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.
Gore now wants to put carbon tax into the “fiscal cliff” negotiations.
‘Cause they won’t be hard enough as it is.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267585-gore-climate-cliff-should-be-part-of-fiscal-cliff-negotiations
I hate to agree with Steven Mosher, but he’s right. There is some observational/empirical evidence. There’s no CONCLUSIVE observational/empirical evidence for how much the global temperature is warmed by CO2. The point is the conclusion has been jumped to with insufficient evidence, not no evidence at all. The mere rising of temperatures and rising of CO2 is observed evidence, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude causation, but it’s still evidence.
Matthew W says: Nice to see Prof. Frink is not part of the 97% !!!!
Looks like the moment he shouts, “Pi is exactly 3”. Which of course it can be, depending on your choice of units.
D Böehm says:
November 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm
The short answer to your queries have been given by others. The direct effect of the 1.5 C or so that results for a doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm is almost certainly masked by much larger effects independant of CO2 (milankovitch cycle, changes in solar activity, volcanism, etc.). Steve Mosher believes that the effect of doubling from 200 to 400 is equal to the effect of doubling from 400 to 800. I’m not sure if MODTRAN shows this or not. Certainly the HITEMP database shows that in things other than climate the impact of increasing CO2 goes to 0 at concentrations beyond the atmospheric equivalent of 800 ppm. In a blast furnace, when the path length (concentration of CO2 times distance) increases beyond 500 bar cm, the change in absorption becomes negligible. At 200 bar cm (around 300 ppm in the atmosphere), the change begins to flatten. At the current levels of CO2 we are approaching the point where increases must go far FAR beyond a doubling to have a noticable impact on absorption (and hence temperature). I personally believe that at current levels and higher, CO2 plays a trivially small role in atmospheric temperature. That doesn’t mean the cartoon is right.
Friends:
JJ says at November 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm (and I agree)
Jim Cripwell says at November 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm
John West says November 13, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Take your choice.
But remember that Anthony’s cartoon is not about the existence of warming: it is about the lack of evidence for the magnitude warming induced by “extra CO2”.
Richard
To the guy spouting “this is undeniable physics” crap, I say this…
ARE YOU FAMILAR WITH ELSASSERS classic work? Do you know that it is at the ROOT of most of the modern work, despite the ERROR OF MODELING THE ATMOSPHERE AS AN INFINITE FLAT PLANE?? Better yet, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW OBSURD your talk about “Blast Furnaces” is? (Which is to say, do you realize HOW FAR OFF THE IR FROM THE BLAST FURNACE at 3000 F is from the ATM at an average of say, 10 F?)
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF where the “absorption lines” of CO2 in the ATM are? Do you know how BROAD they are? DO YOU KNOW that they VARY from the surface (Lorentz broadening) to the Stratosphere (DOPPLER BROADENING) and that this has a dramatic effect on the overall balances????
The net result is that CO2 acts (as ELSASSER GUESSED, in 1942,, in his “On the IR Heat Balance of the Atmosphere”, but can now be calculated) as an “even exchange agent. UPFLUXING as much as it DOWN FLUXES. NET ZERO, until you get into MUCH higher concentrations than today’s levels.
THE KING HAS NO NEW CLOTHES! THis whole thing is based on a PHYSICS FICTION.
I’ve asked Kenji about this, and he says the calculations are ROUGH to do right. He’s competely correct.
CO2 the great insulator .Used to insulate all over the place;in building walls,attics,etc.
The other day i blew up a balloon and i couldn’t touch it it got so warm.
Wasn’t sure about the physics,but hey the science is settled.
I’d add to the various comments above that there are assumptions often made about what “3.7 w/m2 per doubling of CO2” actually means. It does NOT mean 3.7 w/m2 at surface. The definition used by the IPCC is all the downward photons (that otherwise would not have occurred) less the upward photons (that otherwise would not have occurred) = 3.7 w/m2. But that is a value that does not occur at any given point, it is in effect “smeared” across the atmospheric column from top to bottom. If you bother to read IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch2, you’ll discover that they actually state that the calculated RF can NOT (repeat NOT!!!) be used to directly calculate surface forcing (and hence temperature change at surface).
This is just not a simple calculation! In fact, if you do a straight average using SB Law, you’ll discover that it takes 5.5 w/m2 to increase the average surface temperature of earth 1 degree, not 3.7! Of course that’s without adjusting for Holder’s Inequality…grumble grumble grumble…. complicated….grumble grumble…wish people would read the literature and understand the… grumble grumble grumble….definitions.
Best counter programming = babes bouncing on trampolines. It may be hard to list all the reasons Gore is wrong while bouncing on a trampoline, but who cares?
Lindzen and Tim Ball? Fun! Where’s Leif?
REPLY: On travel -A
Please record, replay, and divide into segments labeled by persons and subjects. This is for all those who cannot watch live, and those who want to have more to beat over the heads of the CAGW people, friends, acquaintances, enemies, strangers.
@R A TAylor…this is work, lots of it. No guarantees. I’m doing what I can. Technology sometimes isn’t cooperative the way I’d like it.
Re: Steven Mosher:
November 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
You list several good points in your comment Steven. I do take issue with this point however:
Hindcasting is a necessary but insufficient condition to indicate that models are in the “correct ballpark”.
John Eggert and Steve Mosher are of course right to point out that it’s silly to deny established evidence. The question, however, is how that evidence applies in the context of the climate system. Maybe everyone else has read this article, but I learnt a lot, in particular about how most heat is transported from the surface by convection, not by IR radiation, which makes the absorbent properties of CO2 in the bulk of the atmosphere irrelevant. R. S. Lindzen, CLIMATE DYNAMICS AND GLOBAL CHANGE, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1994.26:353-78 at http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/166_Cli_Dynam.pdf It’s become conventional to quote estimates of climate sensitivity in terms of degrees C for a doubling of CO2, but I think that only makes sense if we assume a doubling of CO2 will be significant; we can equally well quote it in terms of degrees C per watt / m2 forcing, which can be used directly for any type of forcing, and maybe doing so would help us keep our minds clearer.
To Richard S. Courtney- Thanks for writing the email I was going to write to Eggers. Good job!
Steven Mosher says:
(November 13, 2012 at 11:34 am)
“There is empirical evidence (not logical proof) that doubling CO2 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.”
Since there would be no GHE, and consequently no forcing, if the environmental lapse rate were to go to “0”, I presume the “physics” you’re talking about is the environmental lapse rate. So what are these products that have been engineered based on the environmental lapse rate?
Davidmhoffer says
This inconvenient fact is going to upset/be ignored by a lot of alarmists, especially those that like to describe themselves as ‘scientists’.
“I’d add to the various comments above that there are assumptions often made about what “3.7 w/m2 per doubling of CO2″ actually means. It does NOT mean 3.7 w/m2 at surface. The definition used by the IPCC is all the downward photons (that otherwise would not have occurred) less the upward photons (that otherwise would not have occurred) = 3.7 w/m2. But that is a value that does not occur at any given point, it is in effect “smeared” across the atmospheric column from top to bottom. If you bother to read IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch2, you’ll discover that they actually state that the calculated RF can NOT (repeat NOT!!!) be used to directly calculate surface forcing (and hence temperature change at surface).
This is just not a simple calculation! In fact, if you do a straight average using SB Law, you’ll discover that it takes 5.5 w/m2 to increase the average surface temperature of earth 1 degree, not 3.7! “
Anthony,
Your efforts are enormously appreciated, and inspirational.
Thank you in advance.
C
Al-gore-ian junk science = dirty science.
Posted a link to this Press Release/Update on The Hill, Huffington Post, and several other sites.
I’m surprised to find a lack of coverage for the Gore event. Looks like the media has had enough of the spin.
I’ll post some more updates in the morning and I’m looking forward to the broadcast.
Steven Mosher;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If `you could please direct me to the location of the 17,000 meter long apparatus that was used to simulate the atmospheric air column, I’d be most appreciative.
wOw!
CD (@CD153) says:
November 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Al-gore-ian junk science = dirty science.
=======
Oddly the Gore broadcasts remind me of this oldie ; )
Enjoy:
http://youtu.be/46bBWBG9r2o
The most important question of all …
What will be Kenji’s contribution?
Inquiring Pomeranians want to know …
“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.”
Anything more than 0.5 standard deviations from the mean, is EXTREME !! …………
………………………………….so long as it can be used to further THE CAUSE !!
I assume this is Adobe Flash only.