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.
DYK that until mankind started burning fossil fuels all plant life here on Earth was on the verge of co2 starvation? Mankind + fossil fuels has begun a truly “green” revolution for all life on our planet. Don’t let the ocophobic eco-freaks return us back toward the cold and starvation. A bit warmer is better for all animals. A bit more co2 is better for plants and therefore all animals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692178/pdf/9507562.pdf
DYK that this is the environmentalist’s actual objective, a cold and starved future? Investigate it yourself, the quotes of their leaders are out there on the web.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
DYK co2 levels do not affect the earth’s temperature at all proven so far by hundreds of thousands of empirical radiosonde sounding data instances? (Ferenc Miskolczi)
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=503
DYK the levels of the sun and clouds (liquid and solid matter) do, in fact, affect the temperature of this planet?
(duh!!)
( Anthony, read this post to fast, didn’t realize we needed to also include sources – here’s the re-do)
Scottie says:
October 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm
“Did you know that the hottest planet in the solar system, Venus, has the lowest wind speeds of any planet and that the coldest planet in the solar system, Neptune, has the highest wind speeds?”
Perhaps there are other reasons for this. Like that Venus rotates very slowly so it can reach stability of temperature distribution. And Neptune has a very high inclination of its rotational axis meaning that some weird stuff goes on with atmospheric circulation. I think without examining all the factors, nothing can be deduced from this.
Ray,
Mars & Jupiter have high wind speeds. Saturn is considerably colder than Jupiter, but wind speeds on Saturn are very high, up to 1100 mph at its equator.
tktom says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:02 pm
“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?”
Levels in the past were tens of times higher than they are today without jeopardizing the earth’s ability to support life would be a more correct statement. Still a good argument.
Francisco says:
October 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm
@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 not for Man to decide what the levels should or should not be of CO2, as it is a futile effort to even try, or be worth anything. There are 97,000 Olympic size swimming pools of water on the planet for every human that inhabits it. Do the Math.
The Precautionary Principle is worthless in Science and in Politics, as it can only lead to abuse without evidence, and should be abandoned outright, as it is only speculation and opinion.
The Precautionary Principle may be applied in the areas of Philosophy and Ideology, as those are measurable outcomes from hidden psychological agendas coming to pass and well documented.
I wish that were true, but it’s just an Internet rumor. It originated in a letter to a Hawaiian newspaper, and appears to have been plucked out of thin air. The actual number is probably well below 1000.
(re-post with sources)
DYK a large swatch of the worlds population has been infected with a case of ocophobia (co2-phobia) and what is really needed is to have psychological clinics set up to help the afflicted? Mankind owes it to these lost and confused souls created by over zealot environmentalists infiltrating our schools, universities, governments and industries.
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/11/scared-to-death.html
DYK this illness is being spread by the content of schoolbooks within our grade school and upper level texts and teachers curriculum? Even in the cartoons fed to pre-school children on the TV channels. The first step is to purge all of this contaminated propaganda content from what is being feed to the young and developing minds and getting back to pure classical science.
Climate-anxiety: reports of frightened children
http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-anxiety-reports-of-frightened.html
Climatologists Playing Children’s Games to Scare Each Other
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/climatologists-playing-childrens-games-to-scare-each-other
It is true.
I assume in your introduction to this article that you want to produce a series of “vignettes” for the general population, with a positive tone and straight to the basic facts. Here are a few ideas, perhaps simple but more understood by non-scientists (like me):
-Global warming will likely lead to increased food production (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/08/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-and.html)
-Sea levels have risen by miniscule amounts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/the-500-year-fud-about-sea-levels/)
-Increased CO2 leads to increased plant life and growth (many references this site: http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html) Note the large northern land masses, Russia and Canada, would have more food production capabilities.
-Natural solar variations affect earth’s climate (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/14/more-solar-linkages-to-climate/ ,and others on your own site)
-We are still coming out of the Ice Age. Canada’s landmass is still rebounding from the weight of the ice: (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=77E16494-E7F2-99DF-30DB33EDF0C6ACBA)
-The earth has been warming since the ice age yet CO2 levels have increased only recently (reference your own CO2 and temperature charts)
-The main threats to the global ecosystem are pollution and population growth, not global warming. (an opinion shared my many, no specific links to articles but I am sure there are lots)
-The world (i.e. USA) continues to break cold weather records (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/02/record-cold-weather-roundup-hundreds-of-new-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-last-week/)
I am thrilled at being able to contribute a little to your site, one that I visit regularly. I am not a scientist but someone that simply does not believe in man-made global warming (and those that profit from this rhetoric). I despise hearing about the negatives of the natural global warming instead of the positive effects (guess it helps to be a cold Canadian). BTW Canada is gifting the US west with a cold air mass this week. Fun stuff all that shoveling, sweeping and scraping.
Thanks to you Anthony and to your regular contributors. I do not know where you find all the energy to keep such an excellent site.
John F. Hultquist says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Not sure of the count either, but digging around indicates that the number of abandoned sites and units is massive.
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
http://2012nevadacounty.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/where-do-unsubsidized-wind-turbines-go-to-die/
And what may be a repeat… the author probably knows the source, he is the first one (as far as I can find) that uses the number.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
that CO2 is supposed to retain energy/heat and that climate scientist measure this energy by looking at temperature records. However, temperature is not a measurement of energy. In fact the two don’t even correlate.
Show graph of glass of ice being heated to boiling and energy added vs temp
that the rise in temps where claimed to be “unprecendented” and that since they were unprecedented it was claimed tobe proof it was caused by man. However recent reseaarch has shown otherwise.
insert best graph of MWP and last century.
” 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; ”
The very use of the term Climate Optimum for a period that was considerable warmer than today shows how stupid things have got. We are now told that “when” gobal temps are that high we would be half way to hell.
‘The repeatability of Robert Woods experiment’ by Nasif Nahle.
Keep 95% of the long wave infrared in the ‘greenhouse’, forcing the temperature with back radiation.
Or,
keep 5% of it in.
It doesn’t matter.
The rate of increase and the final temperature are the same, confirmed by repeatable experiment.
This proves that the long wave radiative energy although present is at a level where it is almost ‘merely an indicator’ of temperature. It is swamped by conduction and convection in coupled thermal systems at ambient temperatures.
GH gasses reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
This means that although the total energy in the system will be higher, the day time high temperature will be lower.
This is clearly seen because all the highest temperatures recorded on earth are in arid or desert regions where there is very little WV in the troposphere.
So, what does it mean when we see record temperatures being broken? It means it is NOT due to GH gasses.
Did you know that “The ocean is curiously cold. Even in regions where surface temperatures are at a maximum, the average temperature of a water column is barely above the freezing point. The reason is the shallowness of the thermocline, the interface between the layer of warm surface water and the much colder deep abyss.”
http://www.princeton.edu/aos/people/faculty/george_philander/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Thermocline.jpg
Since most of the heat content is in the first several hundred meters of water, it has very little impact on the total heat content of the entire water column extending down several kilometers.
Several hundred meters of warm VS. several kilometers of cold………no competition.
Did you know that the climate has been oscillating within narrow temperature bounds for the last billion of years and probably more than that ?
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
(Note for Antony : the temperature chart on the linked page can’t be used without reference to Dr Scotese)
Observation 1 : The negative feedbacks prevail because the temperatures stayed in a narrow band despite widely variating atmospheric composition, continent distribution, Ice Caps existence and Sun’s activity.
Observation 2 : The Earth has presently been in a very cold climate phase far below the average of the last 600 millions of years. (Remark : at the time scale of the chart the Ice ages are not resolved but contribute to the low temperature average observed in the recent period).
Observation 3 : The warm Earth state, probably without Ice Caps, is a preferred and more stable state. The Earth spent most of its time in this state.
Consequence : The CO2 increase during the last 2 centuries is a very short time scale perturbation which will have no measurable effect on the global trend which should be warming with pseudo periodical interruptions due to Ice Ages..
Just a repost of the pictures of the submarines surfaced in open water at the North Pole.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
maybe include 2004 as well just to show that open water is normal not unprecedented.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/HMS_Tireless%2C_North_Pole_2004.jpg
An other eye-opening graphic would be total GHG contributions showing the insignificance of human contribution:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Not sure on the numbers & calcs from the above link – I am not fully qualified to judge. I am surprised that CO2 comes out higher than CH4 but both are dwarfed by water vapour contribution – to which we can do nothing about (well except the crazy Russians cloud seeding maybe!)
Phil says:
“Yes it can, however that is not what your earlier, wrong statement said.”
Do we really have to go through this step by step? If the IR causes a vibration within the CO2 molecule, then the vibration costs a certain amount of energy to create. If some energy is expended causing the vibration, then the IR being emitted will be at a slightly lower energy than when it was absorbed and therefore be at a slightly longer wavelength. For example, IR absorbed at the 4.3 micrometer band is emitted at 4.31 micrometers. CO2 does not absorb at 4.31, it absorbs at 4.3. The other bands emit at a slightly longer wavelength as well rendering CO2 IR emissions invisible to other CO2 molecules.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/
25 Recent studies mostly debunk the claims that coral losses are mostly due to warmer water or that warmer water will be a major threat to them.
26 Environmental organizations are wealthy (receiving grants from big oil), pay big salaries, have many employees, and are deeply entwined in the establishment.
27 If there were no threat of global warming, environmental organizations would find it necessary to invent one, lest their grants and donations be halved.
28 The funding for orthodox climatology by governments and private foundations dwarfs the funding for heretic climatology by think tanks & big oil by a factor of 100.
29 The Kilimanjaro ice cap is recovering.
30 Low-lying island nations aren’t lying any lower now than they were ten years ago.
31 The Met Office’s weather forecasts for the UK, biased by warmist prejudice, have turned out badly wrong.
32 An Australian state government, blinded by warmist predictions of ever-lasting droughts, allowed a dam to fill beyond its safe capacity, forcing a catastrophic release of water when raining continued.
33 Other Australian state governments, relying on the same forecasts, built expensive water desalinization plants that have had to be mothballed.
Steve from Rockwood:
re your post at October 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm, I did NOT “misrepresent” what you wrote. I pointed out that it was wrong.
Several posts in this thread have presented trivial information, but plain wrong information damages the purpose of the thread whatever was the intention of its provision.
It is at least as important to ensure that wrong statements in this thread are corrected as it is to provide statements to this thread (which I have also done).
Richard
Did you know – There are ‘fake’ skeptics and ‘true’ skeptics?
http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/fake-skeptics-versus-true-skeptics.html
Fake Skeptics do not argue on the grounds of science, they mostly use non-scientific arguments to attack the findings of science. They misrepresent the science, use logical fallacies, acknowledge and interpret empirical data only very selectively, e.g., by cherry picking those, insofar those appear to be in support of their views. The thinking is governed by cognitive biases too a large degree. The driving force is not primarily scientific curiosity, and the motivation for arguing against findings of science is mostly not just some scientific disagreement. Findings from scientific research are rejected, because those findings are in contradiction to preconceived economical, political, ideological, or religious views. Consequently, since the scientific arguments are lacking, fake skeptics often resort to attacks not just against the results from research, but also against the scientists who have presented those results. Scientists who are presenting results from research which are not liked are being defamed and smeared. Accusations, insinuation, or the use of innuendo against those scientists, asserting or suggesting fraud and malicious manipulation of data and results from scientific studies are common. Resort to conspiracy theories fantasies is common too, which is explainable. How else can the worldview be made whole, if most scientists who work and publish in the field say something else? The ones who act as fake skeptics are mostly people who are not directly involved in the area of research the findings of which are being rejected. Since scientific arguments and rigorousness are lacking, fake skeptic arguments are usually not presented in scientific publications in specialist journals of the field due to the filter mechanism of the peer review process. Instead, they are mostly found in other venues, nowadays especially in Internet opinion blogs, since it is not mandatory in those to uphold strong scientific standards.
True Skeptics are, in contrast, driven by scientific curiosity and they wish to acquire knowledge about the cause-effect relationships that govern the workings of the object or system that is being studied and debated. They argue based on science. If they do not agree with findings presented by scientists, they do this using scientific arguments. They embrace the scientific method and test alternative explanations, if they hypothesize those, against empirical data. True skeptics present their alternative hypotheses and theories, once they have been worked out sufficiently, in the peer reviewed specialist journals of the field, i.e., they uphold for themselves high scientific standards. Personal attacks against scientists who are presenting alternative, competing hypotheses and theories are not being considered as legit arguments against those hypotheses and theories. Professional scientists need to be true skeptics in their daily work. It is part of their professional profile.
Boy, am I glad I’m a global warming doubting colleague.
1) A 350 year warming-with numerous advances and retreats-can be observed in the instrumental temperature record and detailed in CET and BEST.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
2) ‘Global warming is not global.” Cooling can be observed in some 30% of stations worldwide, many for statistically meaningful periods of time as observed by BEST and here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
tonyb
The Historic SST record is highly suspect, both in the way the initial data was collected (buckets) and in the manner in which it is applied by interpolation. Many historic grid squares rely on one reading in a year which can then be used for adjacent grids
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/
tonyb
Steve says:
October 22, 2012 at 3:02 am
“For example, IR absorbed at the 4.3 micrometer band is emitted at 4.31 micrometers. CO2 does not absorb at 4.31, it absorbs at 4.3.”
Emission in this range requires a temperature at or close to 400C.
Did you know…..
Al Gore is not a climate scientist…
Did you know…
Al Gore says the temperature underground is millions of degrees…
Dis you know …
Al Gore has recently purchased a beach front property…
Did you know…
Many of the editors of the IPCC reports are not even scientists…