NOTE: This is a “sticky” top post, new posts will appear below this one.
No, I’m not asking for money, only your ability to research and encapsulate an idea.
I have another big project in the works, and I’m inviting you all to be a part of it because this is an idea that lends itself to crowd-sourcing very well. I’ll have a press release forthcoming as to what it is all about, but in the meantime I decided to give you an opportunity to pitch in and help.
The concept is simple and revolves around the question “Did you know?” and climate science.
Here’s how it works.
Every one of us has some little tidbit of information they learned about climate science that isn’t being told by the MSM and doesn’t fit the narrative. I’m looking for a series of “Did you know?” tidbits to use in an upcoming presentation. For example:
==============================================================
Did you know?
The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear) as is often portrayed in science stories?
This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.
===============================================================
As shown above, the concept and supporting graphic fits on a single slide. That’s what I’m shooting for.
Using the example above, I’d be indebted to you if you could provide similar examples in comments. Please provide a URL for a supporting graphic if you have one, along with a URL that provides a source/citation for the information.
Concepts that are just words without graphics are acceptable too, provided they are short and succinct. They have to fit on a single slide.
Other readers are also welcome to fact check the submissions in comments, which will help make my job easier.
This post will remain a top post sticky for a few days. Thank you for your consideration.
Richard111 says:
October 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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”
Carbon dioxide is not pollution
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.
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
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??
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:
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.
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 ?
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.
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