Dear readers – your help needed in fun crowdsourcing project

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

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.

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

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?

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.

Did you know that the US Navy keeps CO2 levels in it’s submarines at 8,000 parts per million or less, about 20 times current atmospheric levels? Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. -– Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer

Did you know?
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.

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

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/comp_atm.gif
http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif
Like these?

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

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.

– 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

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/

– 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?

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/

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

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/plants/co2-feeds-plants-2.jpg
CO2 and plant growth

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.

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

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)?

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-)

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

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/

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

“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”

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 🙂

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

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.

Cherry-Pickers Guide to Global Temperature Trends (Figure 2).
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/a-cherry-pickers-guide-to-temperature-trends/
Polar Bear Population
http://ivo.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/polarbear-crisis.jpg

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”.

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

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

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

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.

hmmm sorry mods for above (table fail) will email

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?

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.

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

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

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)

Sorry. Add an ‘n’ to photosynthesis

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.

“””””…..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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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 )

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.)

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

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,

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

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.

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 )

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

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

Did you know that 125,000 years ago the Eemian was 2 degrees Celcius warmer and sea level was up to 20 meters higher than now?
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1024&bih=876&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=QM2ltc6NiDWiwM:&imgrefurl=http://www.roperld.com/science/sealevelvstemperature.htm&docid=_7WcoS_kt7n6SM&imgurl=http://www.roperld.com/science/graphics/Temp_SeaLevelEemian.jpg&w=500&h=278&ei=uAqDUK7QNaiziQKXzIHgBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=333&vpy=169&dur=474&hovh=132&hovw=237&tx=162&ty=59&sig=110337756353758077946&page=1&tbnh=131&tbnw=236&start=0&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:75

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.)

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

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)

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

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

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 ?