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

  248. Not sure if this counts. From a 2008 documentary, ‘Meat the Truth’.

    “The film picks up where An Inconvenient Truth conveniently left off, and is a must-see for anyone who cares about the future of life on this planet.”

    Quotes from the film:

    “People don’t realise that it’s actually the meat on their plate that’s causing global warming rather than the car that they’re driving.”

    “If you reduce your total [meat] consumption by half … you cut in half the greenhouse gas emissions … Our fork is a powerful tool.”

    “The production of 1kg of beef is just as bad for the environment as driving around in the car for three hours while you left all your lights on at home.”

    “A vegetarian in a Hummer produces fewer greenhouse emissions than a meat eater in a Toyota Prius.”

    “As consumers, we can make a difference by changing our diets.”

    “All the cars, tractors, trucks, planes and ships in the world added together emit fewer greenhouse gases than livestock farming.”

    “This huge environmental impact that livestock has is not well understood by the public” — Dr Henning Steinfeld, U.N. FAO

    “Everybody needs to know that food and agriculture contributes to climate change and has environmental impact.”

    http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/global-warming-film/

  249. Did you know that, in the time of dinosaurs, atmospheric CO2 was eight times higher than today? Life flourished like never before. James Hansen is wrong when predicting that if CO2 doubles, “that’s it for all species”.

  250. Global Warming ? Bring it on ! Here in South Devon, UK we have had three cold summers on the trot. Blow the science.

  251. Did you know that very, very few people have checked the facts about CO2 and supposed global warming ?

  252. Rephrase my earlier question:

    Did you know why we should worry about rising CO2 emissions when global temperatures haven’t warmed for the last 16 years?

    No? Well, nobody else knows either.

  253. Did you know that a frozen forest at Eva Creek near Fairbanks, AK, thrived at a time that was up to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, when there was little-to-no permafrost.

    Because the frozen forest is full of charred trees, the implication is that there were a lot of forest fires 125,000 years ago. Insect galleries carved into the bark of some of the frozen spruce indicate that the spruce bark beetle was also there then.

    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF14/1409.html

    Did you know that In the Little Ice Age, witchcraft was blamed for the devastating climate:
    Fagan’s The Little Ice Age (Basic Books, 2000):

    “Witchcraft accusations soared, as people accused their neighbors of fabricating bad weather…. Sixty-three women were burned to death as witches in the small town of Wisensteig in Germany in 1563 at a time of intense debate over the authority of God over the weather.”

    Did you know that the Aztecs had sophisticated irrigation systems and “astrolonomical” observatories, (apparently a mix of astrology and astronomy), to attempt to predict the weather. Unseasonal frosts and cold, followed by severe, prolonged drought, may have taken them to the brink of collapse. Once the climate became more benign again, they praised their gods with human sacrifice. It is thought that hundreds of thousands of people were sacrificed to the rain god Tlaloc.

    https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/drought-floods-famine-and-central-and-south-america

    Did you know that:
    At the last glacial maximum (LGM) some 21 thousand years ago (ka), the Sahara desert covered a much larger area than at present, as apparent from the dating of fossil dunes some 5° south of the present extent of mobile dunes (Talbot, 1983).

    “Over the past 1.65 million years, approximately corresponding to the Quaternary period, there have been some seventeen glacial cycles, each lasting approximately 100ka (Goudie, 1992). Evidence from lake sediments in the central and southern Sahara indicates a succession of arid and humid episodes broadly coincident with glacial and interglacial periods respectively (Kowalski et al., 1989; Szabo et al., 1995; Cremaschi, 1998; Martini et al., 1998).”

    “On multi-millennial timescales, shorter than those represented by the 100ka glacial cycles, monsoon dynamics are modulated by the Earth’s 21ka precessional cycle, which determines the angle at which the Earth’s axis is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic (the plane in which the planets orbit the sun) (Kukla and Gavin, 2004).”

    “When this angle is large, the northern hemisphere is inclined more steeply towards the sun in summer, resulting in increased solar insolation or heating of the Earth’s surface, and a larger differential heating between the northern hemisphere land masses and the oceans, which intensifies the global monsoon system.

    When the angle of inclination of the Earth’s axis is small, boreal summer heating is reduced and the monsoon system is weak. The 21ka and 100ka cycles interact, and an increase in boreal summer insolation is believed to have contributed to the process of deglaciation after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (Goudie, 1992).

    By around 10ka, maximum inclination had been reached, resulting in an increase in incident solar radiation at the Earth’s surface associated with intensified monsoon activity throughout the northern hemisphere subtropics (Tuenter et al., 2003).”

    http://www.nickbrooks.org/publications/TynWP61.pdf

    I suppose we have to ask the question, “what effect does anthropogenic CO2 have on the angle of inclination of the Earth’s axis?”

  254. I’ve occasionally thought a climate skeptic’s “Page a Day” calendar might be cheap enough to produce to make it worthwhile. At 341 comments, we’re getting there, modulo repetition and some items that are major issues with me. (Most notably is “How can 400 ppm CO2 have any impact?” I’m disappointed so many people have brought that up in its many forms.)

    I won’t have time for a few years to spend much time on one, but I’d certainly want to be on the review committee!

  255. Did you know Climate Change is a figure of speech?. Climate is always changing so Climate Change is a pleonasm. Adding ´change´ to ´climate´ is superfluous. Empty rhetoric, a swindle with words. The deception tries to make you think that there was a steady climate in the past.

  256. Did you know that a GHG absorbs according to the ‘curve of growth’, at low concentration it’s linear at the high concentration it’s square root, in between it passes through a logarithmic regime. CO2 at its present atmospheric concentration is in the logarithmic regime.

  257. DYK that until mankind started burning fossil fuels all plant life here on Earth was on the verge of co2 starvation? Mankind + fossil fuels has begun the truly “green” revolution for all life on our planet putting some of the sequestered co2 back into the atmosphere. Don’t let the ocophobic eco-freaks return us back toward the cold and starvation. A bit warmer is better for all animals. A bit more co2 is better for plants and therefore all animals.

    DYK that this is the environmentalist’s actual objective, a cold and starved future? Investigate it yourself, the quotes of their leaders are out there on the web.

    DYK co2 levels do not affect the earth’s temperature at all proven so far by hundreds of thousands of empirical radiosonde sounding data instances? (Ferenc Miskolczi)

    DYK the levels of the sun and clouds (liquid and solid matter) do, in fact, affect the temperature of this planet?

    ( nice initiative Anthony! very much needed. )

  258. highflight56433 says:
    October 20, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Like these?
    ——————————————————————-
    Did you know that if the above second link is true and that CO2 concentrations of 3,000 ppm led to global temperatures that were 10 deg C warmer than today and if the CO2 greenhouse effect is real and logarithmic that the forcing would have to be around 3-4 deg C for a doubling of CO2?

  259. According to the AGW theory, the increase in CO2 causes an increase in H20 vapour which then warms the atmosphere more, which in turn, increases water vapour again, causing more warming – this is the Positive Feedback Loop that AGW requires for their to be catastrophic warming….. BUT
    DID YOU KNOW…..
    That initial step of increase in water vapour comes from water vapour evaporating from the oceans etc. Evaporation is an Endothermic reaction – meaning that it has a COOLING effect. The AGW models do not take this into account. So while an increase in CO2 has a mild warming effect and might initially cause a little more evaporation, that evaporation has a cooling effect which cools the oceans. And cooler oceasns absorb more CO2 ! Therefore reducing CO2. This is how the CO2-heat-H20 system ballances itself out.

  260. DYK a large swatch of the worlds population has been infected with a case of ocophobia (co2-phobia) and what is really needed is to have psychological clinics set up to help the afflicted? Mankind owes it to these lost and confused souls created by over zealot environmentalists infiltrating our schools, universities, governments and industries.

    DYK this illness is being spread by the content of schoolbooks within our grade school and upper level texts and teachers curriculum? Even in the cartoons fed to pre-school children on the TV channels. The first step is to purge all of this contaminated propaganda content from what is being feed to the young and developing minds and getting back to pure and proper classical science teaching.

  261. Did you know that
    1) changes in CO2 lag behind changes in temperature in ice core records?
    2) even if the recent warming is entirely anthropogenic, the inferred feedback is negative and therefore no basis for alarm?

    I think Bob Carter explains best.

  262. I can update the Logarithmic CO2 warming chart showing where actual warming to date is occuring versus the Theory/IPCC now. Zoomed-in so it is a little clearer – natural variation from the ENSO and volcanoes removed.

    The satellite lower troposphere temps are well inside the theory and so is Hadcrut4 (and the data to date also points in a direction to how much the historical temps have been played with – maybe 0.3C or so).

  263. Did you know that …

    Information on earth’s climate presented in Wikipedia, which is always a top internet search hit, has been deliberately biased by a small group of activists to exclude or distort views skeptical of anthropogenic impacts and promote CAGW/CACC. School children, teachers, reporters, or anyone seeking information on climate and climate change thru the internet are directed to an encyclopedia of propaganda masquerading as an authoritative source.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat/print

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

  264. Did you know:

    In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) unilaterally decided “Climate Change” was the equivalent of “Man-Made Global Warming”. ever since, anyone who questions any aspect of Man-Made Global Warming is absurdly labelled a “climate change denier”, or even a “climate denier”.

    UNITED NATIONS 1992: UNFCCC: Article 1
    DEFINITIONS*
    For the purposes of this Convention:
    2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

  265. Did you know that…

    the IR absorbed by CO2 molecules is then emitted at a very slightly longer wavelength than that at which they were absorbed and therefore the IR emission of a CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?

  266. Anthony and Steve from Rockwood:

    Did you know that the assertion made by ‘Steve from Rockwood’ in his post at October 21, 2012 at 6:20 am is pure bunkum and that his inference from paleo data is unfounded?
    His inference wrongly assumes the temperature was caused by the atmospheric CO2 and the graph he cites shows it is not; see

    In reality, empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration is so small that it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence which has observable effects (observation of its effects would be its detection) because effects of natural climate variability are much larger.

    Richard

  267. Steve says:
    October 21, 2012 at 7:38 am
    Did you know that…

    the IR absorbed by CO2 molecules is then emitted at a very slightly longer wavelength than that at which they were absorbed and therefore the IR emission of a CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?

    I do know that’s wrong.

  268. The solubility of CO2 in water is about 2g per kg of water.

    Aside from water itself, it is the most soluble of the common atmospheric gases.

    Also, as with all the atmospheric gases, CO2′s solubility decreases with increase water temperature. So the rate of gas RELEASE of CO2 from the world’s oceans per 0.1 C increase is much higher than all the other gases since the water holds more CO2 in the first place.

    Therefore, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is strongly tied to the ocean temperature.

    You can prove this to yourself by opening 2 bottles of beer.

    Cool one beer to near freezing, 33F and allow on to warm to room temperature, 70F.

    Pop the tops of both and note that the cool beer barely releases any gas but the warm beer boils over. Warm beer hold much less CO2.

    Drink both beer.

  269. Did you know that average temperature is meaningless unless it is understood in the context of what temperatures are physically doing?

    Looking at the actual daily data, summer TMax is dropping since the 1930s, while winter TMin has been rising since 1900. The rising winter min temperature is faster than the dropping summer max temperature, resulting in an increase average.

    This the planet isn’t heating up, it’s getting less cold. Hardly a catastrophic event.

  270. Early on when your blog was young I sent you a paper I wrote that among other things stated that by a height of 100 feet, or less, all radiated energy in the CO2 bands had been absorbed. Therefore any additional CO2 would only be totally absorbed at a lower altitude and would not increase the overall temperature of the atmosphere.

  271. Many of the items here are clearly facts, others are quite dubious. A “reply” option as on CA would make it much easier to dispute the weaker contributions.

  272. Did you know that setting record temperatures has nothing to do with increasing temperature trends?

    That is correct, it has to do with accounting. In the first year records were kept, every day was a record breaker. As years pass the number of record breaking days drops in a decay curve. How long would it take to fill in all possible temperatures? For example, if any single location’s possible daily summer high temperatures ranges between 15C and 35C, using 0.1C increments, means there are 200 possible slots any summer day can fall in. If the distribution of temperatures follows a normal bell curve, a simple simulation will show that it would take more than 3000 years to fill them all so no more record breaking days occur.

  273. “All energy consumed by mankind (women included of course) corresponds to approx. 0.03 W m-2 or 0.01% of all solar energy received by the Earth.”

    Another meaningless number. Our need for energy is highly concentrated in the places we use it, such as cities. There isn’t enough space in a city to put solar panels to get even a small percent of our energy demand. Putting panels in farm land is stupid beyond words. This means panels would have to be at least hundreds of miles from where it is consumed. Line loss would be high. Most of the planet is covered in water, so can’t be used in your calculation.

    There is no way we will get but a tiny fraction of our power needs from solar. Of course, it also doesnt include there is no solar power at night, or on over cast days.

  274. Did you know that average temperature of the upper layer of oceans increased by 0.1°C in the last 57 years?

    According to the NOAA NODC OCL Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content site between second quarter of 1955 & 2012 heat content of the upper 700 m of oceans increased by 10.5×10²² Joules. As mass of that much water is about 2.5×10²⁰ kg, it means heat content increased by 420 J/kg. Specific heat of water is about 4.2 kJ/kg, that makes it 0.1°C, not more.

    In the same time frame atmospheric CO₂ concentration increased from 314 ppmv to 394 ppmv. That’s 33% of a doubling on a proper logarithmic scale, which means if all increase in ocean temperature is attributed to CO₂, it implies an upper ocean warming at a rate of 0.3°C/doubling of CO₂ concentration. This figure should be contrasted to the 10 times higher figure of 3°C increase per doubling in surface temperature projected by computational climate models and the IPCC.

    One is inclined to think that much increase in temperature difference between land and ocean is unsustainable, because vigorous upward convection of hot continental air would follow, replaced by cool moist air from the oceans along the surface. The phenomenon is not unheard of, for the sake of the witless it is called monsoon.

  275. Did you know that arctic ice conditions were low enough that the north west passage was successfully navigated by ship without ice breaker assistance in 1903-06 ( Roald Amundsen), 1940 and 1944 (Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen) and 1957 (Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen), long before global warming was even a topic of discussion. There are also historical references to very low arctic ice levels nearly two hundred years ago by first person observations by ship captains who commented on how far north they could sail without sighting ice bergs and significant sea ice.

    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

    “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    October 10 1922 the American consul at Ber en Norway , submitted
    the following report to the State Department, Washington, D. C.

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from
    fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas
    about S itzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to
    a radicaf change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-
    of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s
    surface.

    In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is of interest
    to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway
    and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who
    has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says
    that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since
    that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day
    the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same
    re ion of 1865 to 1917.

    During the 1930′s sea ice was so low that the Soviet ship Sadko was able to sail within 500 miles of the north pole. The average coal shipping season at Spitsbergen, Norway almost doubled in length from 95 days from 1909-1912 to 175 days from 1930 to 1938 due to the lack of sea ice.

    US Nuclear submarines have surfaced at the north pole as early at 1959 (USS Skate in March of that year). In 1987 three nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the pole on May 18 1987,(HMS Superb S 109, USS Billfish SSN 676, USS Sea Devil SSN 664).

    Open water at the poles in summer melt is not at all unusual historically.

    Larry

  276. Did you know that Earth’s climate is always changing, as is the climate on other planets?

    Did you know that Earth has been covered by an ocean of molten rock and by oceans of water ice, and that it has experienced every possible climate in between these extreme conditions?

  277. Did you know that the mean surface temperature of the moon is 107 degrees Celsius and has virtually no atmosphere.

    http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm

    Did you know that the mean surface temperature of the earth is 14 degrees Celsius and we all know there is an atmosphere.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

    Do you now see the problem with every theory that suggests the atmosphere actually warms the earth or keeps it warm.

    REPLY: Did you know that the temperature on the moon is a SOIL temperature and the temperature you gave for Earth is a gaseous ATMOSPHERIC temperature? Apples and Aardvarks. – Anthony

  278. Did you know that NOAA queen Jane Lunchenco used her fabricated Oregon Ocean Dead Zones,,,

    http://www.kpbs.org/news/2008/feb/20/dead-zones-in-pacific-ocean-linked-to-global/

    Lubchenco says it’s all part of radical changes to the world’s oceans.

    ,,,to secure a $386.4 million National Science Foundation grant to gauge the effects of climate change on the world’s oceans,,,

    http://www.piscoweb.org/files/file/Hypoxia/10-8-09%202009%20hypoxia%20update.pdf

    ,,,and through additional embellishment used the phony dead zones and acidification farce to impose, by threats to the fisheries, 5 marine reserves off the Oregon Coast.

    It pays.

    http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/11857.html

    Who Are the Wealthiest Members of the Obama Administration?
    12. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: assets of $1,907,000 to $4,705,000.
    Another academic-turned-political-adviser, Lubchenco made $235,465 last year from Oregon State University along with speaker fees of just over $4,000 and $150,000 as recipient of the Zayed International Prize for the Environment. Who says being green doesn’t pay?

    When Lubchenco, Barth and Chan made up the AGW= Oregon dead zones it meant a big bucks in return.
    But as soon as the millions arrived their fabricated AGW/Dead Zones which they had embellished into being new, bigger, lasting longer and happening every year slipped into the reality of natural, cyclical behavior and vanished. But they’re spending millions being water watchers just in case they return.

    (Side note- this is a whopper – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/40/15452.full.pdf+html )

    The fisheries where they claim death and destruction are needing their attention and out millions are experiencing enormous & healthy harvests from a thriving marine ecosystem.

    http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/crab/coastal/Harvest

    Washington coastal Dungeness crab landing data back to 1950 shows a large fluctuation in harvest, ranging from a low of 2.5 million pounds in 1981 to a high of 25 million pounds in 2004-05 averaging at 9.5 million pounds. It is believed that this large fluctuation in landings is not a result of harvest patterns, but likely due to varying ocean conditions including, water temperature, food availability, and ocean currents.

    http://cms.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/news/100106crab.aspx

    Oregon Dungeness crab season sprints into the new year
    1/6/2010
    Crab volume, quality, and size all good so far this season

    http://earthsky.org/earth/mysterious-dead-zones-appear-in-the-pacific-northwest

    Jane Lubchenco: A virtual wasteland of dead Dungeness crabs, dead worms, dead stars, dead anemones, just littering the sea floor.
    Lubchenco believes the dead zone is driven by changes in coastal winds, which may be related to climate change.

    http://www.oregondungeness.org/documents/SeasonEnds11.pdf

    http://www.oregondungeness.org
    “ANOTHER STELLAR CRAB SEASON ENDS”

  279. Did you know that when conduction and convection are viable methods of heat transfer between the surface of an active object and an inactive object, “backradiation” and lower active object surface temperatures can exist simultaneously.

    This is the principle of an air-cooled engine–i.e., fins (additional radiating surface area) are attached to the surface of an internal combustion engine to cool the engine. Radiation from the fins to the engine’s surface (i.e., backradiation) exists simultaneously with a cooler engine surface.

  280. pat says:
    October 21, 2012 at 7:33 am
    >>
    Did you know:

    In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) unilaterally decided “Climate Change” was the equivalent of “Man-Made Global Warming”. ever since, anyone who questions any aspect of Man-Made Global Warming is absurdly labelled a “climate change denier”, or even a “climate denier”.

    UNITED NATIONS 1992: UNFCCC: Article 1
    DEFINITIONS*
    For the purposes of this Convention:
    2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

    >>

    WoW! That has to be today’s winner .

    That is the most irrefutable proof that the UNFCCC and the IPCC which it spawned deliberately set out to create confusion in the public mind by nothing more subtle than DEFINING what climate change was to mean.

    And that right from the outset and in Article number one.

    So “human induced climate change” became climate change.

    since no one is going refer to “Climate change which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”, this ensured that IPCC would refer to “climate change” which, in the absence of a full explanation each time the phrase is uttered will inevitably result in AGW being confounded with natural variability.

  281. Did you know that tree ring densities (MXD) provide an excellent thermometer and that none divergence appears around 1960?

  282. In the last four thousand years each successive millenium has been cooler than the previous one. The Holocene optimum i.e. the warmest time in the past 10,000 years occurred between 6 and 8 thousand years ago.
    It looks like the peak of warming has passed and cooling towards the next ice age is well underway.

  283. Did you know that the oceanic cycles (amo/pdo/enso) have masked GW for 16 years?
    Did you know that if oceanic cycles cool the planet, that they also warm the planet, and that the warm phase of the oceanic cycle occurred from 1980-2000?

  284. did you know that i find this the most obscene sentence written by a so called climatologist.

    from Phil jones, “the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

    worried about what, that you cannot continue conning the public. Now a normal person would say “the no upward trend after 15 years is a relief”

  285. Ask why is it so? says:
    October 21, 2012 at 9:10 am
    Did you know that the mean surface temperature of the moon is 107 degrees Celsius and has virtually no atmosphere.

    http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    If you actually read the data in provided your link you will see that 107 Deg.C is the mean DAYTIME temperature. The mean night time temperature is minus 153 deg.C. Together they give a mean temperature for the surface of the Moon of minus 23 Deg.C – very similar to what the Earth would be without greenhouse gases.

  286. phi says:
    October 21, 2012 at 10:00 am
    >>
    Did you know that tree ring densities (MXD) provide an excellent thermometer and that none divergence appears around 1960?

    >>

    Once you subtract a +ve trend from meteo data and subtract a negative trend from MXD they look a bit similar. So is it the negative correlation of the trends or the vague similarity of the bit that remains that ” provide an excellent thermometer ” ?

    Having subtracted the divergence they no longer diverge. Brilliant. I suggest you apply to be research assistant for Michael Mann, he seems to be a bit short of tricks these days. Maybe there’s an opening for you.

  287. Whether or not this is what Anthony has in mind, this plethora of good points cries out for syllabi of courses for different levels of grade-school children. Think Climatology for Grade 4, Climatology for grade 5, etc.

    /Mr Lynn

  288. P Solar,

    Ask yourself these questions:

    - when appears the divergence?

    - What diverges?

    Otherwise, thank you for the suggestion but I skate without stick.

  289. DYK that the IPCC admits that the various climate models show a broad range of sensitivity (by a factor of 2X from lowest to highest) and that they attribute the vast majority of this to differences in how feedbacks are calculated?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

    paragraph 1

    Note: I think this DYK ought to be positioned in the context of richardscourtney’s comments about a wide range of values for aerosol forcing. If the models all used similar values for aerosol forcing, the range would be MUCH larger, showing that the models in fact are NOT in close agreement as the IPCC claims, and that NONE of them have a good grip on feedbacks which is THE central point of the debate. If feedbacks were not significant, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR COMPUTER MODELS IN THE FIRST PLACE. We could just do the calcs on the back on an envelope and get the right answer. Attributing 75% of the divergence between models to differences in feedfback calcs while each of the models uses very different values for aerosols that causes them to converge is a tacit admission IMO that understanding of feedbacks is very weak. Read that in turn in the context of the IPCC’s admission that their understanding of radiative forcing in 10 of 15 categories is “low” or “very low” and you have all the info you need to conclude that the climate models are, at best, a stab in the dark. Add to that their complete and utter failure to predict the last 16 years of no warming, and one can conclude further that calling them a “stab in the dark” is probably being kind.

  290. phi;
    - when appears the divergence?
    - What diverges?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    DYK:
    The tree ring proxies used by Michael Mann and Phil Jones to substantiate their hockey stick reconstructions diverged from the instrumental temperature record post 1960, and led to their “trick” to “hide the decline” by replacing this data with thermometer reading? And that despite this admission that their own tree ring data did NOT follow temps for about 1/3 of the instrumental record, they continue to maintain that the centuries prior to the instrumental record should still be accepted as accurate?

    DYK that the trees most commonly used in these studies have growing seasons of just 2 to 3 months per year and so have NO response to temperature for over 75% of the year? DYK that there is NO way to remove factors such as rainfall variation, cloud cover, disease, pestilance, plant and animal decay (fertilization) and temporary competition (short lives aspen growing amongst long lived oaks for example) from the tree ring data?

    DYK that there are dozens of reconstructions using other techniques that are in general agreement with each other from all over the world that dispute the tree ring data?

    http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

  291. Did you know…

    The hydrogen used in fuel cells is extracted from methane (natural gas). One of the by-products is carbon dioxide.

    In a normal car, with an internal combustion engine, you put gasoline in the tank, and burn it to produce power. Carbon dioxide is one of the tail pipe emissions.

    In a fuel cell car, you fill the tank with hydrogen. But the carbon dioxide was produced before the hydrogen even arrived at the fill station.

    How A Fuel Cell Works

    http://www.ballard.com/about-ballard/fuel-cell-education-resources/how-a-fuel-cell-works.aspx

  292. Did you know that the hottest planet in the solar system, Venus, has the lowest wind speeds of any planet and that the coldest planet in the solar system, Neptune, has the highest wind speeds?

    So much for extreme weather events being caused by increased temperatures. Weather is of course driven not by temperature, but by temperature gradient.

    Venus

    Surface pressure: 92 bars
    Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)
    Diurnal temperature range: ~0
    Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

    Neptune

    Surface Pressure: >>1000 bars
    Temperature at 1 bar: 72 K (-201 C)
    Temperature at 0.1 bar: 55 K (-218 C)
    Density at 1 bar: 0.45 kg/m3
    Wind speeds: 0-580 m/s

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html

  293. The main CAGW claim is that additional CO2 creates forcing through water vapour of about three times the warming of the CO2 alone. This figure was simply made up and has not been shown to be true. There is no science to back the claim.

  294. Did you know?
    Solar scientists have determined from sunspot recordings and Be proxies that the earth has been in solar maximuum for the entire 20th century?

  295. davidmhoffer,

    I do not think that the purpose of this thread is to discuss primarily the divergence issue, I therefore ask the moderator to moderate if desired.

    I only submit a graph which compares data. The correlation is, according to the standard of proxies, quite remarkable and there is no change of behavior around 1960. This date is only a trick to not too highlight the real origin of the divergence. For this particular issue see http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/provenance-of-the-decline-a-forensic-analysis/

    That said, MXD are generally supposed to be representative of the months from April to September for mid-latitudes, so 6 months. MXD correlate very well the other good proxies. It is not at all the case of ring width (TRW).

  296. Phil says:

    “I do know that’s wrong.”

    Really? So absorbed IR does not cause a vibration within a CO2 molecule?

  297. P. Solar says:
    October 21, 2012 at 9:59 am
    pat says:
    October 21, 2012 at 7:33 am
    >>
    Did you know:

    In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) unilaterally decided “Climate Change” was the equivalent of “Man-Made Global Warming”. ever since, anyone who questions any aspect of Man-Made Global Warming is absurdly labelled a “climate change denier”, or even a “climate denier”.

    UNITED NATIONS 1992: UNFCCC: Article 1
    DEFINITIONS*
    For the purposes of this Convention:
    2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    The words “Climate Change”, are simply a Dialectic Mind Freek Magic Trick Word Game they’re Playing on us.

    You do realize that don’t you? You’re not that stupid.

    It’s a form of psychological manipulation, hidden meanings and hidden agendas contained within simple words and phrases. Many UN program agendas are labeled with comforting sounding names to get us to do what they want, especially when it’s not really good for us.

    dialectic (Merriam-Webster)
    1: logic 1a(1)

    2: a: discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth

    b: the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas

    3: the logic of fallacy

    4: a: the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process

    b: (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences

    5: usually plural but singular or plural in construction

    a: any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict

    b: an intellectual exchange of ideas

    6: the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements

  298. phi;
    I do not think that the purpose of this thread is to discuss primarily the divergence issue, I therefore ask the moderator to moderate if desired.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    1. You asked. Now you’re complaining that this isn’t the thread for the discussion?
    2. Read P. Solar’s response to you again.
    3. Your graph shows that the number of cores used after 1980 falls to nearly zero. Over half the timeline from 1960 on is under represented in your graph.
    4. Even were I to buy your conjecture that trees grow from April to Sept that far north, that leaves 1/2 the year unaccounted for. The tree doesn’t know if it was a warmer than usual winter, or colder.

  299. @Bill Williams says: October 20, 2012 at 11:34 am
    Did you know that Harlech Castle was built between 1282 and 1289 on the shore of the Irish sea in Harlech, Gwynedd, Wales. Its water gate allowed the castle to be resupplied by sea.
    ===============================================================

    Similarly, parts of Somerset were under the sea in prehistoric times.

    http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/history.shtml

    “For much of prehistory, this part of Somerset was under the sea and it is only in the last few thousand years that the land has been emerging: the area around Burnham and Highbridge has therefore been particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of sea and rivers.”

    Anyone who has been on the Somerset Levels will know that it is still very wet there – there are drainage channels everywhere, and if, when walking down a lane, cows run in a field by the lane, you can feel it under your feet. Unlike the Netherlands, little land has been artificially reclaimed – more, people have adapted to how the countryside is there.

    The Levels are near Glastonbury and the Tor.

  300. Did you know, we on our own can change the words “Climate Change”, in a RE-Branding effort, to the words “Climate Changes”, so we don’t have the stigma attached to it that says all people are bad and guilty of something?

  301. davidmhoffer,
    I’m not complaining, I am always happy to discuss this topic.
    Again, I’m just presenting data freely available and find that the correlation is excellent and that nothing special happens around 1960. You think it has no interest, well, I will add nothing.

  302. Great Idea!

    Did you know… Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

    [taken verbatim from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html – includes chart of CO2 vs Temp from now to 600 million years ago – no correlation at all]

  303. phi:

    At October 21, 2012 at 2:15 pm you say to davidmhoffer,
    “I will add nothing.”

    That is always a wise decision when you have been shown to be plain wrong.

    Richard

  304. Very true, and I’ve often thought about that. And if the precautionary principle is of any use, it would also suggest that the transition back to glacial conditions may be somewhat overdue, to judge by past cycles.

    A list of “did you know” statements should probably start by establishing the nature of CO2 itself, putting in perspective its recently-acquired evil characteristics (including toxicity in the mind of many people), its concentration etc. The most salient points I would bring up are the following.
    Did you know that:

    –CO2 is an absolutely essential gas, and all plant and animal life on earth (barring some types of bacteria) arises from it because it sits at the base of the food chain. It is the building material of life. Primo Levi put it well here: http://tinyurl.com/8ae28hq
    It’s not a “pollutant” as many people have come to believe, and it is not toxic at any levels we can remotely hope to achieve by fuel emissions. It has been as much as 20 times current levels.

    –Plant biomass increases with increasing CO2, and thus increases the size of the sinks, acting as a negative feedback to its accumulation.

    –Its absorption rate by the oceans also increases as its partial pressure increases in the atmosphere, another negative feedback to its accumulation.

    –At current levels of accumulation (about 2 ppm per year) a doubling won’t occur until some 200 years from now. A second doubling would take an additional 400 years.

    –Fuel emissions are equivalent to the amount of CO2 produced by human and farm animal respiration, which in turn represents a very minute fraction of the total breathing biomass. And only half of those emissions are accumulating. http://tinyurl.com/9fdkk8x and http://tinyurl.com/cqtje5s

    –Greenhouse theory puts the increase in temperature from a doubling of CO2 at about 1 deg C. Amplification hypothesis are completely speculative and unknown, added only for the sake of alarm. Not even the sign of the total feedback balance is known, and it may very well be negative.

    –Temperatures have been higher than present for about 90 percent of geological time (non-ice ages are the rule).

    –We are in an interglacial period WITHIN an ice age that began some 2.5 million years ago. Interglacial means a shrinkage of ice sheets – not their disappearance. We will continue to be in an ice age as long as there are continental ice sheets on the planet.

    –During the last 20 years, there has been a very blatant effort by the new breed of what a book reviewer has called “tabloid climatology” to minimize, dismiss or otherwise “get rid of” previous warm periods during the current interglacial, in order to make current temperatures seem unprecedented.

    –It is also a fact that the processing of raw data to produce an adjusted official average temperature is a process that relies on enigmatic, priestly incantations. The datasets are constantly adjusted retroactively, for reasons unknown, and the adjustments overwhelmingly favor a smoothing of temperatures prior to 1980 and an increase in temperatures after that.

    –Even assuming those methods are justified, there is nothing unprecedented in current official temperatures. Within the current interglacial (the Holocene), temperatures have been as high or higher than at present at least 3 times: during the Climate Optimum some 7000 years ago; during the Roman warm period some 2000 years ago, and during the Medieval warm period 1000 years ago.

    –Judging by the duration of the previous 3 interglacials, we can reasonably expect a return to extended glacial conditions relatively soon. Human civilization has never lived under such conditions. It arose as a consequence of the current lull that began some 12,000 years ago.
    A return to such conditions when (not if) it happens, will represent a challenge of incomparably greater magnitude than a possible increase of 1-2 degrees — in the extremely unlikely event we were capable of achieving 2 doublings of CO2, which would take 600 years at current rates of increase.

    –Current climate alarm theory is a sky-high stack of “what if” scenarios followed by an endless series of might/may/could statements which eventually become. The process works like this: If A should happen, no matter how unlikely, then B, C and D might happen. After a while, “if” is effectively replaced by “when” and “might/may/could” are replaced by “will”.

    –The attribution industry proves this is indeed how it works: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  305. My first paragraph in the previous message refers to this comment by
    PennDragon October 20, 2012 at 9:18 pm
    “Over the last 200 million years or so the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been trending downwards from about 2 or 3 thousand ppm. Plants stop growing at about 150 ppm which is not far from where we are today. The dangerous trend that needs to be explained and reversed is not up (as the alarmists claim) but down. At least that is what the idiot “precautionary principle” would strongly suggest!”

  306. Countering the misinformation that the MSM have been promulgating for years must be the most important thing and the primary slides.

  307. Did You Know that the Earth has a planetary atmospheric effect that influences the temperature distribution at the surface but it does not actually have a greenhouse effect like agricultural greenhouses have? The Earth’s atmosphere is a mixture of gaseous molecules of which there are several that have IR absorption and emission properties. The behavior of these IR property gases in the Earth’s planetary atmosphere have little relevance to what happens inside an agricultural greenhouse.

    John

  308. Since winter is coming: Did you know that extratropical cyclones can form an eyewall? Did you know that a extratropical cyclones can form over land? Did you know that nor’easters is a shortened form of northeaster and is called that because the wind comes from the northeast? Did you know that a northeaster in the Mediterranean Sea is called a gregale? Did you know that nor’easters can do more beach erosion than a hurricane?

  309. Francisco says:
    October 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    “Very true, and I’ve often thought about that. And if the precautionary principle is of any use, it would also suggest that the transition back to glacial conditions may be somewhat overdue, to judge by past cycles.”

    Did you know the Green Movement invented the Precautionary Principle?

    The Precautionary Principle Who Benefits?

  310. Did you know that the National Academy of Sciences never endorsed the hockey stick conclusions of Michael Mann, et al.?

  311. Did you know that the Earth’s climate is the single most complicated system known, apart from life itself. It consists of many, many variables, some well understood, some unknown, some stable, some chaotic.

  312. I have made one suggestion – above (and of course could make heaps more) but I will add this since, as a geologist, I think it is interesting and likely to challenge old beliefs.

    Did you know that the story from geological history tells us that plants have been too efficient at carbon sequestration such that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have declined 90% in the past 150 million years, and that during the last Ice Ages atmospheric levels approached the critical point at which photosynthesis would stop? Therefore the biosphere is actually more at risk from the low levels of atmospheric CO2 than from elevated levels of CO2. If we genuinely fear for future of the biosphere we should be thinking more in terms of increasing the levels of CO2 by de-sequestering carbon from coal and oil fields to make it available to the biosphere and making photosynthesis more efficient.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on-climate-and-energy-security/

    There are a couple of weak figures in this paper which mention it but I cant think of a better source at the moment Sorrry

  313. Did you know that the Free Air Carbon Experiment (FACE), showed evelated plant growth for all increased levels of carbon dioxide tested.

  314. I would have thought that the very first slide has to be…

    Did you know Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are like chalk and cheese?

  315. Most people don’t know that global temperatures have not risen for 16 years.

    Most people don’t know that so much climate science has been discredited, things like the Steig Antarctica paper, the “Screening Fallacy” as discussed by Mcintyre found in so many papers, and the extent to which these deliberate hide-the-decline sort of tricks permeate the science.

  316. Did you know that Carbon Dioxide + Water + Sunlight = Sugar + Oxygen which is the basis for all Life on Earth.

  317. (Sorry if someone else said this, but I don’t have time to read through 400+ comments. Also, it may seem a little elementary, but so was your example about the logarithmic response of temp to CO2. And finally, it’s a bit irrelevant, given that most of the sea level rise predicted by alarmists comes from thermal expansion of the oceans, but it would be interesting to learn just how ignorant the public is about this.)

    Did you know that if the ENTIRE Arctic Ice Cap melted, ocean levels would not rise by the tiniest fraction of a millimeter? Floating ice does not increase the level of water it’s floating on as it melts. This can be confirmed with a simple experiment in your kitchen.

  318. Black body radiation theory always drives me crazy. The assumptions always seems to start with the earth as without it’s own source of heat.

    The earth is molten. The earth’s spinning core of mostly molten iron makes for earth’s magnetic field offering earth’s residents dome protection from cosmic and solar outpouring energies.

    Somehow, I’ve never seen any research on how much energy reaches space as our planet cools. Black body calculations nonwithstanding, where is the internal earth’s contribution to the environment. Cooler soil just under the surface, comes about from cooling effects of exposure to space (atmosphere is such a thin skin of air it is almost inconsequential), not cumulative heating effects of a trace gas. The deeper a mine goes the greater a challenge it is to cool it sufficiently for humans to work.

    On a stove, humans put tops on their pots to contain the heat. A lack of convection is what allows, not causes, the higher temperatures. Greenhouses add vents in the top to produce a similar effect. With sufficient convection, even greenhouses can remain at the current outdoor temperature. Add in solar screening, swamp coolers and the greenhouses can be kept cooler than the outside temps. Even when CO2 is artificially raised to higher levels for better plant growth.

    So what happens when that convective surface is exposed to deep space half a day. If CO2 is raising the temperatures, its in our interest to pump more out. But I personally think CAGWers are expecting an awful lot of shaking, moving and emitting out those few molecules of CO2.

    I have an issue with the idea that CO2′s environmental effect is forced and cumulative. Radiation in the infra red frequencies will keep occuring as long as atoms and molecules are doing their shaking, vibrating and emitting. It is the nature of physics that all atoms seek their lowest natural state.

    This is why, in the hottest subtropical-tropical deserts; temperatures drop, often drastically and significantly at night. Frost is possible, even in summmer, if the sky is clear of clouds and humidity is low. CO2 sure makes a difference, BS!

  319. My mistake. I forgot to transition the earth’s magnetic effect to some of man’s uses for magnetism. In it’s own way, earth’s magnetic field is interacting with earth, earth’s surface, atmosphere, even the moon and near space object. All of this interaction represents energy.

    Man has devised rapidly fluctuating magnets to quickly heat magnetic metals to welding temperatures. Perhaps an extreme example, but fluctuating magnetic fields transmit energy to magnetic chemicals in our bodies, plants, creatures, even in seawater. More IR to radiate out.

  320. Did you know that CO2 is not pollution but plant food? Higher CO2 concentration leads to faster growth rates in plants and improved crop yields. This is generally good for all types of life on Earth. (Note: there are articles that say that this is false and then go on to quote statistics that show it is true).

  321. Ken Mourin says:
    October 21, 2012 at 4:53 am
    “14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA « Tory Aardvark

    I saw this number (14,000) a few years ago and have searched for its source. That is, who does (or did) the counting?

    Searching leads to an article with an apparent quote regarding abandoned turbines in the “Hawaiian Isles” and “California” but where is the citation giving a source and how this information was obtained? If there is one, please post. Until then, consider this one of those numbers made up out of thin air, so to say!

  322. Steve says:
    October 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm
    Phil says:

    “I do know that’s wrong.”

    Really? So absorbed IR does not cause a vibration within a CO2 molecule?

    Yes it can, however that is not what your earlier, wrong statement said.

  323. OT, but “did you know” that Genghis who proffered some points early in this thread is not Genghis Cunn aka Faustino, although I can’t rule out any common ancient Mongolian ancestry. I appointed myself Director of the (fictitious) Genghis Cunn School of Economics 15-16 years ago in exasperation with ignorant interventionists (they are still around, folks), although my more usual nom de net is Faustino.

  324. Did you know that Richard S Courtney at 7:47am completely misinterpreted my post of 6:20am?

    The point being that if a doubling of CO2 causes a 3-4 deg C increase in global temperatures then the world would have burned to a crisp years ago when CO2 concentrations were several thousand ppm as per the diagram that someone else had posted shows. But the Earth did not spiral out of control and therefore the 3-4 degree warming (claimed by so many climate scientists) caused by a doubling of CO2 is incorrect. I don’t even think it’s logarithmic but I’ll let Richard catch up first. Richard remind me not to stand next to you if we’re ever out there fighting a war together.

  325. Did you know there are over 200,000 wind turbines turning in the world of which 14,000 is 7%?

  326. John says:
    October 21, 2012 at 10:40 am
    “The arctic circle is currently moving North at 49 feet a year.

    A quick calculation (correct me if I’m too far off) shows that in 7,472.3 years the Arctic Circle (solar tangent defined and not the fast food place near you) will coincide with the North Pole.
    Why should I care?

  327. >> Steve from Rockwood says:
    >> October 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm
    >>The point being that if a doubling of CO2 causes a 3-4 deg C increase in global temperatures

    Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has ever cause ANY global temperature increase ? Without evidence, you can choose any theory you wish.

  328. Did you know that…

    For years, throughout Europe and North America ancient artifacts have been and continue to be discovered under retreating glaciers and melting ice. As these discoveries are made the media announcements always credit “climate change” with its implied, or stated, modern anthropogenic cause for melting the ice but rarely question how it was that these items got under the ice/glacier in the first place. When they do, it’s usually that those past warm periods were the result of other causes but it’s different this time; modern warming is the result of GHG’s. In any event, we have yet to see any evidence that shows modern climate change is outside the bounds of natural variability and these finds are just another example.

    Anthony, there are just too many references to post on this topic, I’m sure you are familiar with them or can easily find them. I’ll include this one as it has a nice picture of a glacier.

    http://www.norwaypost.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25795

  329. Dr Burns says:

    “Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has ever caused ANY global temperature increase? Without evidence, you can choose any theory you wish.”

    Amen to that!

    Can I get an ‘Amen!’?

    Amen, brother.

  330. @Michael
    October 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    ——————————————
    You may have misread what I was talking about. I am not advocating we pay much heed to the silly “precautionary principle” with regard to CO2 accumulation at current rates. I agree with those who believe that a concentration at least twice as large as the current concentration would most likely be largely beneficial. I am saying that the “precautionary principle,” for whatever it is worth, would make a lot more sense if CO2 concentrations began to reverse course and drop to levels below 300 ppm – and if we could do something to prevent it from dropping further. And also that it would make more sense to worry (if we must worry) about the next glaciation and how exactly are our descendents going to prepare for it when it comes.

    It is very plausible that the current standard model of the carbon cycle may be grossly wrong.
    In The Deep Hot Biosphere, Thomas Gold states that “several times as much carbon as is taken up by living materials is constantly extracted from the atmosphere and taken out of circulation as long-lived or permanent carbonate rock. The surface biosphere must therefore have been kept alive by an ongoing and large supply of carbon in the form of either methane or CO2 (or a mix of the two). CO2 will be the final addition to the atmosphere in either case. [page 15].

    And: “The theory that the earth started out with a massive CO2 atmosphere fails in yet another way. The pattern of carbonate rock deposition through geological time does not support it. Rather than a skewing of carbonate deposition to earlier times, the sedimentary record shows a rather continuous accumulation of such oxidized carbon, as well as unoxidized carbon, over the last two billion years — which is the period of time over which the sedimentary record is usefully intact. Indeed, the total carbon excess of the surface layers is clearly shown to have been increasing since early times. Recycling cannot account for that. Rather a continuous addition drawn from sources upwelling from within the earth must be held responsible. Strangely, although most of the oxidized carbon that is in the carbonate deposits is derived from the atmospheric-oceanic pool of carbon dioxide, the present content of carbon in this pool represents only about one part in 740 of the known deposited amounts (using the estimated total deposited carbon over the course of two billion years and the measured CO2 content of atmosphere and oceans). What is the origin of the supply that maintains atmospheric CO2 at levels that result in the deposition of carbonates through all geological epochs and that maintains a supply rate sufficiently constant to keep plants alive?
    If outgassing of carbon-containing volatiles from the depths of the earth were responsible […] this global average rate of outgassing would have to be sufficient to replace the amount equal to the present oceanic-atmospheric content of carbon dioxide every 2.7 million years. In other words, the carbon must have been replaced in those surface reservoirs 740 times in two billion years.” [page 63]

  331. I have not read all of the 440 + comments and apologise if this is a duplication…

    These are quotes from the book ‘The Inconvenient Skeptic’ by John Kehr and are cited facts.

    Did you know that most glaciers in the northern hemisphere are less than 4,000 years old and no glaciers have been found which are older than 8,000 years. The youngest glaciers are only a few hundred years old. Looking at the long term temperature of the holocene it is clear that the last 1,000 years have been the coldest of the last 10,000 years.

    Climate alarmists are usually short term thinkers because their livelihoods frequently depend upon immediate action…

  332. Did you know:
    There hasn’t been any global warming in 16 years?
    That sea level is falling?
    That the Polar Bear population is at its highest since we’ve been keeping track?
    That Antarctic sea ice is at its highest since we’ve been keeping track?
    That the north pole was ice free in 1958?
    That the U.S. is emitting CO2 at 1990 levels which was the goal of the Kyoto Protocol?
    That In Minnesota atmospheric CO2 dropped to a low of 378 PPM recently?

  333. DYK that until mankind started burning fossil fuels all plant life here on Earth was on the verge of co2 starvation? Mankind + fossil fuels has begun a truly “green” revolution for all life on our planet. Don’t let the ocophobic eco-freaks return us back toward the cold and starvation. A bit warmer is better for all animals. A bit more co2 is better for plants and therefore all animals.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692178/pdf/9507562.pdf

    DYK that this is the environmentalist’s actual objective, a cold and starved future? Investigate it yourself, the quotes of their leaders are out there on the web.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

    DYK co2 levels do not affect the earth’s temperature at all proven so far by hundreds of thousands of empirical radiosonde sounding data instances? (Ferenc Miskolczi)

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=503

    DYK the levels of the sun and clouds (liquid and solid matter) do, in fact, affect the temperature of this planet?
    (duh!!)

    ( Anthony, read this post to fast, didn’t realize we needed to also include sources – here’s the re-do)

  334. Scottie says:
    October 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    “Did you know that the hottest planet in the solar system, Venus, has the lowest wind speeds of any planet and that the coldest planet in the solar system, Neptune, has the highest wind speeds?”

    Perhaps there are other reasons for this. Like that Venus rotates very slowly so it can reach stability of temperature distribution. And Neptune has a very high inclination of its rotational axis meaning that some weird stuff goes on with atmospheric circulation. I think without examining all the factors, nothing can be deduced from this.

  335. tktom says:
    October 21, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    “Did you know that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the past were thousands of times greater than they are today without jeopardizing the earth’s ability to support life?”

    Levels in the past were tens of times higher than they are today without jeopardizing the earth’s ability to support life would be a more correct statement. Still a good argument.

  336. Francisco says:
    October 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    @Michael
    October 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    ——————————————
    “You may have misread what I was talking about. I am not advocating we pay much heed to the silly “precautionary principle” with regard to CO2 accumulation at current rates. I agree with those who believe that a concentration at least twice as large as the current concentration would most likely be largely beneficial. I am saying that the “precautionary principle,” for whatever it is worth, would make a lot more sense if CO2 concentrations began to reverse course and drop to levels below 300 ppm – and if we could do something to prevent it from dropping further. And also that it would make more sense to worry (if we must worry) about the next glaciation and how exactly are our descendents going to prepare for it when it comes.”

    It is not for Man to decide what the levels should or should not be of CO2, as it is a futile effort to even try, or be worth anything. There are 97,000 Olympic size swimming pools of water on the planet for every human that inhabits it. Do the Math.

    The Precautionary Principle is worthless in Science and in Politics, as it can only lead to abuse without evidence, and should be abandoned outright, as it is only speculation and opinion.

    The Precautionary Principle may be applied in the areas of Philosophy and Ideology, as those are measurable outcomes from hidden psychological agendas coming to pass and well documented.

  337. Ken Mourin says:
    October 21, 2012 at 4:53 am

    14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA « Tory Aardvark
    The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

    I wish that were true, but it’s just an Internet rumor. It originated in a letter to a Hawaiian newspaper, and appears to have been plucked out of thin air. The actual number is probably well below 1000.

  338. (re-post with sources)

    DYK a large swatch of the worlds population has been infected with a case of ocophobia (co2-phobia) and what is really needed is to have psychological clinics set up to help the afflicted? Mankind owes it to these lost and confused souls created by over zealot environmentalists infiltrating our schools, universities, governments and industries.

    http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/11/scared-to-death.html

    DYK this illness is being spread by the content of schoolbooks within our grade school and upper level texts and teachers curriculum? Even in the cartoons fed to pre-school children on the TV channels. The first step is to purge all of this contaminated propaganda content from what is being feed to the young and developing minds and getting back to pure classical science.
    Climate-anxiety: reports of frightened children

    http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-anxiety-reports-of-frightened.html

    Climatologists Playing Children’s Games to Scare Each Other

    http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/climatologists-playing-childrens-games-to-scare-each-other

    It is true.

  339. I assume in your introduction to this article that you want to produce a series of “vignettes” for the general population, with a positive tone and straight to the basic facts. Here are a few ideas, perhaps simple but more understood by non-scientists (like me):
    -Global warming will likely lead to increased food production (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/08/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-and.html)
    -Sea levels have risen by miniscule amounts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/the-500-year-fud-about-sea-levels/)
    -Increased CO2 leads to increased plant life and growth (many references this site: http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html) Note the large northern land masses, Russia and Canada, would have more food production capabilities.
    -Natural solar variations affect earth’s climate (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/14/more-solar-linkages-to-climate/ ,and others on your own site)
    -We are still coming out of the Ice Age. Canada’s landmass is still rebounding from the weight of the ice: (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=77E16494-E7F2-99DF-30DB33EDF0C6ACBA)
    -The earth has been warming since the ice age yet CO2 levels have increased only recently (reference your own CO2 and temperature charts)
    -The main threats to the global ecosystem are pollution and population growth, not global warming. (an opinion shared my many, no specific links to articles but I am sure there are lots)
    -The world (i.e. USA) continues to break cold weather records (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/02/record-cold-weather-roundup-hundreds-of-new-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-last-week/)

    I am thrilled at being able to contribute a little to your site, one that I visit regularly. I am not a scientist but someone that simply does not believe in man-made global warming (and those that profit from this rhetoric). I despise hearing about the negatives of the natural global warming instead of the positive effects (guess it helps to be a cold Canadian). BTW Canada is gifting the US west with a cold air mass this week. Fun stuff all that shoveling, sweeping and scraping.

    Thanks to you Anthony and to your regular contributors. I do not know where you find all the energy to keep such an excellent site.

  340. John F. Hultquist says:
    October 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines … Until then, consider this one of those numbers made up out of thin air, so to say!

    Not sure of the count either, but digging around indicates that the number of abandoned sites and units is massive.

    http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

    http://2012nevadacounty.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/where-do-unsubsidized-wind-turbines-go-to-die/

    And what may be a repeat… the author probably knows the source, he is the first one (as far as I can find) that uses the number.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

  341. that CO2 is supposed to retain energy/heat and that climate scientist measure this energy by looking at temperature records. However, temperature is not a measurement of energy. In fact the two don’t even correlate.
    Show graph of glass of ice being heated to boiling and energy added vs temp
    that the rise in temps where claimed to be “unprecendented” and that since they were unprecedented it was claimed tobe proof it was caused by man. However recent reseaarch has shown otherwise.
    insert best graph of MWP and last century.

  342. ” Within the current interglacial (the Holocene), temperatures have been as high or higher than at present at least 3 times: during the Climate Optimum some 7000 years ago; ”

    The very use of the term Climate Optimum for a period that was considerable warmer than today shows how stupid things have got. We are now told that “when” gobal temps are that high we would be half way to hell.

  343. ‘The repeatability of Robert Woods experiment’ by Nasif Nahle.

    Keep 95% of the long wave infrared in the ‘greenhouse’, forcing the temperature with back radiation.

    Or,

    keep 5% of it in.

    It doesn’t matter.

    The rate of increase and the final temperature are the same, confirmed by repeatable experiment.

    This proves that the long wave radiative energy although present is at a level where it is almost ‘merely an indicator’ of temperature. It is swamped by conduction and convection in coupled thermal systems at ambient temperatures.

  344. GH gasses reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

    This means that although the total energy in the system will be higher, the day time high temperature will be lower.

    This is clearly seen because all the highest temperatures recorded on earth are in arid or desert regions where there is very little WV in the troposphere.

    So, what does it mean when we see record temperatures being broken? It means it is NOT due to GH gasses.

  345. Did you know that “The ocean is curiously cold. Even in regions where surface temperatures are at a maximum, the average temperature of a water column is barely above the freezing point. The reason is the shallowness of the thermocline, the interface between the layer of warm surface water and the much colder deep abyss.”

    http://www.princeton.edu/aos/people/faculty/george_philander/

    Since most of the heat content is in the first several hundred meters of water, it has very little impact on the total heat content of the entire water column extending down several kilometers.

    Several hundred meters of warm VS. several kilometers of cold………no competition.

  346. Did you know that the climate has been oscillating within narrow temperature bounds for the last billion of years and probably more than that ?

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    (Note for Antony : the temperature chart on the linked page can’t be used without reference to Dr Scotese)

    Observation 1 : The negative feedbacks prevail because the temperatures stayed in a narrow band despite widely variating atmospheric composition, continent distribution, Ice Caps existence and Sun’s activity.

    Observation 2 : The Earth has presently been in a very cold climate phase far below the average of the last 600 millions of years. (Remark : at the time scale of the chart the Ice ages are not resolved but contribute to the low temperature average observed in the recent period).

    Observation 3 : The warm Earth state, probably without Ice Caps, is a preferred and more stable state. The Earth spent most of its time in this state.

    Consequence : The CO2 increase during the last 2 centuries is a very short time scale perturbation which will have no measurable effect on the global trend which should be warming with pseudo periodical interruptions due to Ice Ages..

  347. An other eye-opening graphic would be total GHG contributions showing the insignificance of human contribution:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    Not sure on the numbers & calcs from the above link – I am not fully qualified to judge. I am surprised that CO2 comes out higher than CH4 but both are dwarfed by water vapour contribution – to which we can do nothing about (well except the crazy Russians cloud seeding maybe!)

  348. Phil says:

    “Yes it can, however that is not what your earlier, wrong statement said.”

    Do we really have to go through this step by step? If the IR causes a vibration within the CO2 molecule, then the vibration costs a certain amount of energy to create. If some energy is expended causing the vibration, then the IR being emitted will be at a slightly lower energy than when it was absorbed and therefore be at a slightly longer wavelength. For example, IR absorbed at the 4.3 micrometer band is emitted at 4.31 micrometers. CO2 does not absorb at 4.31, it absorbs at 4.3. The other bands emit at a slightly longer wavelength as well rendering CO2 IR emissions invisible to other CO2 molecules.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/

  349. 25 Recent studies mostly debunk the claims that coral losses are mostly due to warmer water or that warmer water will be a major threat to them.

    26 Environmental organizations are wealthy (receiving grants from big oil), pay big salaries, have many employees, and are deeply entwined in the establishment.

    27 If there were no threat of global warming, environmental organizations would find it necessary to invent one, lest their grants and donations be halved.

    28 The funding for orthodox climatology by governments and private foundations dwarfs the funding for heretic climatology by think tanks & big oil by a factor of 100.

    29 The Kilimanjaro ice cap is recovering.

  350. 30 Low-lying island nations aren’t lying any lower now than they were ten years ago.

    31 The Met Office’s weather forecasts for the UK, biased by warmist prejudice, have turned out badly wrong.

    32 An Australian state government, blinded by warmist predictions of ever-lasting droughts, allowed a dam to fill beyond its safe capacity, forcing a catastrophic release of water when raining continued.

    33 Other Australian state governments, relying on the same forecasts, built expensive water desalinization plants that have had to be mothballed.

  351. Steve from Rockwood:

    re your post at October 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm, I did NOT “misrepresent” what you wrote. I pointed out that it was wrong.

    Several posts in this thread have presented trivial information, but plain wrong information damages the purpose of the thread whatever was the intention of its provision.

    It is at least as important to ensure that wrong statements in this thread are corrected as it is to provide statements to this thread (which I have also done).

    Richard

  352. Did you know – There are ‘fake’ skeptics and ‘true’ skeptics?

    http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/fake-skeptics-versus-true-skeptics.html

    Fake Skeptics do not argue on the grounds of science, they mostly use non-scientific arguments to attack the findings of science. They misrepresent the science, use logical fallacies, acknowledge and interpret empirical data only very selectively, e.g., by cherry picking those, insofar those appear to be in support of their views. The thinking is governed by cognitive biases too a large degree. The driving force is not primarily scientific curiosity, and the motivation for arguing against findings of science is mostly not just some scientific disagreement. Findings from scientific research are rejected, because those findings are in contradiction to preconceived economical, political, ideological, or religious views. Consequently, since the scientific arguments are lacking, fake skeptics often resort to attacks not just against the results from research, but also against the scientists who have presented those results. Scientists who are presenting results from research which are not liked are being defamed and smeared. Accusations, insinuation, or the use of innuendo against those scientists, asserting or suggesting fraud and malicious manipulation of data and results from scientific studies are common. Resort to conspiracy theories fantasies is common too, which is explainable. How else can the worldview be made whole, if most scientists who work and publish in the field say something else? The ones who act as fake skeptics are mostly people who are not directly involved in the area of research the findings of which are being rejected. Since scientific arguments and rigorousness are lacking, fake skeptic arguments are usually not presented in scientific publications in specialist journals of the field due to the filter mechanism of the peer review process. Instead, they are mostly found in other venues, nowadays especially in Internet opinion blogs, since it is not mandatory in those to uphold strong scientific standards.

    True Skeptics are, in contrast, driven by scientific curiosity and they wish to acquire knowledge about the cause-effect relationships that govern the workings of the object or system that is being studied and debated. They argue based on science. If they do not agree with findings presented by scientists, they do this using scientific arguments. They embrace the scientific method and test alternative explanations, if they hypothesize those, against empirical data. True skeptics present their alternative hypotheses and theories, once they have been worked out sufficiently, in the peer reviewed specialist journals of the field, i.e., they uphold for themselves high scientific standards. Personal attacks against scientists who are presenting alternative, competing hypotheses and theories are not being considered as legit arguments against those hypotheses and theories. Professional scientists need to be true skeptics in their daily work. It is part of their professional profile.

    Boy, am I glad I’m a global warming doubting colleague.

  353. 1) A 350 year warming-with numerous advances and retreats-can be observed in the instrumental temperature record and detailed in CET and BEST.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/

    2) ‘Global warming is not global.” Cooling can be observed in some 30% of stations worldwide, many for statistically meaningful periods of time as observed by BEST and here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/

    tonyb

  354. Steve says:
    October 22, 2012 at 3:02 am

    “For example, IR absorbed at the 4.3 micrometer band is emitted at 4.31 micrometers. CO2 does not absorb at 4.31, it absorbs at 4.3.”

    Emission in this range requires a temperature at or close to 400C.

  355. Did you know…..
    Al Gore is not a climate scientist…

    Did you know…
    Al Gore says the temperature underground is millions of degrees…

    Dis you know …
    Al Gore has recently purchased a beach front property…

    Did you know…
    Many of the editors of the IPCC reports are not even scientists…

  356. Many alarmist journalists show pictures of polar bears, floods, melting glaciers and a hundred other things as proof of ACC. Its just fear mongering of course, but the most concise response that I’ve seen came from JoNova a few years ago. Its a simple and clear tidbit that sticks in my mind.

    So paraphrasing JoNova, it might go something like this; “Did you know that images of swimming polar bears and melting glaciers are evidence of climate change only, they are not evidence that CO2 is the cause.”

  357. did you know…that co2 is an essential atmospheric gas for life on earth, and that studies demonstrate that below a level of 150ppm[someone give citation and review pls] all life on earth, starting with plants, would die within a year [review pls].

  358. Dr Burns says:
    October 21, 2012 at 8:15 pm
    >> Steve from Rockwood says:
    >> October 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm
    >>The point being that if a doubling of CO2 causes a 3-4 deg C increase in global temperatures

    Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has ever cause ANY global temperature increase ? Without evidence, you can choose any theory you wish.
    ——————————————
    I am not the one who has chosen the theories. I don’t believe in them. I thought that climate scientists believe that a doubling of CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature of somewhere between 0.6 and 8 deg C. If you choose a high forcing such as 3-4 deg C and extrapolate forward (to the high CO2 levels we have seen in the past) you quickly realize that such a high sensitivity is impossible because the world would have to have been too hot for life. Reconciling previous high CO2 levels with moderate temperatures when you believe in such high forcings is not my problem – I don’t believe it. I’m sorry for pointing this out so poorly.

  359. Did you know that now, that the atmospheric CO2 myth has played ad nauseam, and has been thorougly discredited, a new threat is being carefully created: “Ocean acidification”!! It is already playing in bankrupt Greece, by the same media that were pushing AGW for the past 5 years. Much harder to sail around with packs of litmus paper… And it will acidify critically in deep caves, where no man has ever gone, and it will drill holes right through the molten core which will then explode in our faces if we don’t repent.

  360. Did you know that the world’s 6 billion people produce 36.6 billlion metric tons of carbon dioxide annualy by simply breathing while fossil fuel burning produces 21.3 billion tons or 58% of the amount causing by humans breathing?

    I hesitate to publicize these figures as it may cause a nasty re-focusing on the part of warming alarmists.

  361. At the risk of re-focusing warming alarmists….did you know that the entire output of all fossil fuel burning annually is 21.3 billion metric ton(nes) of carbon dioxide which is 58% of the 36.6 billion metric ton(nes) of carbon dioxide created by the breathing of the earth’s human population alone?

  362. In industry we call this a one point lesson, here’s a few of my favorites:

    Did you know that computer models that predict net positive feedbacks also predict less outgoing IR from warming but satellite observations show increased outgoing IR?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    Did you know that stratospheric cooling is a “fingerprint” of GHG warming and that stratospheric cooling stopped circa 1995?

    http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.ls

    http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf

    Did you know the sun has been at grand maximum and that the ocean is a dynamic heat sink capable of absorbing and releasing huge amounts of energy into or out of the atmosphere?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/14/raimund-muscheler-says-that-a-steady-high-level-of-forcing-cant-cause-warming/

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/everything-you-every-wanted-to-know-about-el-nino-and-la-nina-2/#more-2104

    Did you know that the “well-funded and organized denial machine” is a myth?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/us-government-only-spent-70-billion-on-climate-since-2008/

    Did you know that for atmospheric CO2 to just neutralize (make average pH=7) the ocean it would have to be about 6,000 ppm short term and over 11,000 ppm long term?

    http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt167nb66r&chunk.id=ch06&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch06&brand=eschol

    http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf

    Did you know that CAGW belief requires ignoring “when we are” in long term climate cyles?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    For the record: if I’m wrong about something I want Richard or anyone else to point it out to me. Nobody’s perfect, although I believe everything is factualy correct, I’m sure my wording could be improved upon.

  363. Did you know that ozone is a very unstable substance: at -50 degrees C the half life of ozone is 3 months? This explains why the ‘ozone hole’ occurs every year in the Antarctic and why it will continue to occur whether or not CFCs are present.

  364. Did you know…
    Al Gores movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was banned on the orders of a UK High Court Judge, from being shown in UK schools, without significant warnings to the children, because ‘nine errors in the film which went against current mainstream scientific consensus’.

    He branded it as ‘alarmist’ and ‘exaggerated’

  365. Did you know that pure water is more acidic than sea water? Did you know that the oceans were more acidic in the past and it did not lead to extinction of life?

    Did you know that the oceans today are not at all acidic, they are caustic. Did you know that today’s oceans are more caustic than they were 10 million years ago? Did you know that the ice ages have made the oceans more caustic?

    Did you know that caustic solutions dissolve fat and hair, which is how we produce soap and depilatories? Did you know that it is not possible to make the oceans acidic, because of the large amounts of salts dissolved in the ocean which act as a chemical buffer.

    pg 53.

    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebePQ01.pdf

  366. Did you know:
    Svante Arrhenius in 1908 was probably the first denier of catastrophic climate change caused by man, and felt global warming would actually be good for the earth.

    In 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[6]
    he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population
    By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

    Today Phil Jones would be advocating changing the peer review process to keep such heretic views hidden.

  367. Did you know -

    the SkS folks are going crazy trying to “correct” all of the factual information in this thread.

    LOL

    Mods – sorry, I just couldn’t resist posting this.

  368. Did you know that global tenperatures have not risen significantly for the last 15 years? Therefore, any climate “wierding” observed this year and attributed to global warming must have been triggered 15 years ago!! Sorry, I don’t buy it.

  369. Did you know that the earth as a whole is much warmer in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer than it is in the NH winter?
    CO2 is lower in the NH summer when the whole earth is warmer and higher in the NH winter when when it is colder.

  370. Did you know that scientific theories are always provisional? That is, they are always provisional. Theories may, however, be nullified by experimental results.

  371. Did you know the the earth has warmed 15C over the past 15 thousand years, while recent warming is less than 1C? Did you know that this warming has made human civilization possible.

    Did you know that when the earth was colder that famines were common? Did you know that as little as 60 years ago when conditions were colder, that crop failures and famines were common? Did you know that today, with a warmer earth we are feeding more people and people are living longer, in greater health and prosperity. than at any time in history?

    Did you know that as a species, humans were nearly extinct 70 thousand years ago, with fewer than 2000 individuals left alive? Did you know that this near extinction occurred when the earth was colder than it is today?

    Did you know that of all the animals on earth, humans are one of the best adapted to deal with warming conditions? Did you know that human beings cannot survive temperatures lower than 28C / 82F without technology (fire, clothing, etc)? Did you know that the average temperature of the earth is only 15C / 60F?

    Did you know that the average temperature of the earth is fatal to unprotected humans? Did you know that without technology, humans cannot survive outside of tropical rainforests? Did you know that a naked human will die of exposure in the natural environment, if left outside almost anywhere on earth?

    Did you know that life changes the climate of the earth to benefit life? In warming the planet humans are changing the planet to make it more suitable to human civilization.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

  372. Let me try that again:

    Did you know that scientific theories are always provisional? That is, they are can never be “proven”. Theories may, however, be nullified by experimental results.

  373. Did you know that the “Greenhouse Effect” only works when there is a barrier to convection, such as the glass roof of a real greenhouse? When gases in an unconfined atmosphere are heated, they expand, and Archimedes Principle works to cause them to rise away from the planetary surface.

  374. Roger Knights says:
    October 22, 2012 at 3:45 am
    30 Low-lying island nations aren’t lying any lower now than they were ten years ago.
    ============
    I have a map of the Pacific Island group of Tonga, drawn by William Bligh in the 1770′s. I spent a year sailing in Tonga in a 40 foot sailboat in 1988-89 using this chart. The reason why is simple. Tonga is so remote that no one has drawn a better chart of Tonga since then.

    The water depths on Bligh’s 200 year old chart of Tonga were still accurate to within 1 foot.

    The problem is not climate change, it is that humans are very short lived in relation to climate. We are like mayflies that only live one day. We see the sun rise in the morning and think we are seeing climate change. Nature works in cycles. Today’s global warming was global cooling 60 years ago.

  375. JohnWho:

    re your post at October 22, 2012 at 7:12 am

    Did you know that mention of something happening at that den of iniquity encourages people to check it by going there and this benefits the den financially?

    Richard

  376. Reply to richardscourtney at October 22, 2012 at 4:00 am

    I think you did misinterpret Steve from Rockwood.

    He is quite right that temperatures were higher in the Jurassic and that CO2 was higher in the Jurassic but the feedbacks (a logarithmic feedback) don’t add up. If the CO2 caused the higher temperature then the current sensitivity woul dbe different to as it is observed to be by anybody.

    Steve from Rockwood is right to point out that the higher temperatures and higher CO2 in dinosaur days do not a convincing AGW argument make.

    • The Cretaceous provides an excellent test case for climate models. Even with its high CO2 (literal greenhouse levels of ~1000 ppm), models can’t reproduce its heat & equability, ie the fact that the temperature gradient from equator to poles was slight. Climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling has to be absurdly high for the GCMs to work, even with lots of tinkering & assumption mongering.

      Interestingly, a 2008 study found a solution to the extra heat problem, which of course was not welcomed in Consensusland (despite emanating from the belly of the science-molesting beast, Penn State): cloudlessness due to lack of biologically-induced condensation nuclei.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5873/195.short

  377. Did you know, the global warming from 1960-2000 was primarily in the Arctic? The latitude band from 75-85 N experienced an approximate 10C annual average temperature increase. http://justdata.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/rawtempbylatitude_23.jpg
    For the context & source code used see also: http://justdata.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/step-by-step-debunking-climate-change/
    (search for “two surprises”)
    A more detailed look at the raw temperature data in the arctic zone:

    http://justdata.wordpress.com/arctic-trends/

  378. Parahandy:

    At October 22, 2012 at 7:28 am you say

    Did you know that the earth as a whole is much warmer in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer than it is in the NH winter?
    CO2 is lower in the NH summer when the whole earth is warmer and higher in the NH winter when when it is colder.

    Yes. The pertinent data are:

    The Earth warms by ~3.8 deg,C from June to January and cools by ~3.8 deg,C from January to June each year (which puts into perspective assertions that a rise of 2 deg.C in global temperature needs to be avoided).

    According to the Mauna Loa data atmospheric CO2 rises by ~7 ppmv towards the NH summer maximum and falls by ~5.5 ppmv towards the NH winter minimum. The difference of ~1.5 ppmv is the annual rise in atmospheric CO2.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    Richard

  379. Also look at table C of fig 1 on page 2 of this letter to Nature:

    https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf

    Did you know that CO2 does not discernably absorb longwave radiation at 800-1000cm-1.
    And at the core absorption range (around 630cm-1) the signal cannot be resolved from ice crystals in the atmosphere?

  380. M Courtney:

    re your post addressed to me at October 22, 2012 at 7:55 am.
    If that were what he said then you would be right. I suggest we discuss this by phone this evening and not clog this thread with discussion of a resolved issue.

    Dad

  381. Steve says:
    October 22, 2012 at 3:02 am
    Phil says:

    “Yes it can, however that is not what your earlier, wrong statement said.”

    Do we really have to go through this step by step?

    Apparently we do because you have it completely wrong!

    If the IR causes a vibration within the CO2 molecule, then the vibration costs a certain amount of energy to create. If some energy is expended causing the vibration, then the IR being emitted will be at a slightly lower energy than when it was absorbed and therefore be at a slightly longer wavelength. For example, IR absorbed at the 4.3 micrometer band is emitted at 4.31 micrometers. CO2 does not absorb at 4.31, it absorbs at 4.3. The other bands emit at a slightly longer wavelength as well rendering CO2 IR emissions invisible to other CO2 molecules.

    This is completely wrong, your idea of a cost is incorrect.
    If a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it means that the energy of the photon must exactly match the energy difference between the two states. To lose that energy radiatively the excited molecule must emit a photon exactly equal to the energy between the two states!
    If that photon encounters another CO2 molecule at the same lower state it can be absorbed with excitation to the same upper state as before. This is basic Physical Chemistry and can be found in any undergrad text on the subject.

  382. Reply to Parahandy says: October 22, 2012 at 7:28 am

    “Did you know that the earth as a whole is much warmer in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer than it is in the NH winter?
    CO2 is lower in the NH summer when the whole earth is warmer and higher in the NH winter when when it is colder.”

    No I didn’t and that’s fascinating. Any links, please. I tried ‘gargling’ but couldn’t find a source. It would be a lovely weapon to have in my armoury.

  383. While I don’t have specific suggestions, a series of “Did you know’s” that compared the cost of current (and proposed) green energy initiatives to the cost of remedying other societal ills, such as providing well water to all of the inhabitants of a continent, or wiping out a disease, or creating a valuable infrastructure system on a continent, etc.

    A partial example without detail: Did you know that the x million dollars the taxpayers lost on Solyndra would have purchased iPads for every child in ??? (a U.S. state, region, the entire country, another country). This is along the lines of Bjorn Lomborg’s thinking that we are devoting an insane amount of public resources to a problem when many other addressable challenges face us more immediately than the “threat” of global warming bringing a halt to civilization.

    (I didn’t have time to go through the hundred+ comments to see if this tack has already been suggested, by the way.)

  384. Did you know that IPCC, and scientists supporting CAGW regularly express 95% confidence levels in their predictions of temperature with rising CO2 levels and so far all their predictions have failed. We are on a temperature plateau that so far is of 16 years duration despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. This actually makes real confidence levels in CO2′s role in warming lower than 25%.

  385. Did you know that Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth and all of the rest of the icons are incapable of public debate?

    IMO that makes everything else almost moot.
    Has there ever before been such a collection of non-debaters in any arena throughout world history?

    Obviously debate was highly discouraged many times when one could be stoned, burned or lose their head for swaying from the path of some righteousness.

    Is this how these AGW icons view their predicament? The embarrassment and loss of position, pay and prominence is just as horrific?
    Modern man. Some are a bunch of conniving & gutless Pecksniffs.

  386. M Courtney says:
    October 22, 2012 at 8:12 am
    Also look at table C of fig 1 on page 2 of this letter to Nature:

    https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf

    Did you know that CO2 does not discernably absorb longwave radiation at 800-1000cm-1.

    This is basic, CO2 doesn’t absorb outside its absorption band under our atmospheric conditions, why do you think it matters?

    And at the core absorption range (around 630cm-1) the signal cannot be resolved from ice crystals in the atmosphere?

    Not sure what you mean by ‘core absorption range’ since 630 cm^-1 is at the lower edge of the 667 cm^-1.

  387. This thread is certainly an interesting exercise in what people THINK they know and what they THINK is important. There are some good contributions, but they seem to be counterbalanced by a larger number of trivial, incorrect, or irrelevant contributions. Separating the “wheat” from the “chaff” will be a challenge when Anthony gets around to compiling his list!

    REPLY: I’ll probably simply delete the irrelevant comments, then add another thread for fact checking. – Anthony

  388. Did you know that CO2 is neccesary for photosynthesis and that without it there would be no green plant life on earth (ie most likely no life of any kind) and that this gas, which is only 0.033% of our atmosphere, has been designated a pollutant by the EPA?

  389. richardscourtney says:

    October 22, 2012 at 7:53 am

    JohnWho:

    re your post at October 22, 2012 at 7:12 am

    Did you know that mention of something happening at that den of iniquity encourages people to check it by going there and this benefits the den financially?

    Richard

    Yeah, my bad.

    Won’t do it again, although knowing that we’ve added an additional degree of difficulty to their effort to alter the truth is a bit comforting.

    And, I though, at least worth a smile.

  390. M Courtney says:
    October 22, 2012 at 7:55 am
    Reply to richardscourtney at October 22, 2012 at 4:00 am

    I think you did misinterpret Steve from Rockwood.

    He is quite right that temperatures were higher in the Jurassic and that CO2 was higher in the Jurassic but the feedbacks (a logarithmic feedback) don’t add up. If the CO2 caused the higher temperature then the current sensitivity woul dbe different to as it is observed to be by anybody.

    That whole argument depends on the insolation during the Jurassic being the same as today’s.
    The Astrophysicists’ theory is that the sun evolved from a fainter state, see ‘faint young sun’.

  391. Did you know that polar bears don’t exist because they went extinct 100,000, 200,000 and 300,000 years ago when it was much warmer than today.!

  392. klem says:
    October 22, 2012 at 5:22 am

    “So paraphrasing JoNova, . . .

    I will be surprised to learn that Jo Nova has made the sort of statement you create, namely, **“. . . images of swimming polar bears and melting glaciers are evidence of climate change . . .”**

    Eagles fly, Polar Bears swim;
    milk freezes, glaciers melt

    Some things are evidence of the laws of physics and chemistry and so on. To claim “climate change” for any of these things is way over the top.

  393. Tim Fitzgerald says:
    October 22, 2012 @ 7:28 and at 7:31 am
    Let me try that again:

    “. . . they are can never . . .”

    It is said that the 3rd time is the charm. Have another shot at it, Tim.

  394. JFH: Never post after drinking beer or before drinking coffee. Now I’ve had my coffee and am ready for the day.

  395. as a bit of an aside, someone made the point that CO2 in submarines is considerably higher than in air. Now, what would happen if someone complained to the EPA that the US Navy is putting their submariners at risk ?

  396. Did you know:

    - Many of the sites that measure global temperature are located in urban areas, sometimes even located over ashpalt surfaces or near air conditioner exhausts? (Surface Stations)

    - Atmospheric CO2 is measured in only one place: Mauna Loa. (I know there are supposed to be good reasons for that, but it still bothers me that there is only one data point for this)

    - The ‘unprecedented warming’ in the “Hockey Stick” chart everyone’s so concerned about comes from the tree rings of one tree? (Yamal, right? I mix up Yamal & Tiljander…)

    - Some of the temperature data being used is flat-out made up? (harry_read_me “I can make it up. So I did!”)

    - Climate scientists predicted that a major New York street would be underwater by now? (I’ve read that here often, never remember which street or person)

    - The temperature records that are used to show warming are changed on a regular basis? (Recent WUWT articles)

  397. “””””…..Berényi Péter says:

    October 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Did you know that current versions of non-equilibrium thermodynamics ignore radiant heat?…..”””””

    Well that is because Electromagnetic Radiation is NOT “heat”, so it doesn’t have anything to do with Thermodynamics.

    EM radiation (energy) can be converted 100% into “heat” which is a different; mechanical form of energy, but “heat” cannot be converted 100% into Electromagnetic Radiation.

    We get EM radiation from the sun; we do not get “heat” from the sun, as there is no intervening medium to convey it by either conduction or convection (well I’m ignoring the microscopic amount of particulate matter that does arrive from the sun).
    We make all of our “heat” right here on earth by wasting virtually all of the EM energy we get from the sun.

  398. Did you know that the continent of Antarctica in parts extends North of the Antarctic circle and into the Southern Temperate Zone?

  399. “””””…..Steve says:

    October 22, 2012 at 3:02 am

    Phil says:

    “Yes it can, however that is not what your earlier, wrong statement said.”

    Do we really have to go through this step by step? If the IR causes a vibration within the CO2 molecule, then the vibration costs a certain amount of energy to create. If some energy is expended causing the vibration, then the IR being emitted will be at a slightly lower energy than when it was absorbed and therefore be at a slightly longer wavelength. For example, IR absorbed at the 4.3 micrometer band is emitted at 4.31 micrometers. CO2 does not absorb at 4.31, it absorbs at 4.3. The other bands emit at a slightly longer wavelength as well rendering CO2 IR emissions invisible to other CO2 molecules……”””””

    Well Steve, you are ignoring a whole lot of basic Physics; including the fact that there is no such thing as “radiation” that has some single exact frequency; and given the fact that (c) the vaccuum free space velocity of EM radiation, is an exact number, nor can the wavelength be any single exact value. Both will fluctuate, because since the process is taking place inside a large collection of interracting molecules, which are exchanging thermal kinetic energies among themselves, the random emission of a photon in some direction is going to be influenced by the motion of the emitting molecule at the time of emission, resulting in a Doppler shift in the emitted wavelength/frequency. A potential photon absorbing molecule is also in motion relative to the arrriving photon, so it too perceives a Doppler shifted frequency.

    As a result there is a range of Frequencies/wavelengths that can be emitted or absorbed by a CO2 for example molecule, and it simply is not true that the emitted re-radiation is necessarily at a lower energy, than the absorbed photon was.

    While Phil has couched his explanation in terms of the quantum mechanical energy level picture of the process, one only needs to invoke things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to see that any such absorption/ emission process, necessarily has a finite rbandwidth associated with it, and both atmospheric Temperature (mean particle velocity) and gas density (mean time free path length) influence the GHG absorption/emission processes, which is why the measured spectra are bands of broadened lines, rather than the much sharper lines of low pressure atomic absorption lines, characteristic of atomic spectra.

    The absorption by say CO2 near the surface, results in an isotropic re-radiation, and soon enough the upward part of that (downward too) will eventually be re-absorbed , if not by another CO2, perhaps by another GHG molecules such as H2O which also has absorption in nearby frequency bands. In fact, it is this absorption/re-emission/re-absorption cascade, that prevents the observed absorption versus CO2 abundance, from following the strict Beer/Lambert law of logarithmic dependence on species abundance. Beer’s Law presumes that absorbed energy will stay absorbed, removing it from the propagation path; it says nothing about the energy continuing to propagate in the guise of a different frequency/wavelength from what originally was emitted form some surface rock or ocean water.

    There are plenty of Optical filter glasses, that have Beer’s law absorption curves, that can take the intensity of an incident laser line, down four or five orders of magnitude, in just 3 mm of glass; they can be found in front of displays all over the place; and you can prove for yourself the accuracy of the absorption curve in the data sheet, by running the beam through a monochromator set to the laser wavelength so it only measures transmitted energy at the laser wavelength.

    But if you take out the monochromator grating so that energy at any wavelength can be measured, you will find those so-called “filter ” glasses often simply reradiate the energy at a lower frequency. So a blue laser , can be stopped cold by a green filter, which however will re-radiate much of the energy perhaps in a green/yellow color, and an orange glass will absorb all of that, but continue to send the energy on as perhaps a red color. You can often find 10-30% of the energy blows right through the filter, although maybe only a few ppm of the original incident wavelength survives.

    Trying to argue that CO2 or other GHGs can’t absorb, or are “saturated” so can’t absorb any more, is not a winning strategy.

    If earth lost all of it’s Ozone blanket, the higher energy UV photons, would simply penetrate deeper into the upper atmosphere, where they will encounter ever increasing O2 molecules, which eventually will (some of) get split into atomic Oxygen, which simply hates being alone, and will rapidly grab onto a nearby O2 molecule to form Ozone. The ozone is simply the evidence that Oxygen is doing its job of removing the really high energy solar UV photons, so they never reach the surface. The resultant ozone absorbs, and may even be destroyed by the UV-A and UV-B ranges, which are the cause of sunburn, and skin cancers; but we aren’t likely to run out of O2 any time soon.

    Good luck to Anthony in culling this weed patch.

  400. TonyG:

    re your post at October 22, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Mauna Loa station is not the only atmosphericCO2 measuring site. It is the site where the longest series of atmosphericCO2 measurements has been obtained (since 1958).

    Richard

  401. richardscourtney says:
    Mauna Loa station is not the only atmosphericCO2 measuring site. It is the site where the longest series of atmosphericCO2 measurements has been obtained (since 1958).

    Thank you for the correction. I must have misunderstood what I’ve read. Do you happen to know offhand where I could find information about the other stations and when they’ve come on/off line? (If not, I’ll look it up myself after work – thanks)

  402. Phil & Netdr

    The sun was about 1% less luminous for every 110 million years back you go in time, so during the Mesozoic was 1-2% cooler.

    Polar bears are a recent species. IIRC the oldest known sure specimen is from only 70 kya, but proto-polars must have existed during the Eemian interval (130-114 kya), the previous & much warmer interglacial, or at least brown bears specializing in ringed seal hunting.

  403. Did you know that some of the “new record high temperatures” in your area may be “new” because the old records have been changed?
    For example, here is a comparison of the list of record highs for Columbus Ohio as of 2007 and as of April 2012.
    New as of April ’12 Old from ’07 (did not include ties)
    6-Jan 68 1946 Jan-06 69 1946 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
    9-Jan 62 1946 Jan-09 65 1946 Same year but “new” record 3*F lower
    31-Jan 66 2002 Jan-31 62 1917 “New” record 4*F higher but not in ’07 list
    4-Feb 61 1962 Feb-04 66 1946 “New” tied records 5*F lower
    4-Feb 61 1991
    23-Mar 81 1907 Mar-23 76 1966 “New” record 5*F higher but not in ’07 list
    25-Mar 84 1929 Mar-25 85 1945 “New” record 1*F lower
    5-Apr 82 1947 Apr-05 83 1947 “New” tied records 1*F lower
    5-Apr 82 1988
    6-Apr 83 1929 Apr-06 82 1929 Same year but “new” record 1*F higher
    19-Apr 85 1958 Apr-19 86 1941 “New” tied records 1*F lower
    19-Apr 85 2002
    16-May 91 1900 May-16 96 1900 Same year but “new” record 5*F lower
    30-May 93 1953 May-30 95 1915 “New” record 2*F lower
    31-Jul 100 1999 Jul-31 96 1954 “New” record 4*F higher but not in ’07 list
    11-Aug 96 1926 Aug-11 98 1944 “New” tied records 2*F lower
    11-Aug 96 1944
    18-Aug 94 1916 Aug-18 96 1940 “New” tied records 2*F lower
    18-Aug 94 1922
    18-Aug 94 1940
    23-Sep 90 1941 Sep-23 91 1945 “New” tied records 1*F lower
    23-Sep 90 1945
    23-Sep 90 1961
    9-Oct 88 1939 Oct-09 89 1939 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
    10-Nov 72 1949 Nov-10 71 1998 “New” record 1*F higher but not in ’07 list
    12-Nov 75 1849 Nov-12 74 1879 “New” record 1*F higher but not in ’07 list
    12-Dec 65 1949 Dec-12 64 1949 Same year but “new” record 1*F higher
    22-Dec 62 1941 Dec-22 63 1941 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
    29-Dec 64 1984 Dec-29 67 1889 “New” record 3*F lower

  404. TonyG says:
    October 22, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    richardscourtney says:
    Mauna Loa station is not the only atmosphericCO2 measuring site. It is the site where the longest series of atmosphericCO2 measurements has been obtained (since 1958).

    Thank you for the correction. I must have misunderstood what I’ve read. Do you happen to know offhand where I could find information about the other stations and when they’ve come on/off line? (If not, I’ll look it up myself after work – thanks)

    Try here:

    http://co2now.org/Know-CO2/CO2-Monitoring/co2-measuring-stations.html

  405. 34 Green-jobs Flops: Electric cars (Obama’s Voltswagen), wind power makers, solar panel makers, . . .

    35 The EU’s cabon-trading market is way down. The US’s carbon-trading exchange has collapsed.

    36 The supposed success of Spain, the one-time poster-child for green energy, has turned out to be considerably exaggerated upon closer examination. The success of Denmark is due to special factors that don’t apply elsewhere.

    37 Wind and solar power is destabilizing the grid, or on the verge of doing so, in countries like Germany.

    38 Energy poverty due to rising fuel and electricity rates as a result of green policies is causing homes to go unheated or underheated in Europe in the winter, leading to increased sickness and death. Environmental reporters don’t report this nearly as much as the (lower number of?) deaths and sickness due to the French heat wave of 2003.

    39 Nearly every environmental journalist qualified for their job by developing expertise in environmentalism at green organizations and/or from taking green-biased college courses, and thus likely has a greenie mindset.

    40 Environmental reporters are drenched in press releases and other PR from greenie organizations n researchers. They receive comparatively little PR material from the skeptical side.

    41 Environmental reporters have a greater need to maintain friendly access to their orthodox sources than their skeptical ones, and thus have a vested interest in favoring the orthodox spin.

  406. George E. Smith says:
    October 22, 2012 at 12:05 pm
    As a result there is a range of Frequencies/wavelengths that can be emitted or absorbed by a CO2 for example molecule, and it simply is not true that the emitted re-radiation is necessarily at a lower energy, than the absorbed photon was.

    While Phil has couched his explanation in terms of the quantum mechanical energy level picture of the process, one only needs to invoke things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to see that any such absorption/ emission process, necessarily has a finite rbandwidth associated with it, and both atmospheric Temperature (mean particle velocity) and gas density (mean time free path length) influence the GHG absorption/emission processes, which is why the measured spectra are bands of broadened lines, rather than the much sharper lines of low pressure atomic absorption lines, characteristic of atomic spectra.

    Thanks George, I was reluctant to talk about broadening in answer to someone who thought that there was a cost of stimulating the vibrational modes!

  407. Did you Know:

    that, before Climategate, on October 9, 2009, former UK Met Offfice weatherman, Paul Hudson, from the BBC, wrote:

    BBC: Paul Hudson: What happened to global warming?
    For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
    And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

  408. Good luck validating this stuff. You might start by eliminating all of the “hearsay”. In other words, ignore everything without a reference. Consider links to most unsourced blog posts skeptically.

    Then you might post each candidate “Did you know?” separately and ask readers for their best counter-arguments. The opposition is going to focus everyone’s attention on any mistakes that you make. To some extent, the credibility of any such project hangs on the reliability of its least credible component.

  409. A high portion of those who reside in my community are engineers, scientists and educators. Even so, when I quiz my neighbors on their thoughts about climate science, their response is invariably first one of benign indifference, and secondly, a parroting of the spin sold by the MSM. It seems that even educated people with technical backgrounds consider climate issues unimportant in their lives and few have any sense of the cost to them of pending and proposed CO2 mitigation strategies. The media’s incessant omission of natural elements of climate science passes unnoticed, inducing little reflection of how poorly reports on climate themes jive with what they learned in K through twelfth-grade. The media, and thus warmist scientists, are thus free to miss-frame climate science issues. Per the media, it is climate scientists vs. skeptics, not vs. skeptical climate scientists. It is skeptics who don’t believe that the world is warming vs. skeptics who find no evidence that increased levels of greenhouse gasses cause substantial warming. I thus suggest that the “Did you know?” stream needs to lead with remedial reminders of climate basics to first put things in perspective.
    Below is my list of basics that I think the public needs to know for them to better judge climate reporting. Having made this list, I see that many of these items have been mentioned by others, so I am in effect reinforcing the need to include them in your “Did you know?” list:
    • Did you know that less than 4% of CO2 emissions come from man’s activities? Cite Houghton 2007, Balancing the Global Carbon Budget, to wit: Natural emissions from oceans = 330.0 Gt CO2/yr, from vegetation (respiration) = 216.3 Gt/yr, from soil (decomposition) = 214.5 Gt/yr. vs. anthropogenic emissions from burning fossil fuels = 23.1 Gt/yr, and from land use change = 7.3 Gt/yr. Total CO2 emissions = 791.3 Gt/yr; Natural CO2 emissions = 760.8 Gt/yr = 96.2%; Anthropogenic emissions = 30.4 Gt/yr = 3.8%.

    • Did you know that over 98% of CO2 emissions are sequestered within one year; by the biosphere and the oceans? Cite Houghton2007, to wit: the oceans = 337.3 Gt/yr, the biosphere (photosynthesis) 440.0 Gt/yr. It is the remaining ~13.9 Gt/year of CO2 emissions that is accumulating in the atmosphere, resulting in the ~2 ppm annual increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The media does not provide this perspective, but rather categorizes the remaining CO2 as anthropogenic and thus miss-frames the issue as “about half of CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere.”, based on 13.9 Gt/yr remaining divided by 30.4 Gt/yr anthropogenic CO2 emissions = 45.8% (i.e. natural emissions are ignored. The study of Ballantyne et al. 2012, as reported by WUWT on 2Aug12, is an example of this misrepresentation.). In reality only ~1.8% of total CO2 emissions remains in the atmosphere (13.9 Gt/791.3 Gt).

    • Did you know that the ocean holds 48.7 times the CO2 equivalent of the current atmospheric CO2 load? Houghton 2007 states that the atmosphere currently contains 2,860 Gt of CO2, whereas the oceans contain 139,344 Gt of CO2 equivalent (mostly as bicarbonate and carbonate ions). The biosphere holds 7,518 Gt of CO2, or 2.6 times that of the atmosphere.

    • Did you know that plants thrive on higher levels of CO2, with the planet’s uptake of carbon doubling in the last 50 years? Cite WUWT article Earth’s CO2 sinks increasing their uptake, 2Aug12, although the referenced press release by Ballantyne et al. of the University of is full of unsubstantiated attributions.

    Figure 1 from Ballantyne et al. 2012: a, The annual atmospheric CO2 growth rate (dC/dt). b, Fluxes of C to the atmosphere from fossil fuel emissions (FF) are plotted in red and those from land-use changes (FL) are plotted in brown. c, Annual global net C uptake (ΣN) is plotted a…

    • Did you know that there is zero chance that the oceans will become acidic? By definition, for a liquid to be acidic, it would have a pH of less than 7.0; any pH greater than 7.0 is basic or alkaline. Freely et al. 2009 states that the pH of today’s oceans range from 8.231 in the Arctic Ocean to 8.068 in the North Indian Ocean. Several technical papers and the last IPCC report calculate that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from present levels (i.e. from ~392 ppm to 800 ppm) could decrease the pH to ~7.8. This 0.4 pH reduction is still solidly within the alkaline range. The pre-industrial CO2 level was ~280 ppm. The 112 ppm change since the industrial revolution thus has resulted in about a 0.1 decrease in ocean pH.

    • Did you know that sea life adapts to gradual changes in pH? Several studies have shown that mollusks adapt to decreases of 0.4 pH and more. McConnaughey and Gillikin, 2008 conclude that “most calcifying species, including mollusks, are able to concentrate Ca2+ and CO32- ions at the site of calcification”. In other words, the sea chemistry around the organism may vary, but the organisms have the capability to adjust the chemistry at the critical site where structure is built. CO2Science.org lists many other references on the ability of mollusks and corals to adapt to pH changes.

    • Did you know that the sea level on average has been rising at a rate of only 1.7 mm/year from before 1930 to 2010 and that there is no evidence that this rise rate is increasing?

    HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

    • Did you know that sea level rise is very spatially non-uniform…..?

    Reference Houston & Dean, 2011 for above figure. …..and Did you know that winds are responsible for much of the differences in sea level around the world? The above figure, in part, reflects the dominance of westerly winds across the Pacific during the period shown. These winds are a condition of the La Nina phase of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which has dominated the recent period. [cite Bob Tisdale’s Who Turned On The Heat?.]

    • Did you know that shallow water corals grow faster than the rate of sea level rise? For example, the growth of the branching coral, Pocillopora eydouxi, measured in the Eastern Pacific, was 2.1 to 3.9 cm/yr [Reference: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Coral_growth_and_climate_change%5D. Massive corals are slow growing at 0.5 to 1.0 cm per year, whereas branching corals may grow more quickly at 10 to 20 cm/yr http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL200/powerpnt/corlanat/sld034.htm. The growth rate of Porites coral in the Great Barrier Reef has been found to be 1.5 cm/year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7807943.stm). These growth rates are significantly greater than the current sea level rise rate of 0.17 cm/year. This means that coral atolls are in no danger of being inundated from rising seas.

    • Did you know that rising ocean surface temperature enhances the growth rate of corals, even with the projected slight decreases in the water pH? Experiments indicate that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature five degrees Celsius, or increasing the carbonate content of sea water. [A.A. Roth, ‘Coral Reef Growth’, Origins 6(2) 88–95, 1979.] Many other references to this positive relation of acceleration of coral growth rate with increasing temperature can be found at

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/calcification.php

    • Did you know that since the end of the last glacial period, there have been at least three periods warmer or as warm as the present: the Holocene, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm period. These periods were interspersed by cooling periods. The reason for these cycles are not fully understood. The factors that induced these warming periods must be understood to know to what extent they are operative in the current warming. To the extent that they are operative, the impact of rising levels of atmospheric CO2 on warming the earth is proportionally reduced.

    • Did you know that water is the dominant greenhouse gas? In terms of warming effect, water vapor induces about 70% of “greenhouse warming of the atmosphere, followed by clouds, (which are mostly condensed water) that contribute about 20% of the warming of our atmosphere. The remaining 10 % of greenhouse gases are frequently referred to as “well-mixed” gases because they are uniformly dispersed around the globe, as opposed to water vapor and clouds, which vary considerably over regions of the earth. About 8.5% of the warming comes from well-mixed greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 and methane, that come from natural processes. Thus, only 1.5% of greenhouse gas has an anthropogenic origin. Of the anthropogenic gases, CO2 has been estimated to provide as much as 0.975 % of atmospheric warming (1.5 X .65), followed by methane with a contribution possibly as high as 0.375% (1.5X.25). Halocarbons, nitrous oxide, and ozone add a trace amount of atmospheric heating. [Lenz and Cozzarini, Emissions and Air Quality, 1999]

  410. Did you know that you can not heat water from above. The heat directed at thr surface is deflected by the surface tension. You can test this by simply directing heat from a heat gun at the surface of water in a bucket.If you want to heat water from above, the only way to do it is to first cover the surface with a floating object, killing the surface tension then apply the heat to the floating object.
    The only energy to enter the ocean is the sun’s radiation, atmospheric heat plays no part because of surface tension. It is for this reason that AGW cannot exist and is a complete nonsense. It is not possible to heat a gas and have the heat stored in the ocean. The ocean reacts to the sun’s radiation only and thats why Trenberth’s heat is “missing” and the climate models don’t work.
    The reason we have got into the silly situation that we are in is that scientists have assumed that the second law of thermodynamics applies universally without bothering to check. The surface of water is not a surface as they see it because it has surface tension.

  411. davidmhoffer says:
    Did you know that earth’s radiance to space increases with T^4 making the statement above utterly ridiculous?

    It turns out that I do know that. I was specifically responding Anthony’s initial “Did you know?”.

    He points out that the effect is logarithmic, rather than linear. In fact, neither model works all that well (for a variety or reasons, including the one you point out about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). But the mere FORM of the model does not preclude the possibility of large heating due to changes in CO2, as Anthony claims (“This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.”)

    * The total amount of CO2 that could be produced by burning all the known fossil fuels limits the total warming from CO2.
    * The feedbacks could enhance (or diminish) the effects of CO2.

    But the mere fact that T vs CO2 is logarithmic is, in and of itself, insufficient to preclude a “runaway greenhouse effect” resulting from more CO2. (And in my experience, “science stories” rarely have made the “linear” claim, as Anthony claimed.)

  412. Marty Cornell says: “The media does not provide this perspective, but rather categorizes the remaining CO2 as anthropogenic and thus miss-frames the issue as “about half of CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere.”

    I like your writing style and the fact that you present to back up your case, but I have a little different take on a couple things.

    In this case, I don’t think they are misframing the issue. I think it is quite legitimate to clam that about half of ANTHROPOGENIC (from fossil fuel burning and land use change) CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere. I think that is what most people think of when talking about “CO2 emissions”

    On the other hand, if you want to talk about ALL CO2 emissions, then you would have to say that the SMALL human contribution has a cascading effect on the HUGE natural emissions.

    In either case, the human contribution that thru off the previous equilibrium is pretty clearly what is responsible for the small by steady increases in CO2 over the past ~ 100 years.

    Did you know that there is zero chance that the oceans will become acidic?”
    This is mostly a matter of semantics. Yes, the oceans are never going to become truly acidic, but they are moving more toward the acidic end of the scale. I suppose it would be more accurate to say the “de-basification” of the oceans rather than the “acidification” of the ocean, but that is awkward. To me this is like saying that a furnace that raises the temperature of a room from 0C to 5 C results in “warming” of the room, even though 5C is certainly not warm. But I will grant you that terminology leaves plenty of room for misinterpretation by the uninformed.

  413. robert barclay say: October 23, 2012 at 4:15 am

    “Did you know that you can not heat water from above. “
    Put cold water into two identical styrofoam boxes. Put them in a dark room. Put a lid on one. I will guarantee the water in the open container will warm up faster than in the covered container. This can only be due to the “heating from above by the air”.

    I will grant you it is tough to heat any liquid from above by any means because no convection is created. And air has a small heat capacity compared to water. But it is certainly possible and necessary that warm air in contact with cool water will transfer energy from the warm air to the cool water.

  414. Did you know that:

    Old sea levels around Greenland could indicate slightly higher sea levels in the past but they could just as likely indicate a cooler world? Because sea levels around Greenland are around 100 metres higher than they would be if the Greenland Ice Sheet didn’t exist. This is a basic application of Newtons Law of Gravitation. Just as the gravitational pull of the moon causes tides, so to the gravitational pull of large ice masses raises sea levels near them. So higher seas around greenland in the past of a few meters only need a few percent increase in the mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet as one would expect in a cooler world.

    Did you know that we can’t assess sea level rise from tide gauges unless we allow for ‘other factors’:
    The impact of gravitational attraction to continents and ice masses.
    The effect on ground levels near cities that pump ground water and cause subsidence.
    The impact of being near major subduction zones that can cause land to be rising or falling.
    The effect of Iso-Static rebound that causes some regions to rise, making sea levels seem to rise more than they actually have.
    The effect of increases in water mass in an ocean basin causing the relatively thin crust beneath that ocean to sink meaning that ocean basin seems to hold more water and sea level rise doesn’t seem as high.
    Levering effects near the boundaries between continents and oceans such that extra water in the ocean can cause the continents to tip up a bit, confusing readings derived from coastal tide gauges since the main ‘hinge point’ is at the edge of the continental shelf rather than the tide line.
    That melting ice will transfer mass from the polar regions to lower latitudes where the earth’s average distance from it’s axis of rotation is increased. Just like an ice skater who spreads out their arms and slows down, so too the rotation of the earth slows ever so slightly. And thus centrifugal forces don’t tend to make sea level bulge out at the equator quite so much.
    That ocean currents and salinity differences cause local bulges in sea level.
    That airpressure affects local sea level – high pressure system lower local sea level, low pressure systems raise local sea level, so we need to take account of this.
    Didd you know that if we didn’t consider all these factors we could draw totally wrong conclusions from simple tide gauge measurements.

    So: ” Did you know that sea level rise is very spatially non-uniform…..?”
    Yep – see the above comments.

    Did you know that Relative Humidity is not actually a measure of how much water vapour is in the atmosphere – as someone else here suggested.

    Did you know that the huge decline in CO2 levels during the Ordovician/Silurian Ice Age doesn’t register in very coarse estimates of ancient CO2 levels produced by GeoCarb. It is a model after all, and its minimum calculation step is every 10 million years, with an averaging period of 50 million years. So it wont report shorter term CO2 fluctuation of a million year or so.

    Did you know that the major impact of changes in GH gas concentrations occurs in the stratosphere. More GH gases reduce the amount of re-radiation out to space at those altitudes. Additional absorbtion near the surface isn’t the important factor.

    Did you know that the radiation to space based on the surface temperature would be about 340 Watts/M^2. In fact actual radiation to space is closer to 240 Watts/M^2.

    Did you know that of this 100 Watts/M^2 difference, CO2 is responsible for around
    60% of the difference?

    Did you know that less than 4% of CO2 emissions come from man’s activities? Yep, give or take. But did you know that 0% of CO2 absorption comes from man’s activities. So the human contribution is relative to the difference between the emission amd absorbtion rates.

    Did you know that plants thrive on higher levels of CO2, but only if other factors increase as well – this is known in Agronomy as Liebigs Law of the Minimum. Plant metabolism is limited by whatever nutrient or raw materiel is in shortest supply. Adding more of one thing doesn’t help unless you add more of something else as well. This is why Greenhouse operators add CO2. AND Warmth, water, every sort of nutrient or fertiliser; just adding one thing doesn’t help.

    Did you know that the rate of hear accumulation in the oceans is 3-4 times faster than could be sourced from any heat source here on Earth? So the only possible source of this heat involves some sort of energy imbalance with space. And since the Sun has if anything been cooling slightly over the last 1/2 century, the only remaining possible conclusion is that something is restricting the flow of energy out tspace. I wonder what that could be?

    I wonder what else I could think of?

    REPLY: Did you know that I’m not interested in what you can “think of” but rather those that you can prove with citations? Read the instructions. Given your position at SkS and the irresponsible things that outfit is known for, your opinion isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit – Anthony

  415. robert barclay:

    re your post at October 23, 2012 at 4:15 am

    No, I did not know that, and I doubt it. Please explain the physics which enables surface tension to reject heat.

    Richard

  416. Thanks everyone I’ve got more than enough. Thanks also to the SkS denizens for trying a counteroffensive.

Comments are closed.