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.
Most people don’t know that global temperatures have not risen for 16 years.
Most people don’t know that so much climate science has been discredited, things like the Steig Antarctica paper, the “Screening Fallacy” as discussed by Mcintyre found in so many papers, and the extent to which these deliberate hide-the-decline sort of tricks permeate the science.
Dr. M. Mann, director of the National Zoological Park, wrote “I believe it is true that the giraffe has no characteristic voice’ at all. I have never heard one make any noise and it is generally said that they do not.
http://www.4information.com/trivia/giraffe-have-voice/
Did you know that Carbon Dioxide + Water + Sunlight = Sugar + Oxygen which is the basis for all Life on Earth.
Did You Know that ice cores can provide vision into the past that are indisputable?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-oldest-dna.html
(Sorry if someone else said this, but I don’t have time to read through 400+ comments. Also, it may seem a little elementary, but so was your example about the logarithmic response of temp to CO2. And finally, it’s a bit irrelevant, given that most of the sea level rise predicted by alarmists comes from thermal expansion of the oceans, but it would be interesting to learn just how ignorant the public is about this.)
Did you know that if the ENTIRE Arctic Ice Cap melted, ocean levels would not rise by the tiniest fraction of a millimeter? Floating ice does not increase the level of water it’s floating on as it melts. This can be confirmed with a simple experiment in your kitchen.
Black body radiation theory always drives me crazy. The assumptions always seems to start with the earth as without it’s own source of heat.
The earth is molten. The earth’s spinning core of mostly molten iron makes for earth’s magnetic field offering earth’s residents dome protection from cosmic and solar outpouring energies.
Somehow, I’ve never seen any research on how much energy reaches space as our planet cools. Black body calculations nonwithstanding, where is the internal earth’s contribution to the environment. Cooler soil just under the surface, comes about from cooling effects of exposure to space (atmosphere is such a thin skin of air it is almost inconsequential), not cumulative heating effects of a trace gas. The deeper a mine goes the greater a challenge it is to cool it sufficiently for humans to work.
On a stove, humans put tops on their pots to contain the heat. A lack of convection is what allows, not causes, the higher temperatures. Greenhouses add vents in the top to produce a similar effect. With sufficient convection, even greenhouses can remain at the current outdoor temperature. Add in solar screening, swamp coolers and the greenhouses can be kept cooler than the outside temps. Even when CO2 is artificially raised to higher levels for better plant growth.
So what happens when that convective surface is exposed to deep space half a day. If CO2 is raising the temperatures, its in our interest to pump more out. But I personally think CAGWers are expecting an awful lot of shaking, moving and emitting out those few molecules of CO2.
I have an issue with the idea that CO2’s environmental effect is forced and cumulative. Radiation in the infra red frequencies will keep occuring as long as atoms and molecules are doing their shaking, vibrating and emitting. It is the nature of physics that all atoms seek their lowest natural state.
This is why, in the hottest subtropical-tropical deserts; temperatures drop, often drastically and significantly at night. Frost is possible, even in summmer, if the sky is clear of clouds and humidity is low. CO2 sure makes a difference, BS!
My mistake. I forgot to transition the earth’s magnetic effect to some of man’s uses for magnetism. In it’s own way, earth’s magnetic field is interacting with earth, earth’s surface, atmosphere, even the moon and near space object. All of this interaction represents energy.
Man has devised rapidly fluctuating magnets to quickly heat magnetic metals to welding temperatures. Perhaps an extreme example, but fluctuating magnetic fields transmit energy to magnetic chemicals in our bodies, plants, creatures, even in seawater. More IR to radiate out.
Did you know that over the modern period of measurement, changes in temperature precede changes in CO2 by 6 months? Article with graphs here http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/
Did you know that CO2 is not pollution but plant food? Higher CO2 concentration leads to faster growth rates in plants and improved crop yields. This is generally good for all types of life on Earth. (Note: there are articles that say that this is false and then go on to quote statistics that show it is true).
Did you know that there is a cycle averaging 208 years in solar activity (found in C14 and Be10 proxies) and climate and that this reached a maximum about 1998. It is called Suess cycle or de Vries cycle, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Hypothesized_cycles. So 20th century was increasing solar activity and 21st century will be declining solar activity.
Did you know that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the past were thousands of times greater than they are today without jeopardizing the earth’s ability to support life?
http://www.commodities-now.com/reports/power-and-energy/3164-climate-concerns-may-soon-be-a-thing-of-the-past–splitting-co2.html
Ken Mourin says:
October 21, 2012 at 4:53 am
“14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA « Tory Aardvark”
I saw this number (14,000) a few years ago and have searched for its source. That is, who does (or did) the counting?
Searching leads to an article with an apparent quote regarding abandoned turbines in the “Hawaiian Isles” and “California” but where is the citation giving a source and how this information was obtained? If there is one, please post. Until then, consider this one of those numbers made up out of thin air, so to say!
Steve says:
October 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Phil says:
“I do know that’s wrong.”
Really? So absorbed IR does not cause a vibration within a CO2 molecule?
Yes it can, however that is not what your earlier, wrong statement said.
Did You Know:
That Homo Sapiens is insignificant to planet Earth.
James says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:06 am
“Did you know that Glaciers melt due to extreme pressures rather than extreme temperatures?”
So 0.1 degree Celsius is extreme. Who knew?
Have you ever walked on a glacier on a warm and sunny day.
And where does the water come from for this?
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/moulin-20061211.html
OT, but “did you know” that Genghis who proffered some points early in this thread is not Genghis Cunn aka Faustino, although I can’t rule out any common ancient Mongolian ancestry. I appointed myself Director of the (fictitious) Genghis Cunn School of Economics 15-16 years ago in exasperation with ignorant interventionists (they are still around, folks), although my more usual nom de net is Faustino.
Did you know that Richard S Courtney at 7:47am completely misinterpreted my post of 6:20am?
The point being that if a doubling of CO2 causes a 3-4 deg C increase in global temperatures then the world would have burned to a crisp years ago when CO2 concentrations were several thousand ppm as per the diagram that someone else had posted shows. But the Earth did not spiral out of control and therefore the 3-4 degree warming (claimed by so many climate scientists) caused by a doubling of CO2 is incorrect. I don’t even think it’s logarithmic but I’ll let Richard catch up first. Richard remind me not to stand next to you if we’re ever out there fighting a war together.
Did you know there are over 200,000 wind turbines turning in the world of which 14,000 is 7%?
John says:
October 21, 2012 at 10:40 am
“The arctic circle is currently moving North at 49 feet a year.”
A quick calculation (correct me if I’m too far off) shows that in 7,472.3 years the Arctic Circle (solar tangent defined and not the fast food place near you) will coincide with the North Pole.
Why should I care?
>> Steve from Rockwood says:
>> October 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm
>>The point being that if a doubling of CO2 causes a 3-4 deg C increase in global temperatures
Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has ever cause ANY global temperature increase ? Without evidence, you can choose any theory you wish.
Did you know that…
For years, throughout Europe and North America ancient artifacts have been and continue to be discovered under retreating glaciers and melting ice. As these discoveries are made the media announcements always credit “climate change” with its implied, or stated, modern anthropogenic cause for melting the ice but rarely question how it was that these items got under the ice/glacier in the first place. When they do, it’s usually that those past warm periods were the result of other causes but it’s different this time; modern warming is the result of GHG’s. In any event, we have yet to see any evidence that shows modern climate change is outside the bounds of natural variability and these finds are just another example.
Anthony, there are just too many references to post on this topic, I’m sure you are familiar with them or can easily find them. I’ll include this one as it has a nice picture of a glacier.
http://www.norwaypost.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25795
Dr Burns says:
“Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has ever caused ANY global temperature increase? Without evidence, you can choose any theory you wish.”
Amen to that!
Can I get an ‘Amen!’?
Amen, brother.
@Michael
October 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm
——————————————
You may have misread what I was talking about. I am not advocating we pay much heed to the silly “precautionary principle” with regard to CO2 accumulation at current rates. I agree with those who believe that a concentration at least twice as large as the current concentration would most likely be largely beneficial. I am saying that the “precautionary principle,” for whatever it is worth, would make a lot more sense if CO2 concentrations began to reverse course and drop to levels below 300 ppm – and if we could do something to prevent it from dropping further. And also that it would make more sense to worry (if we must worry) about the next glaciation and how exactly are our descendents going to prepare for it when it comes.
It is very plausible that the current standard model of the carbon cycle may be grossly wrong.
In The Deep Hot Biosphere, Thomas Gold states that “several times as much carbon as is taken up by living materials is constantly extracted from the atmosphere and taken out of circulation as long-lived or permanent carbonate rock. The surface biosphere must therefore have been kept alive by an ongoing and large supply of carbon in the form of either methane or CO2 (or a mix of the two). CO2 will be the final addition to the atmosphere in either case. [page 15].
And: “The theory that the earth started out with a massive CO2 atmosphere fails in yet another way. The pattern of carbonate rock deposition through geological time does not support it. Rather than a skewing of carbonate deposition to earlier times, the sedimentary record shows a rather continuous accumulation of such oxidized carbon, as well as unoxidized carbon, over the last two billion years — which is the period of time over which the sedimentary record is usefully intact. Indeed, the total carbon excess of the surface layers is clearly shown to have been increasing since early times. Recycling cannot account for that. Rather a continuous addition drawn from sources upwelling from within the earth must be held responsible. Strangely, although most of the oxidized carbon that is in the carbonate deposits is derived from the atmospheric-oceanic pool of carbon dioxide, the present content of carbon in this pool represents only about one part in 740 of the known deposited amounts (using the estimated total deposited carbon over the course of two billion years and the measured CO2 content of atmosphere and oceans). What is the origin of the supply that maintains atmospheric CO2 at levels that result in the deposition of carbonates through all geological epochs and that maintains a supply rate sufficiently constant to keep plants alive?
If outgassing of carbon-containing volatiles from the depths of the earth were responsible […] this global average rate of outgassing would have to be sufficient to replace the amount equal to the present oceanic-atmospheric content of carbon dioxide every 2.7 million years. In other words, the carbon must have been replaced in those surface reservoirs 740 times in two billion years.” [page 63]
I have not read all of the 440 + comments and apologise if this is a duplication…
These are quotes from the book ‘The Inconvenient Skeptic’ by John Kehr and are cited facts.
Did you know that most glaciers in the northern hemisphere are less than 4,000 years old and no glaciers have been found which are older than 8,000 years. The youngest glaciers are only a few hundred years old. Looking at the long term temperature of the holocene it is clear that the last 1,000 years have been the coldest of the last 10,000 years.
Climate alarmists are usually short term thinkers because their livelihoods frequently depend upon immediate action…
Did you know:
There hasn’t been any global warming in 16 years?
That sea level is falling?
That the Polar Bear population is at its highest since we’ve been keeping track?
That Antarctic sea ice is at its highest since we’ve been keeping track?
That the north pole was ice free in 1958?
That the U.S. is emitting CO2 at 1990 levels which was the goal of the Kyoto Protocol?
That In Minnesota atmospheric CO2 dropped to a low of 378 PPM recently?