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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
546 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NetDr
October 20, 2012 9:04 am

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 !

Gary
October 20, 2012 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:
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

JFK
October 20, 2012 9:21 am

Did you know that water vapor and CH4 have larger IR absorption cross sections than CO2?

gymnosperm
October 20, 2012 9:21 am

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.

October 20, 2012 9:24 am

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!

tallbloke
October 20, 2012 9:29 am

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),

Jeremy
October 20, 2012 9:35 am

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.

October 20, 2012 9:37 am

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.

NetDr
October 20, 2012 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 !

October 20, 2012 9:42 am

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

Genghis
October 20, 2012 9:45 am

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

MangoChutney
October 20, 2012 9:49 am

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

October 20, 2012 9:49 am

A am not a scientist or economist here, but it seems to me that what Anthony is talking about in the post above is analogous to a concept in Economics known as the Law of Diminishing Returns. Correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

Jeremy
October 20, 2012 9:50 am

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?

Genghis
October 20, 2012 9:51 am

If I had the picture of a roasting pig over a fire I would have used it for my, did you know.

HorshamBren
October 20, 2012 9:52 am

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.

Auto
October 20, 2012 9:53 am

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.

richardscourtney
October 20, 2012 9:54 am

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

Grizzled Bear
October 20, 2012 9:56 am

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

Editor
October 20, 2012 9:56 am

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

Auto
October 20, 2012 9:57 am

Earth’s climate has been changing, rapidly or otherwise, for the last four billion years or more.
We have had thermometers – of increasing accuracy – for less than four hundred years – about one part in ten million of that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer#Development

October 20, 2012 10:00 am

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

Paul Westhaver
October 20, 2012 10:00 am

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.

October 20, 2012 10:02 am

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.

Dolphinhead
October 20, 2012 10:02 am

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.

Perry
October 20, 2012 10:03 am

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

R. Shearer
October 20, 2012 10:04 am

Unwittingly, Gary is correct. The IPCC and its reports are, in fact, pseudo-science.

Editor
October 20, 2012 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.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2010/07/GeologicRecord-and-ClimateChange11-550×347.jpg

davidmhoffer
October 20, 2012 10:07 am

Did you know that the IPCC ranks their own Level of Scientific Understanding regarding radiative forcing as either “low” or “very low” in 10 of 15 categories?
chart here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

Ed Hoskins
October 20, 2012 10:09 am

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

October 20, 2012 10:09 am

Here is a for example, example from new data overlooked by the MSM this month:
Did you know the sun is cooling off?
Climate Change and the Quiet Sun
– Steve Davidson, Inform The Pundits, 10/11/2012

Pat B
October 20, 2012 10:10 am

Sorry if this is too obvious, but I don’t recall the MSM reporting record ice in the Antarctic.

October 20, 2012 10:11 am

Did you know that the world’s surface is not rectangular and that Greenland is not as big as South America?
http://geology.isu.edu/geostac/Field_Exercise/topomaps/images/projections.jpg

stew
October 20, 2012 10:15 am

did you know that the last 100 years warming is well within natural variability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
and that 2004 shouldn’t be on this slide because the temperature record is smoothed over 300 years

Judy F.
October 20, 2012 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. 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.

stew
October 20, 2012 10:17 am

the eemian was much warmer and sea levels much higher than today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

stew
October 20, 2012 10:18 am

– 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

Jeff D
October 20, 2012 10:19 am

Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.

Richdo
October 20, 2012 10:19 am

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/

October 20, 2012 10:21 am

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.

October 20, 2012 10:24 am

– 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?

October 20, 2012 10:28 am

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

tallbloke
October 20, 2012 10:29 am

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

October 20, 2012 10:33 am

– 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:
http://plazamoyua.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/temperatura-mar-modelos-realidad-1982-2012-2-mitades.png
– You should ask.

MikeC
October 20, 2012 10:35 am

Did You Know: Climate models have not undergone industry standard software validation and verification.
This is discussed here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/15/assessing-climate-model-software-quality/

Joezee
October 20, 2012 10:36 am

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/

stew
October 20, 2012 10:37 am

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

stew
October 20, 2012 10:40 am

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

highflight56433
October 20, 2012 10:41 am
markx
October 20, 2012 10:41 am

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?

Jeremy Das
October 20, 2012 10:42 am

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.

October 20, 2012 10:44 am

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.

stew
October 20, 2012 10:45 am

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

Hoser
October 20, 2012 10:45 am

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.

MikeC
October 20, 2012 10:46 am

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)?

MangoChutney
October 20, 2012 10:46 am

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/

mrrabbit
October 20, 2012 10:47 am

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-)

MikeB
October 20, 2012 10:47 am

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.

richard
October 20, 2012 10:47 am

Did you know that the accepted ph of the seas off the coast of the US is between PH 6 ( acidic- oops ) and PH 9.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/oa_state_info_nov2010.pdf

richardscourtney
October 20, 2012 10:47 am

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
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Richard

MangoChutney
October 20, 2012 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
Did you know the IPCC admits it Isn’t a ‘Gold Standard’ Body http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/26/ipcc-admits-it-isnt-a-gold-standard-body/

October 20, 2012 10:50 am

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/

netdr
October 20, 2012 10:50 am

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.
http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

richard
October 20, 2012 10:51 am

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.

alexandriu doru
October 20, 2012 10:51 am

“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”

Joe Public
October 20, 2012 10:51 am

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?

October 20, 2012 10:53 am

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 🙂

polistra
October 20, 2012 10:55 am

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.

stephen richards
October 20, 2012 10:56 am

I wonder if people like Gary enjoy making themselves look like idiots, next please.
He can’t help it, poor soul.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
October 20, 2012 10:58 am

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

Jon Salmi
October 20, 2012 10:59 am

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

Zeke
October 20, 2012 11:00 am

Did you know that Class 1 (compliant) surface stations which are not located in an airport show less than .01C warming per decade?
Did you know that well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

stew
October 20, 2012 11:01 am

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.

markx
October 20, 2012 11:01 am

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)

highflight56433
October 20, 2012 11:01 am
October 20, 2012 11:07 am

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”.

George E. Smith
October 20, 2012 11:08 am

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.

Editor
October 20, 2012 11:08 am

Did you know that, at the very least, large portions of the Northern Hemisphere, and particularly Arctic regions, have been warmer than now for most of the last 10000 years, and that the LIA was probably the coldest point in that time.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/little-ice-age-was-the-coldest-period-for-10000-years/

markx
October 20, 2012 11:09 am

davidmhoffer says:
October 20, 2012 at 10:07 am

Did you know that the IPCC ranks their own Level of Scientific Understanding regarding radiative forcing as either “low” or “very low” in 10 of 15 categories?
chart here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

This one is a classic – but someone needs to make it into a neat compact one pager… (maybe me, tomorrow)

GardenerChemist
October 20, 2012 11:10 am

Real greenhouses frequently raise the CO2 level for better plant growth.
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

F. Phelps
October 20, 2012 11:12 am

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°

Editor
October 20, 2012 11:14 am

Did you know that the average CET (Central England Temperature) temperature, averaged over the last 5 yrs, is the same as for most of the 1730’s?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/uk-climate-change-card/

October 20, 2012 11:16 am

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.

October 20, 2012 11:16 am

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

kwik
October 20, 2012 11:18 am

Did you know that there are several papers indicating that CO2 levels LAGS temperature with several hundred years?
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Greg Goodknight
October 20, 2012 11:19 am

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

October 20, 2012 11:20 am

Oops, on my #4 above, change to “by a yet smaller slice.” (Not “and . . . .)

kent Blaker
October 20, 2012 11:22 am

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.

markx
October 20, 2012 11:28 am

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

markx
October 20, 2012 11:29 am

hmmm sorry mods for above (table fail) will email

CMS
October 20, 2012 11:29 am

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

David L. Hagen
October 20, 2012 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

October 20, 2012 11:30 am

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.

October 20, 2012 11:30 am

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.

carol smith
October 20, 2012 11:32 am

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)

Scarface
October 20, 2012 11:34 am

Did you know that the ‘97% of scientists believe in AGW’- claim is based upon one internet survey on which 75 of 77 responds who happened to be scientist said ‘yes’ to believing in AGW?
source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Bill Williams
October 20, 2012 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.
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?

October 20, 2012 11:35 am

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.

Jeff Alberts
October 20, 2012 11:36 am

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.

Tenuk
October 20, 2012 11:38 am

Arctic/Antarctic see-saw. Refutes consensus conjecture that CO2 is a major player regarding climate.

davidmhoffer
October 20, 2012 11:41 am

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

David L. Hagen
October 20, 2012 11:43 am

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.

Tenuk
October 20, 2012 11:43 am

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
Link:-
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

davidmhoffer
October 20, 2012 11:43 am

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

Tim F
October 20, 2012 11:44 am

Did you know that the number of strong-severe tornadoes in the United States has been decreasing since the 1970s?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html

Brian S
October 20, 2012 11:47 am

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)

Jeff Ulrich
October 20, 2012 11:48 am

Did you know the sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 or so years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
I have often searched for a website that simply gives the best reasons why we are not that concerned with global warming.

Brian S
October 20, 2012 11:49 am

Sorry. Add an ‘n’ to photosynthesis

October 20, 2012 11:52 am

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.

Craig from Belvidere
October 20, 2012 11:52 am

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.

markx
October 20, 2012 11:54 am

……………………………………………………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

October 20, 2012 11:55 am

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.

Curt
October 20, 2012 11:58 am

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?

October 20, 2012 12:00 pm

Title for your slideshow:
Everything you know is wrong (about climate change)

csanborn
October 20, 2012 12:02 pm

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?

George E. Smith
October 20, 2012 12:03 pm

“””””…..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.

David L. Hagen
October 20, 2012 12:03 pm

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

MikeB
October 20, 2012 12:04 pm

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?

George V
October 20, 2012 12:06 pm

Did you know….. that polar “ice” (actually frozen CO2) on Mars was shrinking at the same time as Earth’s polar ice?
example: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
George V.

stew
October 20, 2012 12:08 pm

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.

mondo
October 20, 2012 12:11 pm

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

D Böehm
October 20, 2012 12:12 pm

Anthony, I know you have most of these charts, but just in case you might have missed one:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/Carbon_Dioxide_Emissions_from_Fossil_Fuel_Burning_in_the_United_States_and_China,_1950-2009.GIF
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__ftBVMqLME8/SpPfEHSnfOI/AAAAAAAAABQ/quyewybDTvA/s1600-h/CO2+1990-2000+ps.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/image4.png
http://i32.tinypic.com/nwix4x.png
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_McKibben_files/image005.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/WheatYield.gif
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi [note: C3 has many useful charts]
http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Fieldings-chart.gif
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image253b.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/PhanerozoicCO2vTemp.png
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2626/tempobsrvvsco2ct4.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/carbon-emission-changes-2008-2010.jpg?w=552&h=935
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2011.fig2_med.png
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi
Wood For Trees #1.
WFT #2.
WFT #3.
WFT #4.
WFT #5. Flat temps past 15 years.
WFT #6.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0134840e51fd970c-pi
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg
http://justdata.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/rawmonthlytemp1950.jpg
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2464/tempvsco267m.png
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/18-20-temps.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5721/newhadcrut3warming.png
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427
http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2839/28392301.jpg
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/14.jpg
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/HadCrut3Global.jpg
http://www.americanthinker.com/NormalProbabilityPlot.jpg
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SummitAndCulture.gif
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1850%20C4Y.gif
Have many more, but I don’t want to use up all your pixels.

OssQss
October 20, 2012 12:14 pm

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

David L. Hagen
October 20, 2012 12:15 pm

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

October 20, 2012 12:16 pm

Did you know that IPCC AR4 has 5587 references to gray literature (not peer reviewed) out of 18531 references, and that 25 chapters use more than 1/3rd of gray literature?
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

The other Phil
October 20, 2012 12:17 pm

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?

JFK
October 20, 2012 12:19 pm

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.

joe
October 20, 2012 12:21 pm

@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.

Strike
October 20, 2012 12:26 pm

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?

richardscourtney
October 20, 2012 12:30 pm

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

Martine
October 20, 2012 12:33 pm

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 )

Robert Clemenzi
October 20, 2012 12:33 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 12:40 pm

Do you know that floating ice, when melting, doesnt change the water level?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jISl6kk8MEQ/SyTS6mqfo9I/AAAAAAAAAT0/pGVTP3Pn_Ew/s1600-h/ArcticInAGlass.jpg

October 20, 2012 12:40 pm

Did you know that out of 2500 air molecules only one on average is a CO2 molecule?

Doubting Rich
October 20, 2012 12:40 pm

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.

csanborn
October 20, 2012 12:41 pm

Did you know that extreme weather death rates drastically dropped in the era of global warming for the record period of 1900-2010 (2010 being the last statistical year as of this writing)?: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths.png

Robertvdl
October 20, 2012 12:42 pm
OssQss
October 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Did you know this non-fiction book is one of the scariest ever read and only $5 ?
Worth every penny if you want some insight on the IPCC.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/comments-on-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert-by-donna-laframboise/

October 20, 2012 12:42 pm

“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).

Richard111
October 20, 2012 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?

Michael
October 20, 2012 12:46 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 12:47 pm

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

Robert Clemenzi
October 20, 2012 12:50 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 12:51 pm

http://co2science.org/
Did you know there are lots of papers disagreeing with the CAGW conjecture?

October 20, 2012 12:51 pm

Did you know that atmospheric CO2 is so necessary, so crucial that without it most all life on Earth would perish.

October 20, 2012 12:53 pm

Did you know that Ocean water emits CO2 as it warms?

October 20, 2012 12:57 pm

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/

October 20, 2012 12:57 pm

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?

Editor
October 20, 2012 12:58 pm

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).

October 20, 2012 12:58 pm

Have you ever seen the list of things effected by global warming?
It is a project of Numbers Watch.uk.com and is on their site at: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

October 20, 2012 1:01 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 1:03 pm

Did you know that the IPCC is fundamentally a political organization and not a scientific organization?

Michael
October 20, 2012 1:05 pm

Did you know the Carbon Molecule (C) is completely different from the Carbon Dioxide Molecule (CO2)?

October 20, 2012 1:06 pm

Did you know that at least two major carbon dioxide monitoring stations lie downwind from erupting volcanoes?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html

Werner Brozek
October 20, 2012 1:06 pm

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?

tjfolkerts
October 20, 2012 1:08 pm

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).

Tim Crome
October 20, 2012 1:09 pm

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.)

October 20, 2012 1:09 pm

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.

DirkH
October 20, 2012 1:12 pm

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
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

October 20, 2012 1:14 pm

Did you know that as of june 1 2012, 2412 days had gone without a major hurricane landfall on the US?
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.pt/2012/05/updated-us-intense-hurricane-drought.html

richard
October 20, 2012 1:14 pm

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,

Robert Clemenzi
October 20, 2012 1:15 pm

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

October 20, 2012 1:15 pm

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

richard
October 20, 2012 1:19 pm

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.

Peter Whale
October 20, 2012 1:21 pm

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.

DirkH
October 20, 2012 1:21 pm

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/

October 20, 2012 1:25 pm

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 )

J Martin
October 20, 2012 1:27 pm

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 ?)

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
October 20, 2012 1:30 pm

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

J Martin
October 20, 2012 1:32 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 1:34 pm

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

October 20, 2012 1:37 pm

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.

John F. Hultquist
October 20, 2012 1:39 pm

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:
http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/27/2789/MAFOD00Z.jpg
Post-glacial sea level chart here:
http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/71394,1299524887,Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

John F. Hultquist
October 20, 2012 1:45 pm

Comment with 6 URL links sent on topic of Puget Lobe ice. Likely will go to spam file.

David Ross
October 20, 2012 1:53 pm

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]

C. Shannon
October 20, 2012 1:55 pm

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

Gary Pearse
October 20, 2012 1:56 pm

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.

Brad
October 20, 2012 2:03 pm

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.

Nick
October 20, 2012 2:06 pm

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.

Joe Shaw
October 20, 2012 2:12 pm

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.

e.amu
October 20, 2012 2:16 pm

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:comment image

Tim Crome
October 20, 2012 2:16 pm

That Arctic Ice area is currently recovering faster than ever before in the satellite monitored period.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Independent
October 20, 2012 2:17 pm

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?

October 20, 2012 2:22 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 2:24 pm

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

Canman
October 20, 2012 2:30 pm

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

October 20, 2012 2:31 pm

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?

October 20, 2012 2:33 pm

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?

Mark T
October 20, 2012 2:34 pm

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

pat
October 20, 2012 2:34 pm

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

James Allison
October 20, 2012 2:35 pm

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.

B.O.B.
October 20, 2012 2:38 pm

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.)

October 20, 2012 2:43 pm

Did you know that none of the IPCC’s published temperature models to year 2100 can be testable therefore does NOT meet the scientific method.

Nick
October 20, 2012 2:44 pm

Did you know?…
that refrigeration manufacturers use Co2 as a coolant!

Berényi Péter
October 20, 2012 2:48 pm

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.

Neville.
October 20, 2012 2:49 pm

Did you know that there is nothing, zip, zero we can do to mitigate AGW. We can say this with 100% accuracy, just check out human emissions of co2 from OECD and Non OECD 1990 to 2010.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD

October 20, 2012 2:50 pm

Did you know that North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures have been cooling for 750 years:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-10740.html#pid10740

Rob JM
October 20, 2012 2:51 pm

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)

Tim Crome
October 20, 2012 2:52 pm

That temperature changes the last few thousand years can be modelled using a small number of superimposed natural cycles and that these cycles can be used to give very good predictions of the current warming.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001457
For a figure to illustrate this, see the Norwegian site :
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2011/desember/306493
http://static.forskning.no/00/30/64/96/GronlandFigur3_None.full.JPG

October 20, 2012 2:58 pm

Did you know that Modtran Upward Radiation for CO2 and Water Vapor is now near zero increase?
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-11908.html#pid11908

Admin
October 20, 2012 2:58 pm

Feel free to use my screening fallacy graphic.
Screen fallacy
And Lucia’s follow up.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/screening-bias-cartoon-form/

October 20, 2012 2:58 pm

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.

Terry
October 20, 2012 2:59 pm

Did you know that the anthropogenic CO2 flux is only about 3% of the natural fluxes of ocean and land.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Interesting that the models claim to be able to separate out the effects signal from the noise when the natural flux variation on an daily and annual basis is huge.

Neville.
October 20, 2012 2:59 pm

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.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg

Rob JM
October 20, 2012 3:00 pm

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”

October 20, 2012 3:02 pm

Did you know that almost all of the surface heat capacity is in the ocean waters?
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-9653.html#pid9653

gnomish
October 20, 2012 3:06 pm

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.

BioBob
October 20, 2012 3:08 pm

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 ?

D.I.
October 20, 2012 3:09 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 3:11 pm

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.

D Böehm
October 20, 2012 3:16 pm

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:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-100.gif
Can’t see the CO2? OK, let’s magnify the chart by 10X:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif
Still can’t see the CO2? OK then, let’s magnify the y-axis by 100X:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-1.gif
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.]

October 20, 2012 3:16 pm

Did you know that if CO2 was not in the atmosphere at all it would be about 1 kelvin cooler:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/

Eliza
October 20, 2012 3:17 pm

How about this for a project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
basically deleting the whole article or changing it to reality

October 20, 2012 3:27 pm

Did you know that CO2 is a very popular molecule with many Industrial and Commercial uses?:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-998.html

October 20, 2012 3:28 pm

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.

Chewer
October 20, 2012 3:30 pm

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?

Gary Pearse
October 20, 2012 3:39 pm

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?

Berényi Péter
October 20, 2012 3:41 pm

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

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
October 20, 2012 3:46 pm

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

David A. Evans
October 20, 2012 3:50 pm

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.

oMan
October 20, 2012 3:51 pm

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).

richard
October 20, 2012 3:52 pm

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.

Alan S. Blue
October 20, 2012 3:52 pm

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?

October 20, 2012 3:54 pm

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.

Berényi Péter
October 20, 2012 3:56 pm

Did you know that current computational climate models do not get the math of turbulent flows right?
Applied Mathematics: Body & Soul Vol 4
Springer, October 20, 2006
Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow
Johan Ho man and Claes Johnson

Mike McMillan
October 20, 2012 3:59 pm

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

davidmhoffer
October 20, 2012 4:00 pm

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?

DirkH
October 20, 2012 4:01 pm

Did you know that…
…temperature influences CO2 levels at least 10 times stronger than CO2 levels influence temperature? (due to CO2 outgassing from the oceans)
http://motls.blogspot.de/2012/07/land-biospheres-absorption-of-co2.html

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 20, 2012 4:12 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 4:15 pm

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.

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 20, 2012 4:18 pm

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.

Rosco
October 20, 2012 4:28 pm

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 ?

Michael
October 20, 2012 4:34 pm

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.

LazyTeenager
October 20, 2012 4:35 pm

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.

Berényi Péter
October 20, 2012 4:43 pm

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.

Werner Brozek
October 20, 2012 4:45 pm

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”

scott
October 20, 2012 4:47 pm

Carbon dioxide is not pollution

Jimbo
October 20, 2012 4:47 pm

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.

joe
October 20, 2012 4:52 pm

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

netdr
October 20, 2012 4:54 pm

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??

Jimbo
October 20, 2012 4:55 pm

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.

Rosco
October 20, 2012 4:56 pm

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 ?

Jimbo
October 20, 2012 4:58 pm

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.

Rosco
October 20, 2012 5:02 pm

Did you know there is experimental evidence that show that “greenhouses” do not heat up because of “trapping” Infra-Red radiation ? If “trapping Infra-Red radiation is false in glass Greenhouses it is most likely not true in the atmosphere !
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

Jimbo
October 20, 2012 5:04 pm

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.

Jimbo
October 20, 2012 5:17 pm

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

Bobl
October 20, 2012 5:29 pm

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

noaaprogrammer
October 20, 2012 5:31 pm

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.)

October 20, 2012 5:32 pm

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.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2010/07/GeologicRecord-and-ClimateChange11.jpg

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

Jim D
October 20, 2012 5:35 pm

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?

A Crooks
October 20, 2012 5:35 pm

HI, I guess my favorite Did you know would go something like this.
Did you know that the Alaskan Glaciers retreated about 100 kms in the time between 1760 and 1910 BEFORE global warming was even heard of? And haven’t really gone anywhere since?
I found the figure there to be very powerful.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/pilgrimage-to-montana/

tz
October 20, 2012 5:39 pm

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…

Raredog
October 20, 2012 5:53 pm

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

OssQss
October 20, 2012 5:56 pm

Did you know that one of the least understood pieces of the climate puzzle (virtually nonexistent in climate modeling) is cloud formation?
That is kinda important!
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/aug/24/probing-the-cosmic-ray-climate-link
It is quite nice seeing and hearing the folks behind the text we read, no?

Bill Illis
October 20, 2012 6:01 pm

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).

JohnWho
October 20, 2012 6:03 pm

After reading much of the above:
Did you know
That there is a lot we don’t know about what changes our climate?

October 20, 2012 6:03 pm

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?

Rick K
October 20, 2012 6:07 pm

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?

jorgekafkazar
October 20, 2012 6:09 pm

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

Jimbo
October 20, 2012 6:10 pm

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

bobby b
October 20, 2012 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?
http://algorelied.com/?p=1585

Rick K
October 20, 2012 6:18 pm

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?

Scott
October 20, 2012 6:18 pm

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?

johanna
October 20, 2012 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.
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!

Jimbo
October 20, 2012 6:25 pm

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.

October 20, 2012 6:30 pm

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.
http://glaciers.research.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/states/washington/mt_rainier_temporal_96dpi.png

bill_m7
October 20, 2012 6:34 pm

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

Rick K
October 20, 2012 6:36 pm

Did you know that Al Gore is an idiot?
(Sorry. Couldn’t resist. Although proof could be provided in chart form I’m sure!)

Michael
October 20, 2012 6:43 pm

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

What Did I Tell You!?
October 20, 2012 6:51 pm

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?

Michael
October 20, 2012 6:52 pm

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

Mike Hebb
October 20, 2012 6:54 pm

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

What Did I Tell You!?
October 20, 2012 7:01 pm

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.

OssQss