Back on March 15th, 2009, I was amazed to find that WUWT hit 10 million on the internal WordPress hit counter.
I started the WUWT blog in late November of 2006, and it took me over two years to get there
Now just six months later, I’m amazed again:
Despite the many people of the alarmism bent who dislike what we do here, WUWT continues to be popular. As always thanks to the many many readers, the guest contributors, and especially to our moderators dbs, Charles, and Evan who keep the flow of conversation going smoothly.
I’m grateful to all of you for the continued success and support. I’m especially grateful to those who spread WUWT links on other websites, helping to drive traffic here.
Now my most important question: what could WUWT do different or better?
– Anthony
I’m still waiting for the T shirts to help us convert the ‘other side’ You really don’t seem to like the idea though, shame. Maybe just some ‘watts approved’ T shirt artworks that readers could submit and people could download and print themselves.
Other than that, pretty great the way it is.
congratualtions to all working on this site!
i have only one whish:
try to get more studies about feedbacks and find results against the high sensitiviti of co2, because this is the only think wich is realy wrong in the agw hypothesis.
Congratulations Anthony from a member of “The Climate Sceptics” political party of Australia. You are a beacon in a world of darkness. An exposer of the weakness of the AGW hypothesis. An invaluable resource in an unfriendly popular media.
You may be interested to know that our party goes from strenght to strenght and approaching our first test as a political party.
For those of you in Australia who don’t know about us visit http://www.climatesceptics com.au for more information.
Cheers
Well done everyone. May the truth win in the end!!!!
Congratulations. This has to be near the top for science blogs. That’s why it is hated by the AGW clique/claque so much! You know you are on to something when ad hominem attacks pour forth, but not against the science.
Keep it up, it’s one of the fw sane things to read here in the UK, we need you & all your contributors, whether guest possting or passing comments for discussion!
AtB
With hits 20 million and rising,
Your server may soon need up-sizing.
Keep on posting the truth,
Keep the commenters couth,
And more success won’t be surprising.
I am a person who believes in protecting the environment, and developing alternative energy sources. I even think that cap and trade could be a good idea because it will circulate energy profits, making them available for innovation. But I can not stand the hyped up global warming propaganda that passes it self of as science. A movement that is focused on scaring people and ostracizing anyone who tries to speak about anything that doesn’t fit the global warming agenda, needs to be called out. So I am always happy to visit your site, even though I don’t always agree with what is said here, I do find balance and inquiry into what is real rather than closed eye dogma. So thanks.
Australian Senator, Steve Fielding, recently made an effort to form a balanced judgement on the validity of the science supporting the move to an Emissions Trading Scheme. In a rather astute move intended to forego endless debate, he posed three straightforward questions to Penny Wong’s team. This seemed to have a polarizing effect as it became obvious that the underlying science based argument was suspect, but not the political motivations.
After 20M interactions on WUWT, I propose a rationalisation or condensation of what the data is ‘honestly’ indicating (Steve Fielding style) under a ‘WUWT Top Ten’ tab. Ideally this could become a reference for policy makers, highlighting a more data focussed perspective to balance the alarmist gospel dispensed by the MSM self-perpetuated feeding frenzy. This could be structured as follows:
WUWT Top Ten Knowns
1. CO2 atmospheric levels are increasing on trend at observation locations
2. Average global surface temperatures have not increased on trend through the 21st century and have actually shown a slight decline
3. IPCC GCMs did not predict a decrease in average global temperatures during the 21st century. GCMs are currently not capable of predicting climate based on non-linear forcings
4. Sea ice extent is showing a negative trend in the Arctic and a positive trend in the antarctic, with global sea ice showing no significant trend
etc etc
WUWT Top Ten Unknowns
1. Effect of CO2 on climate
2. CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
3. Solar influence on climate variation
4. ENSO, AMO influence on climate variation
5. Cosmic ray influence on climate variation
6. Milankovitch cycle influence on climate variation
etc etc
Each point should be substantiated by reference to a data archive or peer reviewed articles, and updated regularly as new information becomes available.
Just a thought….
Here’s to the next 20 million. Great job.
mark twain (03:07:02
There are precise calculations of c02 heat transfer, although the AGW confederacy don’t use them, so make factual errors and misrepresentations, probably due to fashionable political bias. Thats how official thinktank scientists and politicians make money and achieve power, afterall. To begin with, records of c02 in the atmosphere pre-date 1958. They go back as a scientifically valid record to at least 1810. From then on, the methods of recording carbon dioxide were as reliable as today, and in fact higher than 380ppm. In 1812 for example there were three maximum periods of around 480ppm in the northern hemisphere,
The other important factual error is that Mr Angstrom himself put the theories of carbon dioxide concocted by Arrhenius and followed by Keeling to the test by placing as much carbon dioxide in a column found in the air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. However, the earth, unlike the experiment, isn’t closed to convection. Efectively, there isn’t anything to “trap” heat. (Thats why it goes cooler when night occurs) Keeling of course wanted everything to fit his hypothesis so suppressed data that didn’t. YET he knew it was a reliable record.
since then almost every form of spectroscopy shows that the same takes place with low frequency radiation re-radiated from the earth, and that carbon has no effect in causing heat transfers or delays that might change the temperature. Thats why its colder even several hundred metres up where c02 is found, and at its most “active” than at ground level. So where do we look for the record? Certainly not ancient ice. It shows that there was never an increase or decrease in temperature according to c02, but that it was an effect, rather than a cause of temperature change.
C02 absorbs heat in the 15 micron level which in atmospheric terms is almost nothing. Offset against the fact that 99% of c02 is non-anthropogenic, and that cooling takes place whilst c02 is recorded as higher, then there is no argument that 1 percent of anthropogenic c02 has any effect, if 99 percent has a miniscule effect.
Also, carbon absorbs heat logarithmically and not exponentially, and vegetation absorbs c02 exponentially. That means that the 1st 50ppm of c02 absorbs all the heat available and additional quantity after that doesn’t absorb any more heat.
certainly, there are pre-1958 scientifically valid records of an excess of 380ppm, and many in excess of 450ppm of c02, so its impossible to accept that 380ppm will cause anything like temperatures from that period.
Also, c02 is at its most active in the lower troposphere, as the theory goes, in order to heat the earth as much as the atmosphere. Yet the lower troposphere is below freezing point.
It is hard to imagine that a ‘greenhouse gas’ at -2C to -40C can heat the earth. That is tantamount to saying that a block of ice will fry eggs.
Its important to understand that the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, which is itself only an effect and not a cause of climate change.
However, for practical puroposes, c02 from 1810, to the present correlates most strongly with MDO’ phases around the arctic
Anthony, congratulations to you and your team.
The site has respect for the scientific method. No wonder it rates so highly, and no wonder it worries the heck out of those who would abuse that method.
Keep up the good work.
KNOWN DATA:
The weight of 1000 L of air is 1.23 Kg, or 1.23 N (Manrique. 2002. Oxford. Page 290).
The density of the dry air at T = 0 °C and P = 101.325 kPa is 1.292 kg/m^3.
The density of the mixed air at T = 25 °C and P = 101.325 kPa is 1.18 g/L, or 1.18 Kg/m^3. (Manrique. 2002).
At mbient T = 25 °C and P = 1 atm, dry air has a density of 1.168 kg/m^3 (Pitts & Sissom. 1998. Page 344)
At present, 1 cubic meter of air contains 0.000690 Kg of CO2 (690 mg).
Δ [CO2] in the last 200 years = 101 ppmv = 0.000164 Kg / m^3
Formula to be applied:
q = e (σ) (A) [(Ts) ^4 – (Ta) ^4]
Where q is the heat transferred by radiation from one system to another, e is the emissivity of the surface that absorbs energy, σ is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, A is the area of interchange of energy, Ta is the temperature of the absorbent surface and Ts is the temperature of the emitter.
Known variables and constants:
Data taken from the meteorological station in Monterrey, Mexico: On June 22, 2007 at 18.05 UT, at the coordinates 25º 48´ North latitude and 100º 19′ West longitude, and an altitude of 513 meters ASL, the air temperature at 1.5 m above ground level was 299.65 K (26.5 °C), whereas the ground temperature was 300.15 K (27 °C). Which is the load of heat transferred from the ground to the mass of CO2 when 1 cubic meter of air contains 0.00069 kg.
e (at 300.15 K and a partial pressure of 0.00034 atm-m) = 0.001 (it has no units because it refers to an index).
σ = 5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4
A = 1 m^2
Ta = 299.65 K [(299.65 K) ^4 = 8062266098.565 K^4]
Ts = 300.15 K [(300.15 K) ^4 = 8116212154.05 K^4]
Ts^4 – Ta^4 = 53946055.485 K^4
Introducing magnitudes:
q = 0.001 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (1 m^2) (53946055.485 K^4) = 0.0031 W
If the transference of energy occurred each second, then the equivalent energy is:
q = 0.0031 W*s
0.0031 W*s = 0.0031 J
What is the change of temperature caused by the heat transfer of 0.0031 W*s?
Formula to be applied:
ΔT = q/m (Cp)
Where q is the heat transferred from a warm system to a colder system (for this case, soil is the warm system and air is the cold system), m is the mass of the interferer system (carbon dioxide) and Cp is the Specific Heat of the interferer system (carbon dioxide) at 300.15 K and constant pressure of 1 atm.
Known variables and constants:
q = 0.0031 J
m = 0.00062 Kg
Cp = 842 J/Kg*K
Introducing quantities:
ΔT = 0.0031 J /0.00062 Kg (842 J/Kg*K) = 0.006 K
Six thousandths of one degree is a negligible change of temperature.
We can apply the formula to extreme cases, for example, the case on April 6, 2007, when the temperature of the soil was 316.95 K and the temperature of the air was 305.45 K:
Ts^4 – Ta^4 = 1386835138.99 K^4
Introducing magnitudes to the formula:
q = 0.001 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2*K^4) (1 m^2) (1386835138.99 K^4) = 0.0786 W
In terms of energy, 0.0786 W*s = 0.0786 J
Now let us apply the formula to convert heat to change of temperature:
ΔT = 0.0786 J /0.00062 Kg (842 J/Kg*K) = 0.0786 J / 0.522 J*K = 0.15 K
The change of temperature caused by 0.0786 Joules of energy absorbed by 0.00062 Kg of CO2 in the atmosphere on April 6, 2007 was 0.15 °C through one second.
Considering that the difference between the temperature of the soil and the temperature of the air was 11.5 °C, the amount of 0.15 °C is negligible (just 1.3% of the total).
We would be mistaken if we were to think that the change of temperature was caused by CO2 when, in reality, it was the Sun that heated up the soil. Carbon dioxide only interfered with the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Please never forget two important points: the first is that carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html#anchor_43
A very good webblog! I always “pop” in too see if there is new information about the climate. Here in Sweden the “alarmist” totally dominate the media and the politicel debate. Her in Sweden the global warming is an “axiom”.
I guess you already know that you can check the alexa website to know what is your internet traffic rank.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com
WUWT is right now the 34204 most visited website on the internet, 15110 most visited if you only count US visits.
To give a prespective, msn.com is ranked number 7. cnn number 52 newscientist.com is number 3350 and real climate cumber 107565 (booo)
Congratulations Anthony, I’m a long time lurker & ardent sceptic, I was trained as a physicist & then moved to the software world where I have worked on complex financial models, insanely complicated, but, at the end of the day, little more than guesswork – does that sound familiar 🙂 Anyway, i love the way you present often difficult information in a clear, succinct way.
Keep up the good work, I visit pretty much every day and look forward to you reaching the 30m mark.
Cheers
Norman
PS. musn’t forget the mods, well done guys you are an example to all forums mods.
History will record – Anthony Watts – one of the heros of the AGW fiasco.
Congratulations! Thanks for all of your work. Wonderful site.
Sticking to the “fun”damentals is what does it, Anthony: posts on the fundamentals of sun spots, ENSO, ice at the poles, data gathering, etc; fun posts sprinkled in here and there on weather, AGW politics, and other non-climate topics.
Congratulations! May you see 20s of 20s more of 20×10**7 visits.
(Thanks to the mods. Your dedication is greatly appreciated. It does no good to see an interesting post, write a comment, and … nothing. But the moderation team at WUWT pretty much gets the comments added in near real time. Outstanding! )
When the supporters of the alarmist line in the media will automatically reject information, data or conclusions solely based upon whether such data supports or contradicts AGW, and when the same media will only show critical data with the caveat that AGW continues regardless, then people are going to look for information based on the sound and time honoured rigours of scientific investigation and not based on the support of a political agenda.
People desire truth and are intelligent and discerning enough to choose for themselves. People flock to this site, because it is a pursuit of truth.
Major kudos to Anthony and his moderators and all the people who contribute with articles and comments to make this site the fountain of great information it is.
This is one of the three or four “must visit daily” blogs I make a particular effort to view.
Fight the good fight and never give up.
Thank you.
A FAQ/Climate Science for Dummies someone else mentioned upstream would be a good idea, organized by sections (Sea Ice, Solar, Temperature Records, Paleoclimatology) would be pretty cool. Cover stuff like “Why’s that jog in the sea ice record there at the same date every year?” “Why are we always talking about extent instead of volume?” “Why are we only comparing since 1979?” “What’s a proxy?” “What’s this UHI thingy?” etc etc
Oh, and a “Who’s Who” section to that would be killer too, both sides. There are only a few dozen particularly important personalities here (tho a few hundred interesting ones).
Anyway, congrats on the milestone!
And since I can hear Anthony thinking “thanks ever so much, Geo, for the heaping pile of work you just cheerfully chucked my way”, I can only say two things:
1. You asked!
2. Maybe a wiki with a limited number of editors to parcel it out?
Congratulations Anthony!
You know, it’s all due to the “positive feedbacks”.
microw (03:07:32) :
Congratulations Anthony from a member of “The Climate Sceptics” political party of Australia.
Your link was broken.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Well done Anthony.
Excuse me, Anthony, but have You done any computer modeling to verify these statistics?
Also, have You homogenized and adjusted the visiting statistics?
Ohterwise, how can You be sure that the positive trend is correct?
😉
More seriously: Good work! Keep it up! 🙂
I have no idea what would make this site better, it’s pretty darned good as it is. 🙂