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 large scale ocean circulation is not a heat engine?
That is, it is not driven by temperature and salinity differences between different parts of the oceans, but by pure mechanical energy input, supplied by internal waves due to tidal breaking and surface wind stress (mostly over the Southern Ocean), causing intermittent deep turbulent mixing over restricted regions at some continental margins and/or over rugged bottom features.
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Vol. 36: 281-314 (Volume publication date January 2004)
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.36.050802.122121
Vertical Mixing, Energy, and the General Circulation of the Oceans
Carl Wunsch and Raffaele Ferrari
see also: citations of this paper
The following humble note in the review is a killer blow to GCMs (computational General Circulation Models) in itself: “little is understood of the physics that controls where, how often, and with what properties (depth, temperature, etc.) convection occurs”
That’s how settled the science is.
Did you know that there is nothing, zip, zero we can do to mitigate AGW. We can say this with 100% accuracy, just check out human emissions of co2 from OECD and Non OECD 1990 to 2010.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD
Did you know that North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures have been cooling for 750 years:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-10740.html#pid10740
Have you heard of water vapour positive feedback?
If you were not aware, water vapour positive feedback IS the theory of CAGW yet the MSM never mentions it. Its how the computer models turn 3.7w/m2 (1.2 deg C)of warming into 14w/m2 (for 4 deg C.) The reason its not mentioned is that observations show it doesn’t exist as water vapour in the upper troposphere is decreasing instead of increasing (where CO2 is supposed to have the greatest effect)
That temperature changes the last few thousand years can be modelled using a small number of superimposed natural cycles and that these cycles can be used to give very good predictions of the current warming.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001457
For a figure to illustrate this, see the Norwegian site :
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2011/desember/306493
http://static.forskning.no/00/30/64/96/GronlandFigur3_None.full.JPG
Did you know that Modtran Upward Radiation for CO2 and Water Vapor is now near zero increase?
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-11908.html#pid11908
Feel free to use my screening fallacy graphic.
And Lucia’s follow up.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/screening-bias-cartoon-form/
10 “The science is settled” about only half of global warming, the easy half. 97% of scientists agree that there’s been some warming since 1950, and that some or most of it is due to increased emissions of CO2. And they agree that continued emissions will raise the global temperature by about one degree C by 2100. What’s unsettled is the climate’s sensitivity to this rise—whether there will be positive feedbacks that will amplify this trend, or negative feedbacks that will dampen it. In other words, settled Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) doesn’t necessarily imply Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).
11 The imposition of a modest paywall on a scientific paper that is the topic of discussion on a WUWT thread is sufficient to prevent any of its thousands of readers from quoting it, except for the free press release and abstract. (Unless a free duplicate is located elsewhere online.) This would not be the case if any WUWTers were funded by Big Oil.
12 Fox News has not pushed skepticism about global warming.
Did you know that the anthropogenic CO2 flux is only about 3% of the natural fluxes of ocean and land.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Interesting that the models claim to be able to separate out the effects signal from the noise when the natural flux variation on an daily and annual basis is huge.
Did you know that all the models show that there is no chance of dangerous SLR for the next 300 years. In fact these two graphs from the Royal Society show Antarctica is negative for SLR until 2300.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
Did you know that the IPCC has consistently failed to perform it’s scientific duties as specified by the UN charter on which it was founded?
The IPCC was supposed to produce two reports known as Majority and Minority(for and against) report using two separated working groups. This is to satisfy the scientific method’s demand for “equal consideration of both thesis and antithesis”
Did you know that almost all of the surface heat capacity is in the ocean waters?
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-9653.html#pid9653
did you know that water vapor in our atmosphere holds more than 100,000 times the heat that CO2 does?
latent heat of vaporization does not occur with CO2 on our planet.
Did you know that the purported increase in global temperature in the last 150 years is said to be point 8 degrees but the instruments used for measuring temperature during 70% of that period can only discern the temperature to the closest HALF to ONE degree ?
Did you know that only one measurement of minimum and one measurement of maximum temperature per day forms the basis of 80 – 90 percent of all global temperature observations ?
Did you know that we can NOT know the error or variance of any value from ONE observation and therefore almost the entire history of temperature observations are statistically useless ?
Did you know—we are all being ripped off.
Did you know—That for the billions spent we have nothing to show for it.
Did you know—$X of your Energy costs go to people on the ‘Gravy Train’.
P.S.
Did you know—If we all donated $1 Anthony Watts could produce a World Wide Science Magazine.
Did you know that you can take a Warmist and bang his head repeatedly against a FACT (even ‘facts’ which are acknowledged by all reputable parties in the debate) but that fact will not penetrate due to the great density of Warmists.
For example the second post on this article….
Gary says:
October 20, 2012 at 9:09 am
Are you deliberately looking for made up psuedo-facts like the one you suggest ,or actual pieces of real information?
REPLY: It is in the IPCC report. Also on Wikipedia:
Love it.
Mike Jonas says:
October 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm
“Roy Spencer provided a great graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration over time. Scaled 0-100% you can guess what it looked like. He then rescaled 0-10%, 0-1% etc.”
Here are Spencer’s charts. The first one shows a normal y-axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-100.gif
Can’t see the CO2? OK, let’s magnify the chart by 10X:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif
Still can’t see the CO2? OK then, let’s magnify the y-axis by 100X:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-1.gif
Ah. There it is. CO2 is actually a minuscule trace gas. So to make the charts scary, they have to magnify them by 100X. Climate shenanigans by climate charlatans.
[And did you notice the hockey stick rise in the last chart? Look close.]
Did you know that if CO2 was not in the atmosphere at all it would be about 1 kelvin cooler:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/
How about this for a project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
basically deleting the whole article or changing it to reality
Did you know that CO2 is a very popular molecule with many Industrial and Commercial uses?:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-998.html
Append to my item 12 above, “(I.e., not the news broadcasts. The commenters are another mater, although they’ve been mostly silent too.)
13 About 1/3 of US climate stations show a cooling trend.
14 The IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers is not in fact a summary, but a slanted interpretation of the Assessment Report it summarizes, written not primarily by scientists but by representatives of governments with an eye to motivating governments to Do Something.
15 If Europe and North America cut their emissions in half, and the rest of the world continued along its current trend (which it will do unless compensated by amounts in the unaffordable trillions), the effect would only be to delay a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by a few years.
Surely you’re aware that C02 at the 1000Mbar range is the only level known for the past several decades. Do you know what the concentrations are at 800, 500, 300 and right on up to the 10mbar levels? No you don’t and you also do not know what effects the full electromagnetic spectrum of outgoing & incoming radiation have on the particle matter above 6 miles, nor do you know what the full range of EMR have on molecular matter within our troposphere.
Do you know what effects and relationships the Indian dipole, AMOC, NAO, AO, PDO and Antarctic stream have upon out ocean-air circulation?
Did you know that individuals with smoking high IQ’s do not dream about or pursue the prospects of becoming journalists or climatologists?
Do you know that if you just used the raw temps and global warming was real and serious, before too long (20 years?) it would assert itself without all the machinations to add half a degree to 150 year old trends?
Did you know that current versions of non-equilibrium thermodynamics ignore radiant heat?
This being the state of affairs, is it not a bit funny to claim climate science was settled? For climate is a prime example of a closed non-equilibrium thermodynamic system, coupled almost exclusively to its (cosmic) environment radiatively (if tidal breaking is ignored).
Was this review paper cited (or discussed!) by any climate scientist ever?
Variational and Extremum Principles in Macroscopic Systems
H. Farkas and S. Sieniutycz, eds.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2004
The Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics of Radiation Interaction
Christopher Essex, Dallas C. Kennedy and Sidney A. Bludman
Did you know there is ample archeological evidence that Greenland was much warmer than it is now just a few hundred years ago?
Examples such as graves hand dug in what is now perma frost, etc.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-climate-greenland-idUSTRE74T52920110530
http://paleoforge.com/papers/EnvironArchaeo.pdf
Ogalvie, A. E. J. 1984. Past climate and sea-ice record from
Iceland, Part 1: data to A.D… 1780. Climatic Change 6,
131–52.
Ogalvie, A. E. J. and Jónsson, T. 2001. “Little Ice Age”
research: a perspective from Iceland. Climatic Change 48,
9–52.
Koch, L. 1945. The East Greenland Ice (Meddelelser om
Grønland 130, 3). Copenhagen: Kommisionen for Videnskabelige
Undersøgelser in Grønland.
Larry