FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 11/13/2012
Click image for the test feed.
UPDATE: Al Gore will be on Reddit answering questions Thursday, be sure to ask him if he knows about WUWT-TV, and why he hasn’t taken down the faked Climate 101 video yet:
Former Vice President Al Gore will be conducting an IAmA this thursday (11/15) at 1 PM Eastern Time! You can see his tweet confirming it here. So get your questions ready for the man who spent 8 years in the Clinton White House, ran against George W. Bush (and beat him in the popular vote), and is now one of America’s leading advocates for the environment. He will be posting in /r/IAmA, so save your questions for Thursday.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/134y12/former_vice_president_al_gore_will_be_visiting/
UPDATE2: The press release below hit PR Newswire here.
UPDATE3: The schedule has been posted here.
NOTE: A link to the live webcast will appear here at the top of WUWT shortly before the broadcast starts ~ 4:50PM PST/7:50PM EST
WUWT-TV to debut on November 14th to counter Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather Telethon” on November 14th and 15th starting at 8PM EST (5PM PST)
Al Gore is forming another 24 hour media event on November 14th, focusing on “dirty energy=dirty weather”, which you can read about here.
WUWT Editor Anthony Watts says:
It is yet another example of what has been called “Tabloid Climatology” trying to use the once forbidden “weather is not climate” meme. Now almost any weather event seems to be used as “proof” of a global warming influence where just a few years ago the idea was laughed at by climate activists.
Journalists should take note that the largest and most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, has come down squarely against the kind of claims Mr. Gore is making in his previews saying:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
Source: http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428
Mr. Gore’s program is yet another transparent politically based attempt to link climate and weather, and to make people fearful of common weather events that we’ve seen all throughout history. WUWT hosted a 24 hour counter event last year, thanks to the talents of our contributing cartoonist, Josh. You can review that here.
Last year, during his “24 Hours of Climate Reality”, Mr. Gore created a video called “Climate 101” in which he purported to show a laboratory experiment showing the warming effects of CO2. Unfortunately it was discovered that Mr. Gore fabricated the experimental results using video post production techniques. You can read about it and see the evidence here:
and
Due to Mr. Gore broadcasting fabricated and impossible to replicate science experiments, and then failing to correct the video even when glaringly obvious falsifications were pointed out, and partly due to WUWT’s founder Anthony Watts recent interview (and backlash) on PBS Newshour, a donor has stepped forward and offered to equip WUWT for professional Live TV over the Internet and has purchased a complete web enabled TV studio setup for use this year, seen here.
It includes two cameras, live video over net input, and live graphics/slideshow input.
It has been tested and has succeeded a 24 hour live web broadcast burn in period. When in production, the WUWT-TV web channel will have all of the elements of a professional TV production. While it won’t match the well-funded technical quality of Mr. Gore’s CurrentTV operations, it will offer a wide variety of viewpoints to counter the claims that “weather is now climate” that Mr. Gore is making.
During the live event Wednesday and Thursday, WUWT-TV will be able to conduct live video interviews via Skype online video, plus will feature simultaneous PowerPoint presentations run in high quality HD to go with the live interview, while the guest narrates. These can be full screen or split screen depending on the setting.
Guest presentations will be pre-loaded into the live on-air system, and to facilitate remote control, WUWT has engineered a remote ‘web clicker’ that allows guest presenters to control their presentation from their end, using a web page with a forward and back button on it.
WUWT-TV has invited a number of individuals to give presentations. A list follows.
SCHEDULED TO APPEAR:
Andrew Montford (Author of The Hockey Stick Illusion)
Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan professor of Meteorology, MIT)
Marc Morano (Climate Depot)
John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel, now at KUSI-TV)
Chris Horner (Senior Fellow, Center for Energy and Environment, CEI)
Steve McIntyre (editor of ClimateAudit.org)
Dr. Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph)
Dr. Roy Spencer (co author of UAH global temperature dataset)
Joe D’Aleo (Certified Consulting Meteorologist, WeatherBell)
Joe Bastardi (Lead forecaster, Weatherbell)
Senator Jim Inhofe (retiring from Senate EPW )
Bob Tisdale (author of Who Turned on The Heat?)
Dr. Ryan Maue (meteorologist, Tropical storm specialist, Weatherbell)
Burt Rutan, (Engineer and Aviation Pioneer)
Dr. Sebastian Lüning (co-author of Die kalte Sonne)
Harold Ambler (Author of Don’t Sell Your Coat)
Donna Laframboise (Author of The Delinquent Teenager)
Pat Michaels (former State climatologist of Virgina, fellow of the Cato institute)
Pete Garcia (Producer of the movie The Boy Who Cried Warming)
Christopher Monckton (SPPI)
Dr. Timothy Ball (climate scientist, commentator)
John Kehr (Author of the book, The Inconvenient Skeptic)
Dr. David Evans (Author of The Skeptics Case)
Dr. David Stockwell (Climate Modeller)
Mike Smith (Certified Consulting Meteorologist)
Steve Mosher and Tom Fuller (authors, The CRUtape Letters)
Kenji (member – Union of Concerned Scientists)
###
For Questions – Contact WUWT-TV staff here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/contact-2/
A schedule for speakers will be posted on WUWT the day of the event, along with important updates. Check www.wattsupwiththat.com for details.
I am sure that Kenji will sniff around and find a bone to pick with the “Prince of hot-air”. Rather than barking up the wrong tree, Kenji will undoubtedly take a nip out of the IPCC imposter’s big fat laureate and raise a leg to his Nobel impertinence.
Kenji (member – Union of Concerned Scientists)
I trust he will be getting a full hour spot. It will bring balance to the broadcast to hear from at least one speaker who is part of a warmist propaganda organisation.
Perhaps you could a thread here called “spot the BS”.
Any easily countered untruths could be exposed live on air.
TV stations will be envious of the viewing numbers. Well done.
“Anthony:
I would quible with the cartoon at the top. There is observational / empirical evidence for how much the global temperature is warmed by CO2 (all other things being equal).”
Yes there is evidence. Like all evidence it comes with uncertainties, like all evidence, it isnt proff conclusive. Furthermore you dont need to add the qualifier ( all others things being equal)
Skeptics don’t do themselves any favors when they deny that there is evidence. the question is what can one conclude from the evidence and what, if anything, should we do in light of this evidence.
There is empirical evidence ( not logical proof) that doubling c02 will increasing forcing by 3-4watts (3.7 is the best estimate. ) This evidence is lab based and field measurement based. We engineer working products based on the physics.There is no credible experiment or physics which contradicts this understanding. Overturning this part of climate science would win you a Nobel prize. much, if not all we know about radiative transfer would have to be rewritten.
The response of the climate system to 3.7 additional watts is less well known. It ranges from about 1C to 6C. a big spread.
The estimate of 1C to 6C is based on.
1. first order estimates from the laws of physics
2. Paleo estimates ( primarily LGM)
3. Estimates derived from observational datasets
A) temperature
B) volcanos ( relaxation response)
C) satellite data ( see dessler/specer)
4. Least importantly it should be noted that models with sensitivity between 2.1 and 4.4 can
hindcast with some measure of fidelity, indicating that the observationally based estimates
are in the correct ballpark.
So to recap there are two parts to the evidence chain.
1. the estimate of additional watts of forcing due to a doubing of c02. 3-4 watts. This is engineering
101.
2. The climate response to additional Watts. That’s were the debate happens. between 1C and 6C.
If you want to challenge 1, then engineers are just going to laugh at you because you are attacking physics that works. But, who knows nothing is settled, a sky dragon could win the Nobel. Mann did after all (hehe)
Best to focus on number 2. You’ll actually be able to have the debate you desire
I hope the BBC covers your presentation, Anthony!
This looks like a fantastic list of presenters. What a pity I have to work.
Have you thought of using iTunes to offer up this content later? No doubt Apple is an enthusiastic charter member of the Carbon Cult but if you charge for the download and they get their cut they might ignore such a petty matter as doctrinal differences.
John Eggert;
It is the basis for mass balance calculations in blast furnaces. These too are based on calculations and models. If CO2 did not absorb energy, one would need more coke to make steel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those of us versed in the topic do not dispute that CO2 absorbs (and re-radiates) energy. A blast furnace however is a bounded system. The processes within it are not comparable to the sheer scale of the atmospheric column, nor can they mimic additional processes such as condensation, evaporation, convection, hadley cells, air and water currents, tides, natural oceanic oscillation and many other major elements of climate that must interact with CO2. The comparison is of little value at best and highly misleading at worst.
I see some replies to my earlier post. One arguing that all other things are not equal. In answer to that, all other things are never equal. When one performs an energy balance, one looks at each component (radiation, convection, conduction, phase change) separately. The cartoon directly refers to CO2. Not clouds, convection, lightning etc. Regarding clouds. There aren’t always clouds in the atmosphere either. As for the hydrological cycle. Not relevant to my comment. Increasing CO2 will increase the amount of radiant energy absorbed in an atmosphere. Increasing the amount of energy in a system generally results in an increase in temperature.
In the battle to counter the alarmism that Gore is trying to promulgate, we must accept things that are proven. And it is proven that CO2 absorbs radiant energy. It is actually a relatively easy relation to derive, if one has a background in physics and has studied heat transfer. See my article “The path length approximation” if you want to see one way of doing it.
Steven Mosher:
re your post at November 13, 2012 at 11:34 am.
The caption in the cartoon is correct. Indeed, if you think about what you wrote then you will see you admit it is correct.
As you say, there is empirical evidence for radiative effects. However, that says nothing about the behaviour of the climate system in response to changes to those effects, and you admit this when you state your point 2.
The caption to the cartoon says
It is correct and nothing you say provides any doubt to it.
Richard
John Whitman says:
November 13, 2012 at 10:24 am
Anthony,
As they say in show biz:
“Break a leg!”
John
======================================
As we say in the mafia, “Break some legs”
John Eggert:
Your post at November 13, 2012 at 11:48 am completely misses the point of my rebuttal of your mistake. Indeed, it repeats your error.
No rational person disputes the radiative behaviour of atmospheric CO2. And the cartoon caption you don’t like does not dispute it (and does not mention it).
Please read the comment of davidmhoffer at November 13, 2012 at 11:46 am. It uses different words but says the same as my post which failed to make the point in a manner which you could understand.
Richard
Warmists at the Guardian used to tell me repeatedly that the weather is not the same as climate (which I know) when I pointed to snow in Brasil and Saudi Arabia etc. Today, they have done an about face. At least George Monbiot thinks that Warmist scientists are stupid.
In the meantime Monbiot has to deal with an angry Lord.
Rick K says:
November 13, 2012 at 11:37 am
I hope the BBC covers your presentation, Anthony!
Yeah. Right.
(IS English the only language whjere a double positive is a negative, if the tone is correct? [Think “Yeahhh. Riiiight!”]
Methinks the pigs are fuelled, armed, and ready for take off, preparing not merely to fly, but to loop the loop, with a barrel roll at the top!
Even in the current mess they’re in – shedding top Nebbies almost daily, and with a dilettante politico-journo, ex-Governor General of Hong Kong [“Fat Pang”]a t the helm – coverage of Doubting Thomases [about the credo of CAGW] is too much.
It may never come – and don’t expect it to come this week.
But all power to your elbow, Anthony. I’ll see some of it – sleep and work will preclude much, I fear.
Anthony, it may have passed your notice but you have more climate scientists on your show than appeared at the BBC ‘secret’ seminar of 2006. Funny that. And they say we deny the science while they invite specialists from the Church of England, someone from the US Embassy while head of BBC comedy and drama look on. 😉
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/
davidmhoffer says:
November 13, 2012 at 11:46 am
Those of us versed in the topic do not dispute that CO2 absorbs (and re-radiates) energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you too quible with the cartoon then? Because the cartoon certainly does dispute it.
My simple example is a direct challenge to those who dispute that CO2 absorbs radiant energy. And there are many who do. So to those people I ask: Why then do my blast furnace calcs work?
Believe me David, I’m hardly an alarmist.
I know it comes naturally to you guys to convert 8pm EST to PST/MST/etc but how about you take pity on us non-USAers and quote the UTC equivalent? ;-(
Anyway, (if I’ve calculated correctly) I’ll be asleep for the first few hours but look forward to tuning in later.
Mr Eggert in our blast furnaces at my work we are more interested in the CO levels to remove the oxygen from the iron. In fact we add bunker C oil emulsified with water injected into the furnace to increase those CO levels. CO2 is not a primary gas in the bast furnace but a byproduct of the reaction.
Steven Mosher says:
I would quible with the cartoon at the top. There is observational / empirical evidence for how much the global temperature is warmed by CO2 (all other things being equal).
…
There is empirical evidence ( not logical proof) that doubling c02 will increasing forcing by 3-4watts (3.7 is the best estimate. )
No. You have identified that there is theoretical prediction of a forcing. That is not the same as empirical evidence of warming. Anthony is correct.
It is not immediately obvious that the image at the top of the post is a link to the streaming content.
Please make it obvious.
Great event. Need as many as possible to catch it.
Put a sticky on the front page with an obvious and direct like to the the streaming content.
John Eggert,
I am not commenting on the cartoon, or disputing the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits IR.
But the planet has been falsifying your conjecture for the past sixteen years. Further, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi , a noted climatologist, shows pretty convincingly that the effect of 2xCO2 is 0.0ºC. He certainly knows more than I do about the subject. And Prof Richard Lindzen thinks that the effect of 2xCO2 is pretty small. Lindzen’s estimates have been ratcheting downward over the years as he learns more. I don’t know who is more correct. But it is clear that the added CO2 has not caused any effect distinguishable from complete natural variability, as the Null Hypothesis shows.
So please explain why, with the very substantial rise in CO2, there has been no statistically significant global warming over the past decade and a half. Something is wrong, missing, or overlooked in your conjecture.
Finally, there has been no acceleration of global warming since the Little Ice Age. The long term rising temperature trend is not accelerating, despite a ≈40% rise in CO2. Thus, CO2 has not made any measurable difference, whether the CO2 concentration was low or high. The long term trend remains the same irregardless of CO2 levels. I think you need to re-think your premise. The real world is not in agreement.
John Eggert;
So you too quible with the cartoon then? Because the cartoon certainly does dispute it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No I don’t because that’s not what it says. And for pities sake, itz just a cartoon.
John Eggert says:
I would quible with the cartoon at the top. There is observational / empirical evidence for how much the global temperature is warmed by CO2 (all other things being equal). It is the basis for mass balance calculations in blast furnaces.
No it is not. Mass balance in a blast furnace is not calculated with climate models.
The relationship is very well documented.
In blast furnaces. The text of James Hansen’s protest signs notwithstanding, the earth’s climate system is not a blast furnace.
Science tells us that the rules are not affected by location.
No, science does not tell us that. Science often assumes that. For a great many purposes, that assumption is workable. However, there is some discussion that even fundamental phyicial “constants” may not be … uh … constant … over space and time.
If it happens in a blast furnace, it also happens in the atmosphere.
Funny. This morning I shoveled snow from my front walk. I didn’t run into any clinker. How often do you plow your furnaces?
To the same degree and following the same rules.
Not to the same net effect, as the systems are entirely different.
Your argument, and Mosher’s concurrence, are merely dolled up versions of the “It’s basic physics” meme. Sorry. The earth’s climate system is not basic physics. It is very complex physics. And chemistry. And biology. None of which is adequately modeled by existing GCMs, let alone by a blast furnace.
Steven Mosher, you write “Skeptics don’t do themselves any favors when they deny that there is evidence.”
I do not deny there is evidence. I disagree with Richard Courtney. There is evidence, but it is negative evidence; it does not prove anything. There is strong evidence that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere started to increase abnormally around 1970. If CAGW is correct, then global temperatures should have started increasing abnormally at around the same time. There is no evidence that global temperaturess are behaving abnormally. On the contrary, global temperatures are behaving exactly as they have been doing for centuries. See http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm and http://bit.ly/V19Im8.
So the negative evidence is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no effect on global temperatures. The total climate sensitivity of CO2 seems to be indistinguishable from zero. This does not prove that some time in the future, global temperatures will not suddenly start to increase as a result of CAGW. CAGW is an extremely plausible hypothesis, that no-one can prove is incorrect. But the question you will not address is how long do we have to wait for a CO2 signal to appear in the temparture/time graph, and when no such signal appears, do we conclude that no CO2 signal is ever going to appear?
Sometimes I have to wonder weather [pun intended] Al Gore actually believes that man’s continued output of co2 would lead to catastrophic runaway global warming on dangerous warming or a planetary emergency. I only ask because of the following:
1) He has a mansion in Tennessee that is four times larger than the average new American home and uses over 10 times the electricity.
2) Not content he buys a new Montecito Villa for $8.875 Million that is 6,500 sq. foot with 6 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, a large pool house, 6 fireplaces, wood framed french doors, and carved stone detailing throughout. Some say it has sea views.
3) Start bailing from Green investments according to an SEC report.
After his family got rich on ‘dirty’ Occidental Petroleum stock he bailed out having been called a hypocrite.
Who believes anything Al Gore has to say about the weather or the climate?