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.
Anthony,
A brief one I omitted from my previous post (it didn’t seem a big deal to me when I thought of it, but it seems to have an impact on alarmists):
There are somewhere around 20 or more GCM’s. The IPCC takes an average of the results of many of them for its reports. Each uses different feedback levels in determining temperature. If the science were settled there would only be one model and the feedback levels would be settled science as well.
Did you know that GCM models predict analogies and not absolute temperatures?
Did you know that GCM models fail dramatically at high altitudes? fig 1.
Did you know that there is practically no correlation between CO2 rise and anomaly of temperature rise?
Specific humidity is falling, not rising. fig 3 contradicting the high sensitivity scenario. (This goes with the no hot spot mentioned above icecap seems to be on the blink and I was not able to check that the plots are still there).
The rise in infrared radiation that the GCM models predict is not seen in the data ( related to sensitivity and hot spot ).
The heat content as given in a post in wattsup, fig. 2 is inconsistent with projections of models.
And the hydrological study by Koutsoyannis et al which concludes:
The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not credible. Whether or not this conclusion extends to other locations requires expansion of the study, which we have planned. However, the poor GCM performance in all eight locations examined in this study allows little hope, if any.
All these I have been using in my talks about AGW (and now climate change) to point out that even one contradiction disproves a theory and the GCMs that predict catastrophies are theory in computer clothing.
Hi Larry,
I’m very confused about this statement that you made:
“Did you know that, green house operators intentionally inject CO2 into their hot houses to improve growth and reduce water demand for their plants. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically increase food production and growth of almost all plants.”
Please explain how additional CO2 could possibly reduce water demand for plants since during photosynthesis water and CO2 react together in a 1/1 ratio. What’s more, beyond the photosynthetic role, water plays a substantial part in the structure and transport within plants – CO2 doesn’t.
I’m planning to add to Anthony’s discussion once I pull out my old books yet, again, I will address the temperature trees, but I’ve got to pull my facts together first and copy a few graphs..
Thanks
Did you know… that if you average the dates for the record high state temperatures (there are 50 of them for the 50 states in the United States) you will get a date in 1945. And if you do the same thing for the record low state temperatures you will get an average date in 1948. Therefore the average date of the record low State temperatures occurs LATER than the average date for the record high State temperatures. I did this exercise years ago to prove to myself that CAGW is BS.
Wikipedia provides the data for record High and Low state temperatures.
Did you know that the net effect of radiative gasses in Earth’s atmosphere is cooling?
Alarmists use flawed physics to claim that Earth’s near surface temperature would be 33 degrees cooler in the absence of “greenhouse gasses”. The simplest way to understand how wrong this is is not to ask what would happen if more radiative gasses are added to the atmosphere but rather to ask what would happen if all radiative gasses were removed from the atmosphere.
Imagine an Earth with no “greenhouse gasses”. No CO2, no water vapour, no clouds no methane and no nitrous oxide. The nitrogen and oxygen remaining would still heat through conductive contact with the Earth’s surface, but would have almost no way of losing this heat. Convection would lead to stratification of the atmosphere, so transfer of heat back to parts of surface cooled by radiation would be limited.
It may appear that the lower tropospheric air temperature would steadily rise to the hottest daytime temperature of the hottest desert under a cloudless sky, but the situation would actually be far worse. The atmosphere would in fact rise to near the temperature of the hottest points on the Earth’s surface. This is a volcanic planet, so the hottest material in conductive contact with the non-radiative atmosphere would be liquid magma.
Without radiative gasses in our atmosphere we would truly see some catastrophic global warming.
A simple equation – heat into the atmosphere equals heat out.
Some of the heat in is absorbed by Greenhouse gases, the rest is from sensible heat (convection) and latent heat (evaporation of water). 100% of the heat out is via Greenhouse gases.
Heat-in = S + L + s(T-surface)^4*absorptivity
Heat-out = s(T-air)^4 * emissivity * 2
The *times 2* for Heat-out is because some comes to the surface and some goes towards space. I know it is a crude approximation, but without something like that the equations can not be balanced with the air temperature less than the surface temperature.
When the amount of CO2 changes, so does the absorptivity.
Assuming a constant temperature, it is obvious that increasing the amount of any Greenhouse gas will increase the amount of radiation both absorbed and emitted.
However, it should be obvious that since the amount emitted is significantly greater than the amount absorbed, an increase will cause the temperature of the atmosphere to decrease.
Since
Heat-out = Heat-in
emissivity = absorptivity
S + L + s(T-surface)^4*absorptivity = s(T-air)^4 * emissivity * 2
S + L + s(Ts)^4 * e = s(Ta)^4 * e * 2
Ta = [(S + L)/2es – (Ts)^4]^0.25
Assuming that everything on the right hand side of the equation, except emissivity, is constant yields
Ta = (K1/e – K2)^0.25
Which indicates that as the amount of Greenhouse gases increase, the temperature of the atmosphere decreases. The questions then become – By how much? followed by – Does this change the surface temperature?
Following the IPCC report, where a doubling of CO2 causes about 4W/m2 to be absorbed, it follows that at current temperatures about 5 W/m2 will be emitted and that the net effect will be to reduce the temperature of the air. Assuming that about 3 W/m2 of that are returned to the surface (and the rest to space), an air temperature decrease of about 0.6C would cause the amount of energy returned to the surface to remain the same.
In my opinion, this is one of several negative feedbacks not considered by the IPCC.
By the way, this is discussing air temperatures half way between the surface and the clouds.
Did you know is global warming is definitely happening. The Earth has been warming, naturally, for 12 thousand years since the last ice age ended. The warming resulting from our civilization, however, is so minor it can barely be measured. There is no man-made global warming crisis.
There are numerous long term temperature graphics that support this statement.
page488 asked
Land plants get water from their roots and CO2 through pores (stomata) on the lower side of the leaves. With more CO2, the stomata do not need to be open for as long. Since open stomata is a major source of water loss – additional CO2 reduces water demand.
(1) j = σΤ^4 (the ^4, is a pretty steep graph, here is a version:http://i27.tinypic.com/2d1v3h4.jpg , and
(2) I have been waiting since 1990 for watefront properties’ prices to drop, and they (the prices) are still rising
Higher CO2 levels result in less water loss to evaporation/transpiration by the leaves since they do not need as many stomata to absorb the necessary CO2 to support their photosynthesis. It has nothing to do with the chemical reactions of photosynthesis, but rather the incidental water loss the plant suffers as it tries to gather the necessary CO2.
Larry
Anthony,
After establishing with your audience, (BTW, are they lay or scientific?), that water vapour is the big GHG, then:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you know that…. Part 1
According to accepted theory, the nominal warming from increased CO2 is around one degree C, but alarmists claim that this is much amplified by positive feedback notably in consequent increased evaporation of water, (the major GHG). However, if there is increased evaporation (including biological transpiration) then to be sensible, there must be consequent increased rainfall overall. Thus logically there would need to be an increase in rain-clouds which would sensibly result in cooling. (negative feedback, not positive).
Did you know that…. Part 2
According to the IPPC in 2007 extended in a recent revision by their source Kevin Trenberth et al in 2009; evapotranspiration plus thermals which are interlinked comprise ~60% of the heat leaving the surface, (compared with only ~ 14% hindered in radiative greenhouse effect from ALL GHG’s, alongside ~25% radiated unhindered directly to space).
See Fig 1 in: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf (but note that regardless of the claimed numbers, net radiative HEAT transfer from the surface is 396 -333.)
Thus if there were to be increased evaporation then there is logically also increased evaporative cooling and latent heat transfer up into the clouds enabling greater upward radiation to space from up there. (a negative feedback promoting stability)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anthony, I entered correspondence with Roy Spencer a year or more ago and my translation of his responses was that he agreed that “convection” was important but that everyone was too busy competing on the radiative effects to find time to look at what he called “convection”. (even though Trenberth et al 2009 claim that radiative GHG effect is only about a quarter of the “convective” heat loss!)
Glad to help, Anthony!
In his colloquium presentation to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory on May 10, 2010, Dr. Joel Norris of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography gave an excellent presentation titled “Cloud Feedbacks on Climate: A Challenging Scientific Problem.” The link to the archived video presentation is found here (there’s also a real barn-burner presentation by Richard Lindzen, very highly recommended!):
http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/Past_09_10.html
In his presentation, Dr. Norris speaks very eloquently about the problems caused in climate calculations due to cloud forcings. His first slide says:
4th IPCC: Key Uncertainties
“Cloud feedbacks (particularly from low clouds) remain the largest source of uncertainty [to climate sensitivity].”
“Surface and satellite observations disagree on total and low-level cloud changes over the ocean.”
“Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change.”
“Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of intermodel differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity…”
….as I recall, he said that satellites cannot easily distinguish between clouds and snow cover on land, which complicates calculations used for snow cover. Good stuff!
Did you know ice age is the normal state of the Earth’s climate? That warm periods like the present are all too brief interludes in an ice covered world?
Capell
The natural carbon cycle
If it hasn’t been mentioned before, there’s the presentations given by Prof Murray Selby on the natural CO2 cycle. He makes this point:
“emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.”
He goes on to demonstrate that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not necessarily attributable to human emissions.
(See http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/)
Probably too long and too many: Idiotic statements by CAGW modelers and “scientist” v reality. Years ago I saw an interview with one of the early modelers who said the melting of the Arctic OCEAN ice would raise sea level disasterously. I at first thought it was a slip of the tongue, but he persisted, and it was on the news, just that way, the next night.
David A. Evans says:
October 20, 2012 at 3:50 pm
“I knew it was sub zero C. Do you have a cite for that?”
I think this is when I first read about peak emission and Wien’s Law.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-249-post-8561.html#pid8561
Do you know the most common gases in air?
http://i50.tinypic.com/2j3h6de.jpg
Did you know that UHI is present at most rural sites as well?
Population class “Rural” of stations in the documentation of Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly (GHCNM) Version 3 is defined as having less than ten thousand inhabitants in a nearby settlement.
Excerpt from the README file of GHCNM Version 3:
“POPCLS: population class
(U=Urban (>50,000 persons);
(S=Suburban (>=10,000 and <= 50,000 persons);
(R=Rural ( 100,000 persons, population data were provided by
the United Nations Demographic Yearbook. For smaller cities and
towns several atlases were uses(sic!) to determine population.
POPSIZ: the population of the city or town the station is location(sic!) in
(expressed in thousands of persons).”
On the other hand, it is documented, that UHIE (Urban Heat Island Effect) is present at sites with a population well under that limit.
International Journal of Climatology
Volume 23, Issue 15, pages 1889–1905, December 2003
DOI: 10.1002/joc.971
The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska
Kenneth M. Hinkel, Frederick E. Nelson, Anna E. Klene, Julianne H. Bell
Population of Barrow, Alaska in 2000: 4,570 persons (it was around 300 in the year 1900)
Overall polulation of Earth has doubled almost twice in the 20th century.
At the same time distribution of population / economic activity over the continents is fractal-like, the NASA Satellite Night Lights Composite is a good proxy to it (source: Astronomy Picture of the Day: Earth at Night, 2000 November 27).
As fractal dimension of this network is considerably less than 2, the area populated is minuscule compared to the total area of continents. This being the case it follows that no matter what temperature trend is measured over this fractal, it only gives a negligible contribution to the average surface temperature of land masses.
But distribution of GHCN stations is not random relative to this fractal, for operational / maintenance costs of a station would skyrocket if it were located far from any human settlement and/or place of vigorous economic activity (like airports). Therefore GHCN only measures temperature trend over populated areas.
Selecting sites classified “Rural” does not help, because the quasi-logarithmic dependence of UHI on local population density only breaks down at utterly unpopulated areas, where almost no GHCN station is located.
Therefore the so called UHI correction applied to current land surface temperature datasets is rubbish.
In general spatial UHI studies have shown that surface temperature increases by about 0.25°C for each doubling of local population density. As world population doubled twice in the last century, the bulk of warming measured by GHCN (~70% of it) has to be attributed to temporal UHI.
Anthony, you have luckily started a incredible mess!
Looking at the comments made so far much are just opinions, few are about facts.
But I understood that you [genuine] intention was to collect valid information in forms that deserve attention. For example:
All energy consumed by mankind (women included of course) corresponds to approx. 0.03 W m-2 or 0.01% of all solar energy received by the Earth.
But in your blog the impossibility to edit comments with figures or tables will limit the type and the quality of the contributions that you are seeking.
How about this one – did you know that suggesting that the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temp disproves runaway climate change is as stupid as suggesting a big global conspiracy, or that it’s the position of the thermometers that is wrong?
Why don’t you first check to see if scientists have really overlooked something before making stupid statements Anthony? I suggest you check exactly what the term runaway climate change means. Wikipedia is probably your level.
The most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia, is an unreliable source for global warming/climate change – due to this man – William M. Connolley
http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley
“Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.”
“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”
Despite the frequently repeated claim by warmists that solar irradiance is a constant, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory knows otherwise.
Article: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
Graph: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/02/05/05feb_sdo_resources/sorcetim_strip.jpg
And;
The numbers;
The adiabatic lapse rate is -g/Cp.
This tells us that the atmospheric temperature gradient is set by gravity through the heat capacity of the air. The heat capacity of air is dominated by atmospheric abundance ie, NITROGEN then oxygen and water.
The average adiabatic is -6.5K/km
-50.5deg C at 10 km, is the same as -18deg C at 5km, is the same as 14.5deg C at sea level in terms of total thermal and gravitational potential energy.
Who needs’ back radiation’?
(Just Wiki lapse rate, then Wolfram alpha Cp for air and nitrogen)
Did you know that ALL the free oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere was manufactured from CO2 by plants and other photosynthesising organisms, and that for much of the history of life on Earth there was no O2 in the atmosphere, but lots of CO2 ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Some understanding of photosynthesis is probably essential to combat climate alarmism.
Excellent explanation,
Besidess, there is plenty of empirical data proving that with additional CO2 plants need less water. check http://www.co2science.org for peer reviewed papers.
Also, page488´s statement that “…since during photosynthesis water and CO2 react together in a 1/1 ratio.” is not correct, They do not react together. That is an oversimplification of photosynthesis. H2O is splitted into H2 (as NADPH2) and O2 during the light dependent phase of photosynthesis and CO2 reacts with ribulose-1.5-diphospate during the light indpendent phase. Later, plants use hte H2 stored as NADPH2 to reduce the products of ribulose carboxilation and complete Calvin´s cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Simple_photosynthesis_overview.svg/220px-Simple_photosynthesis_overview.svg.png