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.
Did you know that a large part of the “measured” warming comes from ill explained temperature adjustments. “Recent audits of surface temperature networks have found that official
homogenized networks show more warming than the raw temperature data: in Australia +0.9C vs +0.7C per century [1], in New Zealand +0.9C vs +0.3C per century [2], and globally +0.7C vs +0.4C [3] respectively. A recent study by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) also reported a similar variation of +1.09C vs +0.69C between the homogenized ACORN and the non-homogenized WNAWAP networks respectively [4, 5].”
From a paper “Is temperature or the temperature record rising?” by David R.B. Stockwell dated September 26, 2012
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/temp.homogenization.pdf
Anthony, I know you have most of these charts, but just in case you might have missed one:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/Carbon_Dioxide_Emissions_from_Fossil_Fuel_Burning_in_the_United_States_and_China,_1950-2009.GIF
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__ftBVMqLME8/SpPfEHSnfOI/AAAAAAAAABQ/quyewybDTvA/s1600-h/CO2+1990-2000+ps.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/image4.png
http://i32.tinypic.com/nwix4x.png
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_McKibben_files/image005.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/WheatYield.gif
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi [note: C3 has many useful charts]
http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Fieldings-chart.gif
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image253b.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/PhanerozoicCO2vTemp.png
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2626/tempobsrvvsco2ct4.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/carbon-emission-changes-2008-2010.jpg?w=552&h=935
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2011.fig2_med.png
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi
Wood For Trees #1.
WFT #2.
WFT #3.
WFT #4.
WFT #5. Flat temps past 15 years.
WFT #6.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0134840e51fd970c-pi
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg
http://justdata.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/rawmonthlytemp1950.jpg
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2464/tempvsco267m.png
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/18-20-temps.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5721/newhadcrut3warming.png
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427
http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2839/28392301.jpg
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/14.jpg
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/HadCrut3Global.jpg
http://www.americanthinker.com/NormalProbabilityPlot.jpg
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SummitAndCulture.gif
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GlobalTemp%20HadCRUT3%20since1850%20C4Y.gif
Have many more, but I don’t want to use up all your pixels.
Did you know that some technology built to combat climate change, can actually change climate?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html
Did you know the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding is costing us a fortune and jobs right now and much more in the future no matter who you are.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-0702.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/09/30/the-epas-endangerment-finding-is-very-endangered/
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/07/new-science-endangers-epa-endangerment-finding/
http://www.misi-net.com/publications/APA-0310.pdf
David L. Hagen says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 20, 2012 at 11:29 am
Did you know that the next ice age will start in about 1500 years if we don’t cause enough warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/increased-co2-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=next+ice+age
Technically the next glaciation or glacial period.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/
Popularly the next “ice age”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109
Did you know that IPCC AR4 has 5587 references to gray literature (not peer reviewed) out of 18531 references, and that 25 chapters use more than 1/3rd of gray literature?
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
Did you know that most the of 20th century warming occurred before 1940, while most of the 20th century increase in CO2 occurred after 1940?
Re “CO2 is not poisonous”, maybe this is strictly true, but generations of coal miners and the crew of Apollo 13 might disagree. CO2 is an asphyxiant and causes suffocation at sufficiently high concentrations (about 200 times normal atmospheric concentrations). Of course human activity is not going to cause an increase of that magnitude.
@stew
fermi paradox. if the universe is teeming with life, why hasn’t it got in contact?
one potential answer is that biological processes which could lead to intelligent life also strip CO2 out of the atmposphere (gas, coal and oil). If this process goes too far before an intelligent species arises to put it back, then CO2 disappears and so does life.
I’m going for a drive to save the planet.
Did You know, that during my 100 km-drive home on Christmas two years ago, temperature fell from +5 C to -12 C on the first 30 kms, then slowly rising up to +2 C while reaching my destination. I checked the temperatures later on with the DWD (German weather service) but couldn’t find this big freeze, so I’m sure the thermometer in my brand new car had an initial defect, which mysteriously healed itself later on.
Did You know, climate scientsts claim their predictions get better, the further the date in future is.
So I’m really interested what temerature our beloved computer models predict for the year 2525? Or maybe year 10000?
Bill Williams:
At October 20, 2012 at 11:34 am you ask about Scotland rising from the sea and say
You are making an important point pertaining to the request which is the purpose of this thread.
It is an example of isostatic rebound which causes difficulty in assessing paleo global sea level changes.
In the last glaciation Scotland was covered in kilometers thickness of ice. The region which is now Scotland sank down under the weight of the ice and SE England rose up (like a see saw). Then the glaciation and the ice melted so it was gone about 10,000 years ago.
Removal of the weight of ice allowed Scotland to rise back up and SE England began to sink back. This is an example of isostatic rebound. It continues to this day so Scotland is still rising and e.g. London is sinking,
Geological effects can be very rapid when an Earthquake occurs but isostatic rebound occurs over millenia. They all alter local sea level at places around the world and they need to be assessed and accounted for when determining global sea level change. The accuracy of this process for paleo data is debatable.
IPCC AR3 used graphs of northern European isostatic rebound to give a false impression of rapid global sea level change.
Richard
Did you know that the Romans grew grapes and olives north of Hadrian’s wall……obviously all that co2 from the industrial Greeks ! Sorry no ref. ( Maybe Plimer )
The first derivative of any curve defines a straight line tangent to the curve at each point. The difference between that straight line and the curve itself, over the range of 300ppm to 400ppm, is negligible using an R^2 test. The only real question is what the slope of the line is. When a partial analysis is done, like shown in the graph, the slope is obviously positive and larger than zero.
As far as I can tell, the IPCC reports have left out one of the feedbacks – the morning temperature inversion. Including that feedback indicates, to me anyway, that the slope is indistinguishable from zero.
Do you know that floating ice, when melting, doesnt change the water level?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jISl6kk8MEQ/SyTS6mqfo9I/AAAAAAAAAT0/pGVTP3Pn_Ew/s1600-h/ArcticInAGlass.jpg
Did you know that out of 2500 air molecules only one on average is a CO2 molecule?
Did you know that without positive feedback in temperature then greenhouse warming cannot be harmful?
Too many mass-market articles on climate change imply or even state directly that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas so must cause warming which will be dangerous.
Did you know that extreme weather death rates drastically dropped in the era of global warming for the record period of 1900-2010 (2010 being the last statistical year as of this writing)?: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths.png
deep-UV onset of absorption
in the CO2 molecule
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.1163&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Did you know this non-fiction book is one of the scariest ever read and only $5 ?
Worth every penny if you want some insight on the IPCC.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/comments-on-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert-by-donna-laframboise/
“The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear) …”
Actually, the logarithmic curve is a model, not a fact. It is a better model than a purely proportional fit, but the logarithm is not based on fundamental theory. Besides, for the region of interest (say from 300 ppm to 600 ppm), a straight line fits nearly as well as a logarithm so either is a perfectly reasonable approximation.
” … as is often portrayed in science stories?
I haven’t seen this “often” portrayed this way. In fact, the mere phase “per doubling o CO2 ” directly implies a log curve, not a straight line! So that means just about every report is directly assuming that it IS a curve, not a straight line!
What percentage of the “science stories” out there actually state (or even imply) a straight line ? Can you find some and link to them? Does this percentage constitute “often”?
“This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.”
I don’t see how this follows. What is the proof that this particular model for CO2’s effect will guarantee that the greenhouse effect will not “run away”? It certainly means that CO2’s effect diminishes, but even a diminishing rate of increase (ie a log curve) means that with enough CO2, the warming would go to infinity.
I am not saying there WILL be run-away warming, but the conclusion seems like a complete non-sequitur based on the data given. (Maybe OTHER data and/or models (eg cloud feedback) will prevent runaway warming, but this slide doesn’t cut it).
Did you know that infrared radiation from from the surface of the Earth can warm carbon dioxide gas molecules in the atmosphere to MINUS EIGHTY DEGREES CELSIUS?
Did you know carbon dioxide is plant food?
I give plants carbon dioxide for free from my exhaled breath that plants breathe in, and plants exhale oxygen for free that I breathe in for food.
Plants and people have a symbiotic relationship.
Did you know that the British Courts exposed nine blatant falsehoods in Al Gore’s Academy award winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”?
gymnosperm says:
Actually, at -20C and 500mb, water vapor over ice is about 2,000 ppm, depending on which formula you use.
http://co2science.org/
Did you know there are lots of papers disagreeing with the CAGW conjecture?
Did you know that atmospheric CO2 is so necessary, so crucial that without it most all life on Earth would perish.