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 that
1) changes in CO2 lag behind changes in temperature in ice core records?
2) even if the recent warming is entirely anthropogenic, the inferred feedback is negative and therefore no basis for alarm?
I think Bob Carter explains best.
I can update the Logarithmic CO2 warming chart showing where actual warming to date is occuring versus the Theory/IPCC now. Zoomed-in so it is a little clearer – natural variation from the ENSO and volcanoes removed.
The satellite lower troposphere temps are well inside the theory and so is Hadcrut4 (and the data to date also points in a direction to how much the historical temps have been played with – maybe 0.3C or so).
http://s18.postimage.org/zdrhgpt21/Zoom_in_RSS_UAH_Hadcrut4_Warming_Sept_12.png
Did you know that Glaciers melt due to extreme pressures rather than extreme temperatures?
Did you know that to stop carbon from increasing we only need
to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year?
Good topsoil contains about 10 per cent biomass. (Schlesinger 1977)
… Changes in farming practises such as no till farming …cause biomass
to grow at least as fast as this.’ Freeman Dyson.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
Did you know that 99.9% of Joe Public needs all the above in baby talk ?
Supplemental to Mr. Coleman’s comment.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/pr_images/glacier.jpg
Did you know that …
Information on earth’s climate presented in Wikipedia, which is always a top internet search hit, has been deliberately biased by a small group of activists to exclude or distort views skeptical of anthropogenic impacts and promote CAGW/CACC. School children, teachers, reporters, or anyone seeking information on climate and climate change thru the internet are directed to an encyclopedia of propaganda masquerading as an authoritative source.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat/print
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/
Did you know:
In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) unilaterally decided “Climate Change” was the equivalent of “Man-Made Global Warming”. ever since, anyone who questions any aspect of Man-Made Global Warming is absurdly labelled a “climate change denier”, or even a “climate denier”.
UNITED NATIONS 1992: UNFCCC: Article 1
DEFINITIONS*
For the purposes of this Convention:
2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
Did you know that…
the IR absorbed by CO2 molecules is then emitted at a very slightly longer wavelength than that at which they were absorbed and therefore the IR emission of a CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?
Anthony and Steve from Rockwood:
Did you know that the assertion made by ‘Steve from Rockwood’ in his post at October 21, 2012 at 6:20 am is pure bunkum and that his inference from paleo data is unfounded?
His inference wrongly assumes the temperature was caused by the atmospheric CO2 and the graph he cites shows it is not; see
http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif
In reality, empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration is so small that it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence which has observable effects (observation of its effects would be its detection) because effects of natural climate variability are much larger.
Richard
Did you know, that in spite of all the dire predictions of climate change and the affect on our food production that the wold’s food production has doubled in the last 40 years? This against the backdrop of increasing temps. Graphics and sources here. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/did-you-know-food-production-vs-cagwcc/
Steve says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:38 am
Did you know that…
the IR absorbed by CO2 molecules is then emitted at a very slightly longer wavelength than that at which they were absorbed and therefore the IR emission of a CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?
I do know that’s wrong.
The solubility of CO2 in water is about 2g per kg of water.
Aside from water itself, it is the most soluble of the common atmospheric gases.
Also, as with all the atmospheric gases, CO2’s solubility decreases with increase water temperature. So the rate of gas RELEASE of CO2 from the world’s oceans per 0.1 C increase is much higher than all the other gases since the water holds more CO2 in the first place.
Therefore, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is strongly tied to the ocean temperature.
You can prove this to yourself by opening 2 bottles of beer.
Cool one beer to near freezing, 33F and allow on to warm to room temperature, 70F.
Pop the tops of both and note that the cool beer barely releases any gas but the warm beer boils over. Warm beer hold much less CO2.
Drink both beer.
Did you know that average temperature is meaningless unless it is understood in the context of what temperatures are physically doing?
Looking at the actual daily data, summer TMax is dropping since the 1930s, while winter TMin has been rising since 1900. The rising winter min temperature is faster than the dropping summer max temperature, resulting in an increase average.
This the planet isn’t heating up, it’s getting less cold. Hardly a catastrophic event.
Early on when your blog was young I sent you a paper I wrote that among other things stated that by a height of 100 feet, or less, all radiated energy in the CO2 bands had been absorbed. Therefore any additional CO2 would only be totally absorbed at a lower altitude and would not increase the overall temperature of the atmosphere.
Many of the items here are clearly facts, others are quite dubious. A “reply” option as on CA would make it much easier to dispute the weaker contributions.
Did you know that most of the 255 signers of the ‘CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE’ Lead Letter Published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010, are biologists, biochemists, anthropologists etc… There is even a specialist in stimulating creativity and innovation (http://www.winstonbrill.com/). The complete list can be found here: http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf . Most of the names are clickable, so you can verify yourself.
Did you know that setting record temperatures has nothing to do with increasing temperature trends?
That is correct, it has to do with accounting. In the first year records were kept, every day was a record breaker. As years pass the number of record breaking days drops in a decay curve. How long would it take to fill in all possible temperatures? For example, if any single location’s possible daily summer high temperatures ranges between 15C and 35C, using 0.1C increments, means there are 200 possible slots any summer day can fall in. If the distribution of temperatures follows a normal bell curve, a simple simulation will show that it would take more than 3000 years to fill them all so no more record breaking days occur.
“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.”
Another meaningless number. Our need for energy is highly concentrated in the places we use it, such as cities. There isn’t enough space in a city to put solar panels to get even a small percent of our energy demand. Putting panels in farm land is stupid beyond words. This means panels would have to be at least hundreds of miles from where it is consumed. Line loss would be high. Most of the planet is covered in water, so can’t be used in your calculation.
There is no way we will get but a tiny fraction of our power needs from solar. Of course, it also doesnt include there is no solar power at night, or on over cast days.
Did you know that average temperature of the upper layer of oceans increased by 0.1°C in the last 57 years?
According to the NOAA NODC OCL Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content site between second quarter of 1955 & 2012 heat content of the upper 700 m of oceans increased by 10.5×10²² Joules. As mass of that much water is about 2.5×10²⁰ kg, it means heat content increased by 420 J/kg. Specific heat of water is about 4.2 kJ/kg, that makes it 0.1°C, not more.
In the same time frame atmospheric CO₂ concentration increased from 314 ppmv to 394 ppmv. That’s 33% of a doubling on a proper logarithmic scale, which means if all increase in ocean temperature is attributed to CO₂, it implies an upper ocean warming at a rate of 0.3°C/doubling of CO₂ concentration. This figure should be contrasted to the 10 times higher figure of 3°C increase per doubling in surface temperature projected by computational climate models and the IPCC.
One is inclined to think that much increase in temperature difference between land and ocean is unsustainable, because vigorous upward convection of hot continental air would follow, replaced by cool moist air from the oceans along the surface. The phenomenon is not unheard of, for the sake of the witless it is called monsoon.
Did you know that arctic ice conditions were low enough that the north west passage was successfully navigated by ship without ice breaker assistance in 1903-06 ( Roald Amundsen), 1940 and 1944 (Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen) and 1957 (Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen), long before global warming was even a topic of discussion. There are also historical references to very low arctic ice levels nearly two hundred years ago by first person observations by ship captains who commented on how far north they could sail without sighting ice bergs and significant sea ice.
October 10 1922 the American consul at Ber en Norway , submitted
the following report to the State Department, Washington, D. C.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
During the 1930’s sea ice was so low that the Soviet ship Sadko was able to sail within 500 miles of the north pole. The average coal shipping season at Spitsbergen, Norway almost doubled in length from 95 days from 1909-1912 to 175 days from 1930 to 1938 due to the lack of sea ice.
US Nuclear submarines have surfaced at the north pole as early at 1959 (USS Skate in March of that year). In 1987 three nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the pole on May 18 1987,(HMS Superb S 109, USS Billfish SSN 676, USS Sea Devil SSN 664).
Open water at the poles in summer melt is not at all unusual historically.
Larry
Did you know that Earth’s climate is always changing, as is the climate on other planets?
Did you know that Earth has been covered by an ocean of molten rock and by oceans of water ice, and that it has experienced every possible climate in between these extreme conditions?
Did you know this could get out of control ?
Did you know that the mean surface temperature of the moon is 107 degrees Celsius and has virtually no atmosphere.
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm
Did you know that the mean surface temperature of the earth is 14 degrees Celsius and we all know there is an atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Do you now see the problem with every theory that suggests the atmosphere actually warms the earth or keeps it warm.
REPLY: Did you know that the temperature on the moon is a SOIL temperature and the temperature you gave for Earth is a gaseous ATMOSPHERIC temperature? Apples and Aardvarks. – Anthony
Did you know that NOAA queen Jane Lunchenco used her fabricated Oregon Ocean Dead Zones,,,
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2008/feb/20/dead-zones-in-pacific-ocean-linked-to-global/
Lubchenco says it’s all part of radical changes to the world’s oceans.
,,,to secure a $386.4 million National Science Foundation grant to gauge the effects of climate change on the world’s oceans,,,
http://www.piscoweb.org/files/file/Hypoxia/10-8-09%202009%20hypoxia%20update.pdf
,,,and through additional embellishment used the phony dead zones and acidification farce to impose, by threats to the fisheries, 5 marine reserves off the Oregon Coast.
It pays.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/11857.html
Who Are the Wealthiest Members of the Obama Administration?
12. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: assets of $1,907,000 to $4,705,000.
Another academic-turned-political-adviser, Lubchenco made $235,465 last year from Oregon State University along with speaker fees of just over $4,000 and $150,000 as recipient of the Zayed International Prize for the Environment. Who says being green doesn’t pay?
When Lubchenco, Barth and Chan made up the AGW= Oregon dead zones it meant a big bucks in return.
But as soon as the millions arrived their fabricated AGW/Dead Zones which they had embellished into being new, bigger, lasting longer and happening every year slipped into the reality of natural, cyclical behavior and vanished. But they’re spending millions being water watchers just in case they return.
(Side note- this is a whopper – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/40/15452.full.pdf+html )
The fisheries where they claim death and destruction are needing their attention and out millions are experiencing enormous & healthy harvests from a thriving marine ecosystem.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/crab/coastal/Harvest
Washington coastal Dungeness crab landing data back to 1950 shows a large fluctuation in harvest, ranging from a low of 2.5 million pounds in 1981 to a high of 25 million pounds in 2004-05 averaging at 9.5 million pounds. It is believed that this large fluctuation in landings is not a result of harvest patterns, but likely due to varying ocean conditions including, water temperature, food availability, and ocean currents.
http://cms.oregon.gov/ODA/Pages/news/100106crab.aspx
Oregon Dungeness crab season sprints into the new year
1/6/2010
Crab volume, quality, and size all good so far this season
http://earthsky.org/earth/mysterious-dead-zones-appear-in-the-pacific-northwest
Jane Lubchenco: A virtual wasteland of dead Dungeness crabs, dead worms, dead stars, dead anemones, just littering the sea floor.
Lubchenco believes the dead zone is driven by changes in coastal winds, which may be related to climate change.
http://www.oregondungeness.org/documents/SeasonEnds11.pdf
http://www.oregondungeness.org
“ANOTHER STELLAR CRAB SEASON ENDS”