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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did you know?
Solar scientists have determined from sunspot recordings and Be proxies that the earth has been in solar maximuum for the entire 20th century?
davidmhoffer,
I do not think that the purpose of this thread is to discuss primarily the divergence issue, I therefore ask the moderator to moderate if desired.
I only submit a graph which compares data. The correlation is, according to the standard of proxies, quite remarkable and there is no change of behavior around 1960. This date is only a trick to not too highlight the real origin of the divergence. For this particular issue see http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/provenance-of-the-decline-a-forensic-analysis/
That said, MXD are generally supposed to be representative of the months from April to September for mid-latitudes, so 6 months. MXD correlate very well the other good proxies. It is not at all the case of ring width (TRW).
The simplest example is to use a stock chart for a day and for a couple of years.
Phil says:
“I do know that’s wrong.”
Really? So absorbed IR does not cause a vibration within a CO2 molecule?
P. Solar says:
October 21, 2012 at 9:59 am
pat says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:33 am
>>
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.
The words “Climate Change”, are simply a Dialectic Mind Freek Magic Trick Word Game they’re Playing on us.
You do realize that don’t you? You’re not that stupid.
It’s a form of psychological manipulation, hidden meanings and hidden agendas contained within simple words and phrases. Many UN program agendas are labeled with comforting sounding names to get us to do what they want, especially when it’s not really good for us.
dialectic (Merriam-Webster)
1: logic 1a(1)
2: a: discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth
b: the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
3: the logic of fallacy
4: a: the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process
b: (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5: usually plural but singular or plural in construction
a: any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict
b: an intellectual exchange of ideas
6: the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements
phi;
I do not think that the purpose of this thread is to discuss primarily the divergence issue, I therefore ask the moderator to moderate if desired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. You asked. Now you’re complaining that this isn’t the thread for the discussion?
2. Read P. Solar’s response to you again.
3. Your graph shows that the number of cores used after 1980 falls to nearly zero. Over half the timeline from 1960 on is under represented in your graph.
4. Even were I to buy your conjecture that trees grow from April to Sept that far north, that leaves 1/2 the year unaccounted for. The tree doesn’t know if it was a warmer than usual winter, or colder.
@Bill Williams says: October 20, 2012 at 11:34 am
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.
===============================================================
Similarly, parts of Somerset were under the sea in prehistoric times.
http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/history.shtml
“For much of prehistory, this part of Somerset was under the sea and it is only in the last few thousand years that the land has been emerging: the area around Burnham and Highbridge has therefore been particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of sea and rivers.”
Anyone who has been on the Somerset Levels will know that it is still very wet there – there are drainage channels everywhere, and if, when walking down a lane, cows run in a field by the lane, you can feel it under your feet. Unlike the Netherlands, little land has been artificially reclaimed – more, people have adapted to how the countryside is there.
The Levels are near Glastonbury and the Tor.
Did you know, we on our own can change the words “Climate Change”, in a RE-Branding effort, to the words “Climate Changes”, so we don’t have the stigma attached to it that says all people are bad and guilty of something?
davidmhoffer,
I’m not complaining, I am always happy to discuss this topic.
Again, I’m just presenting data freely available and find that the correlation is excellent and that nothing special happens around 1960. You think it has no interest, well, I will add nothing.
Great Idea!
Did you know… Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
[taken verbatim from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html – includes chart of CO2 vs Temp from now to 600 million years ago – no correlation at all]
phi:
At October 21, 2012 at 2:15 pm you say to davidmhoffer,
“I will add nothing.”
That is always a wise decision when you have been shown to be plain wrong.
Richard
Very true, and I’ve often thought about that. And if the precautionary principle is of any use, it would also suggest that the transition back to glacial conditions may be somewhat overdue, to judge by past cycles.
A list of “did you know” statements should probably start by establishing the nature of CO2 itself, putting in perspective its recently-acquired evil characteristics (including toxicity in the mind of many people), its concentration etc. The most salient points I would bring up are the following.
Did you know that:
–CO2 is an absolutely essential gas, and all plant and animal life on earth (barring some types of bacteria) arises from it because it sits at the base of the food chain. It is the building material of life. Primo Levi put it well here: http://tinyurl.com/8ae28hq
It’s not a “pollutant” as many people have come to believe, and it is not toxic at any levels we can remotely hope to achieve by fuel emissions. It has been as much as 20 times current levels.
–Plant biomass increases with increasing CO2, and thus increases the size of the sinks, acting as a negative feedback to its accumulation.
–Its absorption rate by the oceans also increases as its partial pressure increases in the atmosphere, another negative feedback to its accumulation.
–At current levels of accumulation (about 2 ppm per year) a doubling won’t occur until some 200 years from now. A second doubling would take an additional 400 years.
–Fuel emissions are equivalent to the amount of CO2 produced by human and farm animal respiration, which in turn represents a very minute fraction of the total breathing biomass. And only half of those emissions are accumulating. http://tinyurl.com/9fdkk8x and http://tinyurl.com/cqtje5s
–Greenhouse theory puts the increase in temperature from a doubling of CO2 at about 1 deg C. Amplification hypothesis are completely speculative and unknown, added only for the sake of alarm. Not even the sign of the total feedback balance is known, and it may very well be negative.
–Temperatures have been higher than present for about 90 percent of geological time (non-ice ages are the rule).
–We are in an interglacial period WITHIN an ice age that began some 2.5 million years ago. Interglacial means a shrinkage of ice sheets – not their disappearance. We will continue to be in an ice age as long as there are continental ice sheets on the planet.
–During the last 20 years, there has been a very blatant effort by the new breed of what a book reviewer has called “tabloid climatology” to minimize, dismiss or otherwise “get rid of” previous warm periods during the current interglacial, in order to make current temperatures seem unprecedented.
–It is also a fact that the processing of raw data to produce an adjusted official average temperature is a process that relies on enigmatic, priestly incantations. The datasets are constantly adjusted retroactively, for reasons unknown, and the adjustments overwhelmingly favor a smoothing of temperatures prior to 1980 and an increase in temperatures after that.
–Even assuming those methods are justified, there is nothing unprecedented in current official temperatures. Within the current interglacial (the Holocene), temperatures have been as high or higher than at present at least 3 times: during the Climate Optimum some 7000 years ago; during the Roman warm period some 2000 years ago, and during the Medieval warm period 1000 years ago.
–Judging by the duration of the previous 3 interglacials, we can reasonably expect a return to extended glacial conditions relatively soon. Human civilization has never lived under such conditions. It arose as a consequence of the current lull that began some 12,000 years ago.
A return to such conditions when (not if) it happens, will represent a challenge of incomparably greater magnitude than a possible increase of 1-2 degrees — in the extremely unlikely event we were capable of achieving 2 doublings of CO2, which would take 600 years at current rates of increase.
–Current climate alarm theory is a sky-high stack of “what if” scenarios followed by an endless series of might/may/could statements which eventually become. The process works like this: If A should happen, no matter how unlikely, then B, C and D might happen. After a while, “if” is effectively replaced by “when” and “might/may/could” are replaced by “will”.
–The attribution industry proves this is indeed how it works: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
My first paragraph in the previous message refers to this comment by
PennDragon October 20, 2012 at 9:18 pm
“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!”
Countering the misinformation that the MSM have been promulgating for years must be the most important thing and the primary slides.
Did You Know that the Earth has a planetary atmospheric effect that influences the temperature distribution at the surface but it does not actually have a greenhouse effect like agricultural greenhouses have? The Earth’s atmosphere is a mixture of gaseous molecules of which there are several that have IR absorption and emission properties. The behavior of these IR property gases in the Earth’s planetary atmosphere have little relevance to what happens inside an agricultural greenhouse.
John
Since winter is coming: Did you know that extratropical cyclones can form an eyewall? Did you know that a extratropical cyclones can form over land? Did you know that nor’easters is a shortened form of northeaster and is called that because the wind comes from the northeast? Did you know that a northeaster in the Mediterranean Sea is called a gregale? Did you know that nor’easters can do more beach erosion than a hurricane?
Francisco says:
October 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm
“Very true, and I’ve often thought about that. And if the precautionary principle is of any use, it would also suggest that the transition back to glacial conditions may be somewhat overdue, to judge by past cycles.”
Did you know the Green Movement invented the Precautionary Principle?
The Precautionary Principle Who Benefits?
Did you know that the National Academy of Sciences never endorsed the hockey stick conclusions of Michael Mann, et al.?
Did you know that the Earth’s climate is the single most complicated system known, apart from life itself. It consists of many, many variables, some well understood, some unknown, some stable, some chaotic.
Did you know about the inconvenient truth on global warming
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
Sorry, mistake, the above has already been posted.
I have made one suggestion – above (and of course could make heaps more) but I will add this since, as a geologist, I think it is interesting and likely to challenge old beliefs.
Did you know that the story from geological history tells us that plants have been too efficient at carbon sequestration such that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have declined 90% in the past 150 million years, and that during the last Ice Ages atmospheric levels approached the critical point at which photosynthesis would stop? Therefore the biosphere is actually more at risk from the low levels of atmospheric CO2 than from elevated levels of CO2. If we genuinely fear for future of the biosphere we should be thinking more in terms of increasing the levels of CO2 by de-sequestering carbon from coal and oil fields to make it available to the biosphere and making photosynthesis more efficient.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on-climate-and-energy-security/
There are a couple of weak figures in this paper which mention it but I cant think of a better source at the moment Sorrry
Did you know that the Free Air Carbon Experiment (FACE), showed evelated plant growth for all increased levels of carbon dioxide tested.
I would have thought that the very first slide has to be…
Did you know Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are like chalk and cheese?
The Little Ice Age in China brought serious drought, then catastrophic floods, epidemics, famine. Millions of people died. The Ming dynasty fell.
Little Ice Age pdf