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 know the other side was hoping for a strong El Nino to set a new record in 2013, but the latest ENSO meter just came out and it plunged from 0.42 to 0.12.
Global warming evidence? Of course there is evidence that here and there, things have warmed up. There is also evidence that here and there, things have cooled down. There are also areas where the trend is flat. There are also a number of plausible explanations, some of which are natural in origin. When multiple competing explanations exists, and one or more are related to natural sources, the null hypothesis reigns. Plain and simple. The null hypothesis must be difficult to disprove. It MUST remain so in order for science to stay on it’s steady course and not be led willy nilly down the prim rose path by any one rogue group or individual person.
Anthony – I don’t know if you saw this load of crap over the last weekend. This will surely get the progressives in their Starbucks shops up in arms! Take a look and laugh your rear off.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-502303_162-20121250.html
My reply did not seem to go to moderation, so I am repeating it. If this is a duplicate please delete.
Thank you Mr. Watts for replying to my request @ur momisugly November 13, 2012 at 2:42 pm with Anthony Watts November 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm.
I realize it is a lot of work and time is very short. I wish I could help, but I’m stuck here.
I note Keith AB November 13, 2012 at 8:51 am said he was planning on recording the whole thing. Obviously this will be lower quality than recording on site, but if he or others do, perhaps it would be usable. It could even be turned into a presentation to give as proving we are not nut cases, and possibly may convince some open minded people, as the ones watching your live presentation will mostly be confirmed skeptics along with a few extreme CAGW who will pounce on the slightest triviality. It may be possible to even convince some cable stations to actually play a decent skeptical view.
Thank you and everyone involved, especially the anonymous donor.
Layman Lurker says:
November 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Re: Steven Mosher:
November 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
Hindcasting is a necessary but insufficient condition to indicate that models are in the “correct ballpark”.
======
Agreed. Parametric models are a form of curve fitting. It would be extremely surprising if they could not hindcast. Any model that could not hindcast would be immediately parameter adjusted until it did.
A polynomial of order n-1 can exactly fit a curve of n points. A straight line fits two points. A parabola fits 3, etc, etc. This is basic mathematics. The better the fit you need, the more parameters you add. However, such a polynomial shows no skill at predicting the future any more than a coin toss or a dart board.
If this was not true, then climate models could be adapted to predict stock market futures and use the winnings to convert the world to green energy without any need for increased taxes. If climate models actually could predict the future, there would be no need for climate scientists to get grants. They would have already retired long ago in their mansions and villa’s, living high on the hog off their tax free dividends and royalties, jet setting to the north pole to escape the heat.
@ur momisugly Bill Taylor –
Are you THE Bill Taylor? Love the bowling reference!
Diehardstroker….
Last rant (Sorry Anthony, but I think this is important):
I am emphatic that we CAN, with some degree of accuracy, estimate the component of temperature changes due to changes in CO2. To those who are unhappy with my assertion that the cartoon is in error. I ask you to look at my little thing on CO2 absorption where I conclude:
“Above 200 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 there is no increase in the greenhouse affect due to CO2, and changes to human emissions of CO2 will have no affect on climate.”
It is here:
http://johneggert.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details1.pdf
Yes Steve Mosher it is supported by the same stuff that MODTRAN is based on.
Mosher et al, you obfuscate what the CO2 climate question really is. The question is NOT does CO2 contribute to climate, basic physics says it does to some disputable degree. The question is does MAN MADE CO2 contribute to climate to any significant degree, and that question you always seem to avoid.
david hoffer.
Do you know how much the moon weighs?
did you put it on a scale.
But if you think you have evidence that the forcing from doubling c02 is not between 3 and 4 watts, then claim your noble prize.
If you want to know how its measured Google is your friend.
You rely on the physics being correct every time you use your phone or wifi.
Your country relies on the physics being right when it designs its weapons, in fact the testing of the physics used to be classified back in the day.
Go ahead. I’ll laugh. you go get your noble prize
Steven Mosher says:
November 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm
But if you think you have evidence that the forcing from doubling CO2 is not between 3 and 4 watts, then claim your noble prize.
============
Is this gross or net forcings?
What if there was zero CO2 in the atmosphere and you doubled this? Would the forcing be between 3 and 4 watts?
How about if the atmosphere was 100% CO2 and you doubled this, which doubled the volume of the atmospheric? Would the forcing be between 3 and 4 watts?
What about the partial pressure of H2O as a result of doubling CO2? Doesn’t increasing CO2 necessarily reduce H2O as a result of partial pressure forcing H2O out of the atmosphere, long before any effect of global temperatures will result? Hasn’t this in fact been observed, that as CO2 has increased H2O has been dropping?
Since H2O is a stronger GHG than CO2, doesn’t this mean that adding CO2 will actually REDUCE the NET GHG in the atmosphere, by reducing the H2O as a result of partial pressure? Which means that again adding CO2 will not have a NET forcing of between 3 and 4 watts, because the H2O will be reduced before temperatures can increase globally.
Hold on, I can hear the Nobel Committee outside my door.
Kenji live cam?
can you guys put these up on Youtube afterwards as individual video’s so we can link to them on our social sites and promote the truth?
Steven Mosher;
But if you think you have evidence that the forcing from doubling c02 is not between 3 and 4 watts, then claim your noble prize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said any such thing. In fact, if you had paid any attention at all, you’d know that I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on this blog explaining that CO2 really does absorb and re-radiate, that 3.7w/m2 is a fair approximation, and that cool things can actually make warm things warmer in comparison to there being nothing there at all instead. That we have proof of same by comparing temperatures of bodies with no atmosphere (such as the moon and Mercury) to the temperatures of bodies with an atmosphere such as Earth and Venus.
Your interpretation of the physics beyond that however is very weak. Your example of military technologies for instance, you’ve claimed above, and cited in other threads specifically radar as an example. As I commented on another thread when you used that example, we know a great deal about radar and things like radio waves precisely because they do NOT get absorbed to a great extent by the atmosphere. Your idea that this notion extends to our knowledge of LW is ridiculous because it is the exact opposite problem. LW does get absorbed, and we can only measure this absorption indirectly, making our knowledge of how it interacts with the atmosphere exceedingly weak by comparison.
Further, your claim that we know by experiment and field measurement exactly how LW and CO2 interact in the atmosphere is also false. We cannot know by experiment because, as I tried to point out to you, it is impossible to build an apparatus that simulates the atmospheric air column. Not only can we not build to scale, we cannot simulate water vapour at at the bottom of the column at tens of thousands of ppm and declining to a few hundreds of ppm or less at the top. We cannot build an apparatus that simulates air currents, changes in pressure, water vapour condensing, water droplets turning to ice crystals, ice crystals melting, and water droplets evaporating, all at the same time at different altitudes.
As for field measurements, yes we can measure upward and downward LW at surface, and we can measure upward LW at Top of Atmosphere using satellites. This doesn’t give us a complete picture however. To a sensor in space, or on the ground for that matter, a LW photon arrives, but the sensor cannot tell from where it originated. A photon escaping from TOA may have been emitted from a CO2 molecule a few meters away, a few hundred, or a few thousand, or from the surface. Your sensors can tell you how many, but not from where. Nor can they separate out fluctuations in intensity due to all those factors I listed in the previous paragraph constantly being in flux. We can make educated guesses about these things, but until we have massive amounts of data from very small increments in altitude, from surface to TOA, combined with the exact conditions of all those variables at each instant in time (and more, those are just a few) we are just making educated guesses. We cannot directly measure the effects we are trying to quantify precisely because the atmosphere plays havoc with the path of photons in the CO2 absorption bands. We know a great deal about radar for the precise reason that the atmosphere does NOT play havoc with those frequencies. Any attempt to claim that we know about one effect because we know about another is puerile nonsense.
If you had paid attention, I also explained in this thread that the 3.7 w/m2 is an artificial concept. It is arrived at (according to the IPCC’s definition) as the downward photons (that otherwise would not have existed without CO2 doubling) less the upward photons (that otherwise would not have existed) which does in fact (by my calculations 30 years ago when I was still doing that kind of math) come to somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.7 w/m2. (If memory serve, my crack at it 30 years ago was 3.9 w/m2, and the two PhD’s in atmospheric physics that I was conversing with on the matter came in at 3.5 and 4.1 w/m2 respectively).
This 3.7 w/m2 however, is an abstract concept. It is not like the 1342 w/m2 of insolation that arrives at TOA. We can measure that. We can measure how much arrives at earth surface too, and we’ll get an exact number at any given point in time and space. This is not true of the 3.7 w/m2 as defined by the IPCC. It cannot be measured at any given point in time and space, because it simply does not exist at any single point in time and space. It exists as tiny incremental changes in downward w/m2 strewn from the bottom of the atmospheric column to the top, which collectively add up to 3.7 w/m2. As I attempted to point out upthread, this does NOT translate directly into surface forcing, nor does it translate directly into surface temperature change. The IPCC is EXPLICIT on this matter in AR4 WG1 Ch2.
In fact, if we applied straight forward physics to the matter, Stefan-Boltzmann Law would require 5.5 w/m2 to raise the average temperature of the earth from 15 degrees to 16 degrees C, not the IPCC’s 3.7 w/m2. The 3.7 w/m2 = 1 degree is arrived at in part by Holder’s Inequality, and in part by assumptions regarding the impact to the lapse rate that result in a higher temperature increase at surface than can be justified on the basis of CO2 doubling = 3.7w.m2 and the application of SB Law alone. We have neither the lab experimentation nor the field measurements to untangle these matters with any but very approximate precision.
I doubt I shall ever win a nobel prize, but sir, your laughter is uncalled for and you are arguing physics at a level well over your head.
Mosher, your estimate of the absorption and radiation of heat by CO2 is plain wrong. One can make some calculations from the test work carried out by Prof. Hoyt Hottel (Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT and world expert on radiation heat transfer and combustion) represented in graphs and in equations. His work is well known to Engineers dealing with heat exchange, processes and combustion. However, no calculation can be accurate because of varying condition. In every systems whether open or closed there is convection which is/seems to be ignored by physicists and other scientist who have no experience or understanding of heat transfer. John Eggert convection also takes place in the top of a blast furnace.
I have measured heat transfer in different processes and equipment. Even with flame temperatures in excess of 3000C convection is significant particularly if the flame licks the material in the process or gas passes through a solids bed eg blast furnace. The lower the temperature the more significant (in percentage terms) is convection. For a surface at 50C in the atmosphere with a wind blowing convection exceeds radiation. One thing for sure is that a coal flame with an emissivity close to one radiates more heat than a nozzle mixed natural gas flame which has an emissivity around 0.45. The emissivity of the latter natural gas flame (slight blue and transparent) is nearly totally due to the water vapor. Heating on a gas stove in the kitchen is mainly due to convection.
CO2 makes an insignificant unquantifiable contribution to the heat transfer between the earths surface (of which water surfaces make about 70%), the atmosphere and outer space. Doubling CO2 has even less effect (eg zero) because of the logarithmic relation of absorption/ emission.
I have no problem with the cartoon..
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
John Eggert does your blast furnace have ice in it? That is why your statement on adding energy raises temp needs “in general” in it. Heating ice water does not raise it’s temp. That exception is part of climate. The cartoon says CO2 raises temps, just we can’t meausre how much. How much is used converting ice to water, or water to gaseous H2O? You seem to have skipped the “how much extra” part of the statement. Your claim we generally know does not contradict this.
Jimbo says: November 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm; asks, “Who believes anything Al Gore has to say about the weather or the climate?”
C. Figueres, Exec. Sec’y, UNFCCC, probably: Gore’s trainee has less than two months ’til expiration of Kyoto Treaty.
Thelittlebrother at 10:07
Do you have more up to date figures for al gores mansion? I believe that he has installed solar cells to reduce reliance on grid electricity.
Kenji (member – Union of Concerned Scientists)
Okay.That’s it! You,Mr Watts,owe me and my 4 cats one new keyboard and monitor.Now go get the manbearpig where it hurts,which would be his wallet as he obviously has no sense of guilt or shame(like 100% of psychopaths)
“Its all based on calculations/models”
———
Hmmmm, let me see now. If scientist makes empirical observations related to CO2 climate sensitivity, as soon as those observations are touched by the filthy arithmetic they become invalid.
Good one guys!
Hello all, just popped over from the other thread on this WUWT-TV thing. The one with the pics of the studio, and one of Anthony’s comments got me to thinking about helping out a bit. The comment was that a premium subscription to the entity hosting his 24 hour effort to counter the fat cat hipocrite’s vastly funded propoganda armageddon circus could cost in excess of $2000.00, depending on views. (Premium subscription = no ads 🙂
I’ve donated a hundred dollars to get the ball rolling so that maybe he CAN host his effort without ads, and there’s a few hours left before the thing starts, (assuming I’ve got the time difference right from Oz,) and I was wondering if there’s anyone else out there with a few spare bucks that might be able to help out as well?..
Anthony comment sounded a bit frazzled, the bloke’s doing the world a bloody big favour by doing this, whaddaya reckon??
Pony up, ya mob a bludgers!! :-)) (Shameless Plug, top right… Too easy, huh? 🙂
Johnny in NQ
If it wasn’t for wuwt, where would Al get his publicity from?
I think we all have to remember that climate alarmism is based on:
1. Over-simplistic computer models (climate models are complex, but nowhere as near as complex as climate), which have been forced into hindcasting with reasonable accuracy, but have little or no predictive power,
2. Incorrect interpretations of the Earth’s feedback systems in response to temperature changes,
3. Being supported by the tax hungry political Establishment
4. Being able to outspend sceptics by at least a factor of 1,000 to 1, and
5. The denial and/or derision of natural climate cycles.
Computer models have become steadily more accurate at hindcasting the past and if you are a modeller they are probably a beautiful thing to behold.
The problem obviously comes with forecasting, where the same time proven logic of GIGO applies. Climate modellers simply refuse to grasp the fact that if you put 10 correct factors into your models, there will be scores of other factors which will not be correct, because we simply do not have a good enough understanding of exactly how climate actually works – alarmists will obviously tell you otherwise, as they have to justify themselves.
Of course, another problem with climate models is that the modeller will clearly want to prove his point about global warming and/or CAGW and that inevitably means they will be constructed with that bias included.
Anyhow, all the very best with your program of goring the Goreathon, his pompous abuse of the scientific facts deserves all the slicing and dicing you can give him.
Coinciding in Australia will be an ABC Catalyst “landmark” special on national television headlined Taking Australia’s Temperature, claiming to be a nationwide investigation about changing weather in the past 100 years and a report “like you’ve never seen before” … ABC1 8pm Thursday 15 Nov – http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/
I won’t condemn before broadcast but the preview suggests it’s aiming to confirm AGW. The special has been “made with close collaboration from the Bureau of Meteorology” so there’s a fair chance it’ll be ABC providing BOM PR, the common cause reminiscent of BBC climate policies.
Just tried the test feed. It froze my computer (HP 2000-2190X running Windows 7). Had to do a manual reboot.