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.
Scientists explain that about 93% of their calculated “Global Warming” is being absorbed by the oceans:
Water had a huge capacity to absorb heat, and the oceans are large: When they explain how much the oceans have warmed up in 55 years (0 to 2000 meters only) the resultant measured figure is that this mass of water has increased in temperature over 55 years by 0.09 degrees C.
This implies a remarkable degree of precision in measurement now, and even more so 55 years ago when buckets and ropes were the instruments of choice. (Ref Levitus etal 2012)
Did you know Climate Scientist purport that 93% of Global Warming is going into the ocean?
And that means the oceans supposedly have increased in temperature by 0.09 degrees C in a 55 year period?
Anthony, presumably you’ll substitute a simpler diagram for the one in the example above?
Also, from from my perspective as a non-scientist, it is far from obvious that one can conclude _just_ from the logarithmic infra-red response of carbon dioxide that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.
Finally, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a report claiming that carbon dioxide’s infra-red response is linear. Are such stories common enough to be worth mentioning? I’d have thought that the limited space might better be used in explaining the practical consequence of the logarithmic response – needing to double the previous increase in carbon dioxide to get the same increase in temperature.
Anthony, this is an excellent idea. I wish I’d added it to my “Notes from Skull Island” (here, FYI: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/out-manned-but-what-happened-to-the-science/#comment-760039 ). One suggestion: Be very sure of your facts, and if unsure, hedge your assertions. Similarly, avoid overstatement. Similarly, acknowledge alternative explanations, even silly ones, where they exist. Any errors, overstatements, or omissions, however minor, will be used by the other side to mis-characterize your presentation as a whole. This smear tactic has been used effectively against Monckton, alas.
Here’s an example: You wrote, “This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on earth.” But that’s a bridge too far. Warmists claim the runaway effect will be an indirect, knock-on effect of higher CO2 concentrations, not a direct one.
solar activity has risen in step with the last 100 years temperatures (not exactly, but sunspot number is just a proxy for any number of effects solar variability coud have on the earth’s climate).
clouds are the most important and least well known feedback mechanism. the current CLOUD work at CERN shows this important variable is being taken seriously but until we know it a lot better, climate models are incomplete
i defy anybody to look at the actual temperature record for the last 100 million years at a number of different timescales and still believe we are somehow heading into unkown territory
gymnosperm says:
October 20, 2012 at 9:21 am
Water can exist as a vapor at any likely atmospheric temperature. One major route of snow loss is sublimation, even at temperatures well below zero °C, i.e. solid going directly to vapor (gas). Which is one reason why you can’t count on measured snow depth as necessarily becoming runoff that could provide for agriculture or domestic use.
Did you know that some authors of the IPCC climate assessment report are active members of Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defence Fund (to name a few)?
Probably not the sort of thing you are looking for:
Did you know that Al Gore has made an awful lot of money out of global warming?
Did you know James Hansen was awarded $250000 by the Heinz foundation for his work on global warming? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Award
Did you know Carter Roberts, the CEO of the US branch of the World Wildlife Fund, was paid a total of $455,147 in 2009? http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/28/the-enormous-ceo-salaries-behind-earth-hour/
Did you know the Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference? http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
I like this idea. My suggestion is to keep this rigidly to ONE SLIDE per DID YOU KNOW?
Each having:
1. Factual or observed and supported statement that rebuts commonly held myths or propaganda point.
2. A graphic, graph, or visual that drives it home succinctly.
Basically point-by-point made slide-by-slide – point PER slide.
This will also have the benefit of being almost automatically printable page by page for use in one page handouts, brochures and even business cards.
=8-)
Anthony, in your reply to Gary( October 20, 2012 at 9:09 am) you say
“The same logarithmic formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane, N2O or CFCs, with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[7]”
It is true that Wikipedia says this, although I have great trouble trying to follow its link to where an IPCC report actually says it. However, in the first assessment report, Section 2.2.2, the IPCC say
“The existing concentrations of a particular gas dictate the
effect that additional molecules of that gas can have For
gases such as the halocarbons, where the naturally
occurring concentrations are zero or very small, their
forcing is close to linear in concentration for present-day
concentrations Gases such as methane and nitrous oxide
are present in such quantities that significant absorption is
already occurring and it is found that their forcing is
approximately proportional to the square root of their
concentration Furthermore, there is significant overlap
between some of the infrared absorption bands of methane
and nitrous oxide which must be carefully considered in
calculations of forcing For carbon dioxide, as has already
been mentioned, parts of the spectrum are already so
opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are
even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in
concentration”.
. I can find no update to this information in later Assessment Reports (it may be there but many cross links on the IPCC site seem to fail for me). Can anyone find an update?
So, although CO2 has a logarithmic effect, methane and nitrous oxide have a square root effect and CFCs have a linear effect.
Did you know that the accepted ph of the seas off the coast of the US is between PH 6 ( acidic- oops ) and PH 9.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/oa_state_info_nov2010.pdf
Anthony:
In addition to my previous suggestion, I offer this.
Did you know that each climate model is of a fundamentally different climate system so at most only one of them models the climate system of the real Earth and there is no reason to think any one of them does model the real Earth’s climate system? This is because they each use very different forcing values that are balanced by completely different aerosol forcing values.
The information can be referenced to
Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007
Kiehl’s Figure 2 shows the pertinent information and, thanks to Bill Illis, it can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Richard
Did you know the Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
Did you know the IPCC admits it Isn’t a ‘Gold Standard’ Body http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/26/ipcc-admits-it-isnt-a-gold-standard-body/
Did you know that around 1980 7 Pinatubos worth of man-made SO2 entered the atmosphere and because of clean air legislation that dropped to 6 Pinatubos worth of SO2 by 2000, and has been climbing since due to China/India coal power plants?
One less Pinatubo’s worth of SO2 should warm the earth by .5C. More SO2 after 2000 should stop the warming and in fact temperatures have been flat.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/are-we-cooling-the-planet-with-so2/
Did you know that CO2 by itself causes only 1 degree of warming for a doubling. Any further warming depends upon water vapor which has been going DOWN since 1950.
http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
did you know that the Russians were using the Arctic NE passage commercially from the 1930’s – 1980’s .
I believe in the last few years it has been blocked on and off.
“This means that a runaway ….is not possible on earth”
This is not true:
let’s take an example;
x=sun irradiation =1=constant
x1=greenhouse forcing
T=earth equilibrium temperature
T=sqrt(x+x1) (in some appropriate unities)
let’s have a logarithmic feedback: x1= a*ln(T)
If a=0 we have T=1
But if a=43 we obtain T=10
With a=2.2 we still obtain T=1.1(10% increase in temperature )
I have no idea of the actual value of the parameter ‘a ‘,but the logarithmic nature
of the feedback does not protect against a tremendous warming.
PETM (some 55 My ago) is a probable example of such greenhouse “runaway”
Did you know:
That if Global Warming was really happening, Phil Jones wouldn’t have had to have fiddled the figures to try to ‘prove’ it was happening?
Did you know that
1. Geologically three were much higher levels of CO2
2. CO2 only begins to produce toxicity at about 25000 ppm
3. CO2 is plant food: plants use CO2 to produce glicose
4. Farmers raise artificially CO2 levels up to 1200 ppm in greenhouses to get bigger plants
http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/04/os-niveis-de-co2-em-perspectiva.html
5. Cold kills more people and for a longer time then heat
6. More people die in winter
http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/02/frio-mortalidade-de-inverno.html
http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/05/mortes-pelo-frio-resumos-de-20-artigos.html
http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/02/morre-se-de-frio-em-lisboa.html
http://falardotempo.blogspot.pt/2010/02/frio-36700-mortos-nos-uk-em-2008-9.html
Sorry that the Pages are in portuguese, but then have links to sources and hopefully not all will be dead. No pun intended 🙂
Did you know?
Life exists here on Earth. Humans exist. You exist. Even idiot climate “scientists” exist and live.
This means that Nature works almost entirely by NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. If positive feedback played even a moderate part in Nature’s workings, the whole shebang would have gone crazy a couple billion years ago. We’d be the moon instead of Earth.
The idiot climate “scientists” can’t understand this most basic principle of Nature, even though they wouldn’t exist without it. But you can understand it.
I wonder if people like Gary enjoy making themselves look like idiots, next please.
He can’t help it, poor soul.
Did you know that, green house operators intentionally inject CO2 into their hot houses to improve growth and reduce water demand for their plants. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically increase food production and growth of almost all plants.
Did you know that the human respiratory system requires the presence of CO2 to function properly. It is the trigger that helps your body regulate breathing. CO2 is not a poison it is a requirement for life on a green planet.
Did you know that the clouds of vapor rising from these towers (show picture of cooling towers) is harmless water vapor not smoke. These cooling towers, and similar roof top cooling systems use evaporation to cool water for the air conditioning systems and process cooling in office buildings,industrial plants and factories.
Did you know that the output of a climate model is not “data”. It is a calculated number based on a complex mathematic formula which includes a large number of values which are nothing more than educated guesses by the researchers who built the model. NONE of the current climate models can be started with the known conditions of a previous year and accurately calculate the actual weather and climate at some later date greater than about 2 weeks in the future of the starting point.
Did you know that the real world operational errors in modern temperature measurement equipment used for calculating the global average temperature substantially exceed the current estimates of recent changes in global average temperature. That means that there is no way to know if the changes in calculated global average temperatures are real or simply random noise or errors in the measurement.
Did you know that temperature measuring systems used for most of our global average temperature calculations were never intended or designed for that usage? They were designed to measure the atmospheric conditions on hot concrete runways so that pilots can properly adjust for changes in atmospheric conditions which result in major changes in safe aircraft take off and landing speeds. They are not “weather stations” they are really aircraft flight safety equipment.
Did you know that a poorly placed thermometer can give temperature readings which are several degrees hotter than the real local average temperature due to simple things like being placed too close to a paved parking lot, being located where sunshine reflecting off a nearby buildings windows heats the thermometer temperature enclosure at certain times of the day, or being down wind of a heat source like a window air conditioner.
Did you know that historically the driest periods in earths history are during the ice ages when it is cold and dry, not when temperatures are warmer than average. Hot air actually holds considerably more moisture than cold air.
Just a few off the top of my head.
Larry
A simple graph of temperature versus CO2 from 1900 to the present would amply demonstrate that the two measurements are not correlated.
Did you know that Class 1 (compliant) surface stations which are not located in an airport show less than .01C warming per decade?
Did you know that well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf
the scary predictions from climateprediction.net took a number of poorly known variables (parametrizations) and estimates of the upper and lower bounds they could take. they then ran thousands of climate models with a mixture of high/low/medium for the parametrizations.
the resulting temperatures after a doubling of CO2 they mistakenly implied was a probability distribution function. what they actually calculated was an error bar.
The current volume of the Greenland ice sheet is about 5 million km^3.
The current melt rate is around 230 gigatonnes (Gt) of ice per year:
This equates to about 0.005% of ice mass loss per year.
At the current rate, it would take 1,000 years for the Greenland Ice Sheet ………
………..to lose 5% of its volume.
(OR to lose 10% of its volume… see below)
(very roughly a Km^3 = 1 Gigatonne)
Note: Total Volume: – note discrepancies in ice volumes: Total volume of ice contained in the ice sheet: 2.931 x 10^6 km^3 (Bamber et al. 2001)
OR 2.5 to 5.2 x 10^6 km^3 (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml)
Loss estimates (more agreeement):
220 km3/year “Greenland Ice Loss Doubles in Past Decade, Raising Sea Level Faster”. (Jet Propulsion Laboratory News release, Thursday, 16 February 2006.)
239 km3/year (Science Nature)