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.
Also look at table C of fig 1 on page 2 of this letter to Nature:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf
Did you know that CO2 does not discernably absorb longwave radiation at 800-1000cm-1.
And at the core absorption range (around 630cm-1) the signal cannot be resolved from ice crystals in the atmosphere?
M Courtney:
re your post addressed to me at October 22, 2012 at 7:55 am.
If that were what he said then you would be right. I suggest we discuss this by phone this evening and not clog this thread with discussion of a resolved issue.
Dad
Steve says:
October 22, 2012 at 3:02 am
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?
Apparently we do because you have it completely wrong!
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.
This is completely wrong, your idea of a cost is incorrect.
If a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it means that the energy of the photon must exactly match the energy difference between the two states. To lose that energy radiatively the excited molecule must emit a photon exactly equal to the energy between the two states!
If that photon encounters another CO2 molecule at the same lower state it can be absorbed with excitation to the same upper state as before. This is basic Physical Chemistry and can be found in any undergrad text on the subject.
Reply to Parahandy says: October 22, 2012 at 7:28 am
“Did you know that the earth as a whole is much warmer in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer than it is in the NH winter?
CO2 is lower in the NH summer when the whole earth is warmer and higher in the NH winter when when it is colder.”
No I didn’t and that’s fascinating. Any links, please. I tried ‘gargling’ but couldn’t find a source. It would be a lovely weapon to have in my armoury.
While I don’t have specific suggestions, a series of “Did you know’s” that compared the cost of current (and proposed) green energy initiatives to the cost of remedying other societal ills, such as providing well water to all of the inhabitants of a continent, or wiping out a disease, or creating a valuable infrastructure system on a continent, etc.
A partial example without detail: Did you know that the x million dollars the taxpayers lost on Solyndra would have purchased iPads for every child in ??? (a U.S. state, region, the entire country, another country). This is along the lines of Bjorn Lomborg’s thinking that we are devoting an insane amount of public resources to a problem when many other addressable challenges face us more immediately than the “threat” of global warming bringing a halt to civilization.
(I didn’t have time to go through the hundred+ comments to see if this tack has already been suggested, by the way.)
Did you know that IPCC, and scientists supporting CAGW regularly express 95% confidence levels in their predictions of temperature with rising CO2 levels and so far all their predictions have failed. We are on a temperature plateau that so far is of 16 years duration despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. This actually makes real confidence levels in CO2’s role in warming lower than 25%.
Did you know that Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth and all of the rest of the icons are incapable of public debate?
IMO that makes everything else almost moot.
Has there ever before been such a collection of non-debaters in any arena throughout world history?
Obviously debate was highly discouraged many times when one could be stoned, burned or lose their head for swaying from the path of some righteousness.
Is this how these AGW icons view their predicament? The embarrassment and loss of position, pay and prominence is just as horrific?
Modern man. Some are a bunch of conniving & gutless Pecksniffs.
M Courtney says:
October 22, 2012 at 8:12 am
Also look at table C of fig 1 on page 2 of this letter to Nature:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf
Did you know that CO2 does not discernably absorb longwave radiation at 800-1000cm-1.
This is basic, CO2 doesn’t absorb outside its absorption band under our atmospheric conditions, why do you think it matters?
And at the core absorption range (around 630cm-1) the signal cannot be resolved from ice crystals in the atmosphere?
Not sure what you mean by ‘core absorption range’ since 630 cm^-1 is at the lower edge of the 667 cm^-1.
Richard111 says:
“Emission in this range requires a temperature at or close to 400C.”
Explain.
This thread is certainly an interesting exercise in what people THINK they know and what they THINK is important. There are some good contributions, but they seem to be counterbalanced by a larger number of trivial, incorrect, or irrelevant contributions. Separating the “wheat” from the “chaff” will be a challenge when Anthony gets around to compiling his list!
REPLY: I’ll probably simply delete the irrelevant comments, then add another thread for fact checking. – Anthony
Did you know that CO2 is neccesary for photosynthesis and that without it there would be no green plant life on earth (ie most likely no life of any kind) and that this gas, which is only 0.033% of our atmosphere, has been designated a pollutant by the EPA?
richardscourtney says:
October 22, 2012 at 7:53 am
JohnWho:
re your post at October 22, 2012 at 7:12 am
Did you know that mention of something happening at that den of iniquity encourages people to check it by going there and this benefits the den financially?
Richard
Yeah, my bad.
Won’t do it again, although knowing that we’ve added an additional degree of difficulty to their effort to alter the truth is a bit comforting.
And, I though, at least worth a smile.
M Courtney says:
October 22, 2012 at 7:55 am
Reply to richardscourtney at October 22, 2012 at 4:00 am
I think you did misinterpret Steve from Rockwood.
He is quite right that temperatures were higher in the Jurassic and that CO2 was higher in the Jurassic but the feedbacks (a logarithmic feedback) don’t add up. If the CO2 caused the higher temperature then the current sensitivity woul dbe different to as it is observed to be by anybody.
That whole argument depends on the insolation during the Jurassic being the same as today’s.
The Astrophysicists’ theory is that the sun evolved from a fainter state, see ‘faint young sun’.
Did you know that polar bears don’t exist because they went extinct 100,000, 200,000 and 300,000 years ago when it was much warmer than today.!
klem says:
October 22, 2012 at 5:22 am
“So paraphrasing JoNova, . . .”
I will be surprised to learn that Jo Nova has made the sort of statement you create, namely, **“. . . images of swimming polar bears and melting glaciers are evidence of climate change . . .”**
Eagles fly, Polar Bears swim;
milk freezes, glaciers melt
Some things are evidence of the laws of physics and chemistry and so on. To claim “climate change” for any of these things is way over the top.
Tim Fitzgerald says:
October 22, 2012 @ur momisugly 7:28 and at 7:31 am
Let me try that again:
“. . . they are can never . . .”
It is said that the 3rd time is the charm. Have another shot at it, Tim.
JFH: Never post after drinking beer or before drinking coffee. Now I’ve had my coffee and am ready for the day.
as a bit of an aside, someone made the point that CO2 in submarines is considerably higher than in air. Now, what would happen if someone complained to the EPA that the US Navy is putting their submariners at risk ?
Did you know:
– Many of the sites that measure global temperature are located in urban areas, sometimes even located over ashpalt surfaces or near air conditioner exhausts? (Surface Stations)
– Atmospheric CO2 is measured in only one place: Mauna Loa. (I know there are supposed to be good reasons for that, but it still bothers me that there is only one data point for this)
– The ‘unprecedented warming’ in the “Hockey Stick” chart everyone’s so concerned about comes from the tree rings of one tree? (Yamal, right? I mix up Yamal & Tiljander…)
– Some of the temperature data being used is flat-out made up? (harry_read_me “I can make it up. So I did!”)
– Climate scientists predicted that a major New York street would be underwater by now? (I’ve read that here often, never remember which street or person)
– The temperature records that are used to show warming are changed on a regular basis? (Recent WUWT articles)
“””””…..Berényi Péter says:
October 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Did you know that current versions of non-equilibrium thermodynamics ignore radiant heat?…..”””””
Well that is because Electromagnetic Radiation is NOT “heat”, so it doesn’t have anything to do with Thermodynamics.
EM radiation (energy) can be converted 100% into “heat” which is a different; mechanical form of energy, but “heat” cannot be converted 100% into Electromagnetic Radiation.
We get EM radiation from the sun; we do not get “heat” from the sun, as there is no intervening medium to convey it by either conduction or convection (well I’m ignoring the microscopic amount of particulate matter that does arrive from the sun).
We make all of our “heat” right here on earth by wasting virtually all of the EM energy we get from the sun.
Did you know that the continent of Antarctica in parts extends North of the Antarctic circle and into the Southern Temperate Zone?
“””””…..Steve says:
October 22, 2012 at 3:02 am
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……”””””
Well Steve, you are ignoring a whole lot of basic Physics; including the fact that there is no such thing as “radiation” that has some single exact frequency; and given the fact that (c) the vaccuum free space velocity of EM radiation, is an exact number, nor can the wavelength be any single exact value. Both will fluctuate, because since the process is taking place inside a large collection of interracting molecules, which are exchanging thermal kinetic energies among themselves, the random emission of a photon in some direction is going to be influenced by the motion of the emitting molecule at the time of emission, resulting in a Doppler shift in the emitted wavelength/frequency. A potential photon absorbing molecule is also in motion relative to the arrriving photon, so it too perceives a Doppler shifted frequency.
As a result there is a range of Frequencies/wavelengths that can be emitted or absorbed by a CO2 for example molecule, and it simply is not true that the emitted re-radiation is necessarily at a lower energy, than the absorbed photon was.
While Phil has couched his explanation in terms of the quantum mechanical energy level picture of the process, one only needs to invoke things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to see that any such absorption/ emission process, necessarily has a finite rbandwidth associated with it, and both atmospheric Temperature (mean particle velocity) and gas density (mean time free path length) influence the GHG absorption/emission processes, which is why the measured spectra are bands of broadened lines, rather than the much sharper lines of low pressure atomic absorption lines, characteristic of atomic spectra.
The absorption by say CO2 near the surface, results in an isotropic re-radiation, and soon enough the upward part of that (downward too) will eventually be re-absorbed , if not by another CO2, perhaps by another GHG molecules such as H2O which also has absorption in nearby frequency bands. In fact, it is this absorption/re-emission/re-absorption cascade, that prevents the observed absorption versus CO2 abundance, from following the strict Beer/Lambert law of logarithmic dependence on species abundance. Beer’s Law presumes that absorbed energy will stay absorbed, removing it from the propagation path; it says nothing about the energy continuing to propagate in the guise of a different frequency/wavelength from what originally was emitted form some surface rock or ocean water.
There are plenty of Optical filter glasses, that have Beer’s law absorption curves, that can take the intensity of an incident laser line, down four or five orders of magnitude, in just 3 mm of glass; they can be found in front of displays all over the place; and you can prove for yourself the accuracy of the absorption curve in the data sheet, by running the beam through a monochromator set to the laser wavelength so it only measures transmitted energy at the laser wavelength.
But if you take out the monochromator grating so that energy at any wavelength can be measured, you will find those so-called “filter ” glasses often simply reradiate the energy at a lower frequency. So a blue laser , can be stopped cold by a green filter, which however will re-radiate much of the energy perhaps in a green/yellow color, and an orange glass will absorb all of that, but continue to send the energy on as perhaps a red color. You can often find 10-30% of the energy blows right through the filter, although maybe only a few ppm of the original incident wavelength survives.
Trying to argue that CO2 or other GHGs can’t absorb, or are “saturated” so can’t absorb any more, is not a winning strategy.
If earth lost all of it’s Ozone blanket, the higher energy UV photons, would simply penetrate deeper into the upper atmosphere, where they will encounter ever increasing O2 molecules, which eventually will (some of) get split into atomic Oxygen, which simply hates being alone, and will rapidly grab onto a nearby O2 molecule to form Ozone. The ozone is simply the evidence that Oxygen is doing its job of removing the really high energy solar UV photons, so they never reach the surface. The resultant ozone absorbs, and may even be destroyed by the UV-A and UV-B ranges, which are the cause of sunburn, and skin cancers; but we aren’t likely to run out of O2 any time soon.
Good luck to Anthony in culling this weed patch.
TonyG:
re your post at October 22, 2012 at 11:01 am
Mauna Loa station is not the only atmosphericCO2 measuring site. It is the site where the longest series of atmosphericCO2 measurements has been obtained (since 1958).
Richard
Re COLDOLDMAN’s posting, see similar comment on: http://www.chacha.com/question/is-there-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-summer-or-winter
richardscourtney says:
Mauna Loa station is not the only atmosphericCO2 measuring site. It is the site where the longest series of atmosphericCO2 measurements has been obtained (since 1958).
Thank you for the correction. I must have misunderstood what I’ve read. Do you happen to know offhand where I could find information about the other stations and when they’ve come on/off line? (If not, I’ll look it up myself after work – thanks)