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.
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?
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
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
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.
johanna says:
October 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Great idea, Anthony. Having read the suggestions, you might consider doing two versions – one for scientifically literate people (eg science students and practitioners) and one for the general public. I doubt if 1 in 100 people know what ‘albedo’ means, for example. [snip]
I think you are greatly underestimating the audience that attends.
Perhaps you could provide links to information on the 1,700 wind turbines that could replace one small coal fired power plant in a 25% efficiency state, or Wind Farm footprints, or the ultimate environmental costs of battery power.
Did you know that it takes “net” more energy to produce Corn Ethanol than it provides?
C’mon, step up and share it!
Did you know, that Man made CO2 contributes only 0.117% to the Greenhouse effect, while Nature made CO2 contributes 3.502%?
Did you know, 99.72% of Greenhouse effect is not caused by Man, but naturally occurring?
Link to information and calculations: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Link to graphic: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif
Credit to Monte Hieb.
Did you know that water vapor is a trace gas comprising only four tenths of one percent of the atmosphere? Hard to believe when you see the rain and clouds that are due entirely to this trace gas.
Jim,
The concentration of water vapor in the air varies from very little over deserts hot & cold to 4% over the moist tropics. The global average is closer to the high end of this great range.
….. likely to raise sea level 15 cm by the year 2050 and 34 cm by the year 2100.
There is also a 10 percent chance that climate change will contribute 30 cm by 2050 and 65 cm (approx 2 ft) by 2100. ……..
A two foot rise in sea level (USA) would eliminate approximately 10,000 square miles of land including current wetlands and newly inundated dry land, an area equal to the combined size of Massachusetts and Delaware (EPA, 1989).
That is an area of 100 x 100 miles. And includes current wetlands.
LazyTeenager says: October 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm
“…….Hmm, sounds like Anthony is going to copy the SkepticalScience model……
…….. What’s important in the end is right or wrong, not debating points.”
In this case, Lazy makes a good point.
Jimbo says: October 20, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“….. why doesn’t WUWT create a sort of bullet pointed page (like Skeptical Science!!!!!) which simply puts the known ‘facts’ in an easy to digest manner that clearly and simply puts the sceptics case with a link for further reading…..”
I think Anthony plans a presentation.
But I hope he does not in any way try to copy the Skeptical Science layout; Debate and facts are chopped, categorized and sliced in a manner apparently designed to create a most frustrating read. (Perhaps in the ‘reference page’ on the title bar may work).
If carbon is such a toxic poison how come we’re all still alive when it comprises 18% of our body mass and is the second most prevalent atom by mass in our bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body
1) Did you know that Arctic ice and snow cover has been retreating for the past 18,000 years, with minor speedbumps along the way like the Little Ice Age? So why are we so concerned about about the last 30 years of retreat? See http://exhibits.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/LP_extinction.html
2) Did you know that current temperature and ice cover are not unprecedented. See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
> Climatic Cooling from 60 million years ago to present day
>
> Between 52 and 57 million years ago, the Earth was relatively
> warm. Tropical conditions actually extended all the way into the
> mid-latitudes (around northern Spain or the central United States
> for example), polar regions experienced temperate climates, and
> the difference in temperature between the equator and pole was much
> smaller than it is today. Indeed it was so warm that trees grew in
> both the Arctic and Antarctic, and alligators lived in Ellesmere
> Island at 78 degrees North.
[…snip…]
> The Earth was once more released from the grip of the big chill
> between 5 and 3 million years ago, when the sea was much warmer
> around North America and the Antarctic than it is today. Warm-weather
> plants grew in Northern Europe where today they cannot survive,
> and trees grew in Iceland, Greenland, and Canada as far north as 82
> degrees North.
Did you know … that the average annual wind speed at the Blue Hill Weather Observatory south of Boston Massachusetts has been declining for the past 30+ years? From 1880 to 1980 it varied between 14.2 and 16.6 mph. From 1980 to 2011 it has dropped from 15.1 to 12.5 mph. One reason (did you know) is a reduction in severe storms, both nor’easters and tropical storms.
http://www.bluehill.org/climate/annwind.gif
Anthony – I started writing a post about this in 2010, but had forgotten it was essentially already covered in 2009, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/16/a-few-thoughts-on-the-climate-change-lowers-wind-speeds-study/ I’ll probably finish it and post it next year after the 2012 Blue Hill average is posted. I’ll also try to address some of the questions in the 2009 post.
Exactly what I do when I have this “discussion”.
First, I explain to them that we’re not talking about “climate change”. The climate has always, is now, and always shall – change. What we’re talking about is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). If they won’t at least admit that, there’s no point continuing.
I have a php script that puts 100k zeroes on the page. Randomly, 30 of them are blue and 10 of them are red. I explain that this is a 1/10 scale of the atmosphere and the 30 blue zeroes are natural CO2 and the 10 red zeroes are mankind’s CO2 contribution. Now, as we all know, that is a huge exaggeration – but I explain that. That I’m actually over representing CO2 and more than tripling mankind’s contribution and it’s still insignificant.
Then I go on to explain (as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread) that CO2 only absorbs IR in certain very narrow wavelengths and that its warming potential is logarithmic (thanks for the above graph, very helpful when next I conduct this exercise).
Then I ask them to explain to me why we should be hysterical about CAGW. Haven’t gotten a decent answer to that question, even from the one’s that bother to try. Most go about doing a little research at places other than the Huffington Post (for a change). Subsequent conversations on the topic are, suddenly, much more pleasant.
It’s hard – really, really hard – to be a skeptic in the Democratic National Socialist Workers Party Peoples Republic of Maryland. There are skeptics here. But most, like myself, are “in the closet”. We need to be. The vituperative riposte and bile cast at me should I, ever so politely, call into question even the most minor aspect of their dogma is – quite frankly – alarming. We have to remain in the closet to protect our homes from vandalism, our tires from being slashed, or from being physically assaulted. I..AM…NOT…KIDDING.
That Al Gore is a dickhead! (see reference below – this is funny!)
http://www.ryangarns.com/2009/03/26/al-gore-is-a-dickhead-says-science/
LazyTeenager says:
October 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm
=============
I never really understood the term “projection”, until reading your comment.
Now I know.
John Stossel may be the perfect well known media personality to partner with on this subject. He’s all into that “Did you Know” stuff, and the Ron Paul crew 20 to 30 million strong now, likes him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
Here is the Wikipedia link to the State temp. records:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
I tried to average the dates again (I did it once before) but EXCEL does not handle dated before 1904 properly (I can’t remember how I handled it years ago when I did this the first time to determine for myself that CAGW is BS).
Dear TomB — It would be interesting to discuss with you what else holds you captive there. I think you’d find the other side to be rather friendlier, if nothing else, and in my estimation they are technically correct as well. Drop me a line if you’d like to discuss it; my website is simply my last name with an appended dot com.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
VERY GOOD IDEA!
Thank you Rosco October 20, 2012 at 5:02 pm! I read this years ago and hadn’t found an online reference so I haven’t said it.
I am looking for another online reference. It was first shown in 1938 by Samuel Ruben and Martin D Carmen using radioactive O16 as a tracer that ALL oxygen released by photosynthesis comes from water and NOT carbon dioxide. The elementary and intro college texts STILL get this wrong! It has been confirmed many times. Detailed charts of photosynthesis in some texts show this. The carbon dioxide is all in structures: carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, etc.
The great majority (all most people know of) of animals, including humans, react hydrogen and oxygen for energy producing water. Again, detailed charts show this. Again, introductory texts get this wrong.
I’m an IDIOT!. I MEANT Radioactive O18!
Hoser, Robert clemenzi,
I stand corrected. I believe that most of the coluds above 500mb are ice. I was thinking about the difference in absorbtion between ice and water above 8 angstroms.
Anthony,
I am afraid you have too many responses for me to have time to check if you have these already (so I apologise for any repetition):
1. The infrared absorption spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide are substantially coincident. Most of the planet’s atmosphere contains substantial levels of water vapour, even over deserts. Consequently the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is minimal in most areas. The atmosphere lacks water vapour only over the highest mountains and the poles. Consequently the greenhouse effect of additional carbon dioxide is largely limited to the atmosphere over the poles and high mountain ranges. Everywhere else it has a minimal greenhouse signal because of the overwhelming (saturating) presence of water vapour.
2. Over the last 200 million years or so the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been trending downwards from about 2 or 3 thousand ppm. Plants stop growing at about 150 ppm which is not far from where we are today. The dangerous trend that needs to be explained and reversed is not up (as the alarmists claim) but down. At least that is what the idiot “precautionary principle” would strongly suggest!
I hope these help.
There should be a slide showing how much CO2 is absorbed by the melting of how much ice. This is being completely ignored because the implications are so large. Prof P and I could provide an example-in-principle. Unless an awful lot of CO2 comes out of the oceans or fossil fuels, an ice-free Antarctica would end almost all CO2-based plant life.
I’ve been trying to find references in scientific papers to airplanes dumping aerosols in the upper atmosphere that people don’t know is happening, what are those aerosol chemicals and why are they doing that?
The main pollutant from airplanes is black carbon.
This study says that a large reduction in aircraft black carbon emissions would eliminate all warming caused by aircraft. Estimated as 15% to 20% of total warming in the Arctic.
And note, they don’t seem to take surface deposition of black carbon into account, which IMO is a major factor in Arctic surface warming. So the warming effect in the Arctic of aircraft is likely larger than 20%.
Did you know that C02 is the source of all food supplies sustaining life on this planet, and every bit as essential to our existence as O2 and H2O?