I’m a little bit toasted from the effort to get WUWT-TV online, so I’m taking a rest. I did note with some humor though this gloating missive from Dana “scooter” Nuccitelli over at “Open Mind” about Gore’s event:
See Dana, the thing is (and this is lost on you and your friends) is that WUWT earned those views honestly.
We didn’t need an army of Gore viewbots to inflate the numbers:
============================================================
Stephen Rasey
Submitted on 2012/11/16 at 2:54 pm
For fun, I was considering the proposition that each of the viewers of WUWT-TV and Gore-TV might belong to 1 of 2 populations:
X = population with a mean view time of 1 hr. (Watchers)
Y = population with a mean view time of T minutes. (Bots + thrashers)
Let T = average view time for the Y population.
Let TV = Total Views in 24 hours.
Let CV = Current Views average over 24 hr.
CV = X + Y
TV = 24* (X + Y*60/T)
Solution:
X = CV*(60/(60-T)) – TV*(T/(24*(60-T)))
Y = CV – X
TV(WUWT) = 16,690 (what I remembered seeing. I could be wrong.)
CV(WUWT) = 550 is my guess at an average in a range of 420-670 from personal observation. Until we have something better.
TV(Gore) = 15.7 million (from mfo 02:28 prev. thread) . I cannot confirm that, but Reg. Blank above reports about million at 2.25 hours, about 10% into it.
CV(Gore) = 9000 @ TV=300K, 1.5 hr;
= 11200 @ TV=500K, 1.9 hr.
= 12100 @ TV “close to a million” at 2.25 hr. from Reg. Blank above.
Shortly after this the CV counter was taken down. So we will have to guess this by exploring a range of possible values. An important constraint here is that the three observation points give a mean view time of only 3 minutes (approx.).
Frac_TV_X = Fraction of TV that can come from X population (1 hr mean) views.
Frac_TV_X = X*24/TV
First, WUWT-TV: (TV=16690, CV=550)
If T=0.16, X=550, Y=0.4, Frac_TV_X = 0.790
If T=1, X=548, Y=2, Frac_TV_X= 0.787
If T=10, X=521, Y=29, Frac_TV_X = 0.749
So 74-79% of the TV (total views) are coming from the population views with a mean 1 hr.
Now Gore-TV: (TV = 15.7 million)
If CV = 36000 (3 times highest known value)
If T=0.16; X=34347; Y=1653; Frac_TV_X=0.053
If T=1; X=25523; Y=10477; Frac_TV_X=0.039
If T=2; X=14684; Y=21316; Frac_TV_X=0.022
If T=3; X=3465; Y=32535; Frac_TV_X=0.005
T>4 is not possible.
If CV=24000, T=0.16; X=22315; Y=1685; Frac_TV_X=0.034
If CV=50000, T=0.16; X=48385; Y=1615; Frac_TV_X=0.074
If CV=100000, T=0.16; X=98518; Y=1482; Frac_TV_X=0.151
Note: T=0.16 represents a viewer that is opening the stream and shutting it down in a 10 second loop. With T=0.16, X = watchers, Y = ‘bots.’
Conclusion: X is tightly coupled with the estimate for CV. But the fraction of total views from 1-hr Watchers is illuminating. The Frac_TV_X (= 1hr people views / total views) is highest for high CV and low T. For CV = 36000 (3 time higher than any reported in the first two hours) only 5% of the total views were from “watchers”, 95% from bots. We have to use CV=100,000 (8 times higher than max observed), to reach a point where even 15% of total views could be from a population with a 1 hr mean view. At least 85% of total views were bots cycling every 10 seconds.
=============================================================
If Gore was so secure in his message, don’t you think he would not need to resort to such trickery? Given his budget in the millions -vs- mine in the few thousands, it should have been pretty easy to squish me like a bug.
It seems though, such stagecraft and padding because they fear their message needed a boost from some tricks has been the hallmark of the crowd you run with.
Oh, and I cleaned out Tips and Notes…it was clogged to the point of some readers not being able to open it anymore on weaker PC systems.
UPDATE: SunTV did a story on the Gore-a-thon with Tom Harris, and WUWT is mentioned. See the video here.
The important bit is what those numbers relate to. What other events had 16 million viewers? Can the Goreathon really have reached as many real people as those events?
Eg no trace of it in the NY Times…
Gore-bulls the clown and his crew
Thought their viewers would number too few
So with a whizzy PC
And a script from RC
They put some more bums on the pew
Open Thread – Question
Has there been any scientific experiment – you know the kind, where real scientists actually go out and do things and collect data – that relates, correlates, causates [sic] increased levels of atmospheric CO2 to atmospheric temperatures? Or is it the case that there are merely computer models programmed to yield predetermined results confirming existing opinions and bias.
Advertisers are not amused by viewerbot shenanigans.
Back to Maurizio’s scoop. It seems that the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), who organised the seminar for the BBC, have really infiltrated the latter much more than at first thought.
The IBT’s latest Annual Report for 2010/11 (and remember the seminar was in 2006) claims This year has been marked by some important lobbying successes for IBT including the introduction of a new international purpose as part of the Channel 4 remit, along similar lines to the BBC’s global purpose. The BBC Trust has agreed to amend the BBC2 licence as a result of lobbying by IBT.
And
We have continued to work in partnership with Channel 4 and the BBC, holding regular meetings to discuss how they plan to implement the international aspects of their remits. We have also worked with other broadcasters including Sky News.
The IBT are a self avowed lobby group and their member list includes the likes of OXFAM, WWF & UNICEF, Also Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief who have both been accused of funding terrorist groups.
I fail to see how the BBC can let this group influence its output while it has a duty to maintain its editorial independence
For more information, check here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-bbc-the-international-broadcasting-trust/
Al’s figures are as boated as everything else about him…
Video of yesterday’s prominence.
http://www.space.com/18528-sun-unleashes-monster-prominence-video.html
SDO was unable to capture the entire image due to it’s size. Lucky it was aimed elsewhere eh?
Lately I’ve taken to just repeating “No warming for the past 15 years,” and providing links to the GISS, HADCRUT, and UAH temperature graphs. I figure a simple message, often repeated, will sink in better than a de
tailed long argument. If we can just get people to look at the real data they will ultimately see for themselves.
I work in the streaming business and am familiar with detailed streaming statistics from most of the largest live streaming events [mods can verify my employment through the domain in my email address]. It would be quite easy for the Gore camp to release a detailed audit report from their streaming provider(s) containing no personally identifiable viewer information. Such reports exist so that advertisers can verify viewership and would show the make-up of the audience and stream characteristics including session time, peak bandwidth, reconnects, etc. There are a variety ways that report would clearly confirm or exclude an army of viewer bots. Anyone with any experience looking at such a report could immediately recognize the bulk of views are bogus. It’s easy to tell, thus if they are only sharing stream starts (the least useful stat) and not the meaningful statistics, they are being knowingly deceptive. If their audience was comprised of real viewers, there is no reason not to release that report.
While Al’s spew was viewed by 15,985,000 electrons & 15,000 humans, who promptly fell asleep, Anthony was helping to create a new medium as well as providing actual education, information & enlightenment. This will be one of those wars won by ragtag insurgent guerrillas armed with reality against professional armies of imperial domination equipped with deceit & deception.
> Oh, and I cleaned out Tips and Notes…it was clogged to the point of some readers not being able to open it anymore on weaker PC systems.
Hey, Anthony, I kinda stopped mentioning my old system (Suse 10.1) ’cause you’d laugh at it running Firefox V2.0.0.5 and tell me to upgrade. Not bad for a system I set up six years ago. I didn’t dare upgrade after a certain point lest I break all the weather and WUWT updates it’s been doing all that time.
However, I built a new system, with a variant on a recent Ubuntu called Snowlinux and it’s running Firefox 14.0.1. I may not get everything moved over by the end of the year, but I’m confident I can do without disruption to the ENSO meter or Cryosphere updates.
Intel 4 core Ivy Bridge CPU – I can handle Tips & Notes!
Political donations of Sue Halpern, Bill McKibben’s wife.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/susan-halpern.asp?cycle=08
I was in the local supermarket earlier stocking up on wine and other essentials. I picked up a copy of “New Scientist” with the front cover embazoned with “It’s worse than we thought”. Yes AGW they were talking dirty snow in Greenland, Melting of the Arctic Ice cap and sea levels rising. No mention of the fact that there has been no Global Warming for years, that Antarctic ice has increased, or that if the Arctic ice does all melt it will not make a jot of difference to sea levels, since it floats on the sea!.
I put it back on the shelf, I was not going to part with any of my hard earned cash on this rubbish!
Is it possible that this was done to increase advertising revenues? And thus, if traceable, possibly represents–I hate to be so bold–criminal fraud?
On adjusting aneroid barometers – Hey Kadaka – on setting barometers – I didn’t answer your comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/29/latest-super-high-resolution-image-of-hurricane-sandy/#comment-1127952 because it was a couple days old when I saw it, but I thought I’d wait for an open thread and see if I remembered.
You asked:
> Checked the back, there’s a hole above the adjustment screw. How are these calibrated? Should I disturb it at all?
The easiest way to adjust a barometer is to wait until there’s a big ol’ high pressure system all around you, then check the pressure readings from your local TV weather segment if it’s any good. Or weather.com or wunderground.com. Basically, all the accurate stations should have an air pressure close to each other, except maybe in January if it’s really cold and then air density may make higher altitude barometers read low. Basically, from your source, get the “consensus” air pressure.
Then, take the barometer down, keep it vertical, and use a small flat bladed screwdriver to turn the adjusting screw. You likely won’t need to turn it more than a few degrees. Adjust things so your barometer has joined the consensus and put it back on the wall. Keep an eye on it, thermal effects and other whatnot may make it read off a bit when it reaches equilibrium again.
You have to consider how many WUWT viewers checked into the Goreathon just to see what it was like. Very doubtful many Goreites checked into WUWT.
I, for one, would nonetheless be much happier amongst an educated few than be counted as bragging rights to the scientific equivalent of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
Mark said:
“If their audience was comprised of real viewers, there is no reason not to release that report.”
Perhaps Anthony can release his report and challenge Gore to release his?
letter to Time magazine
\In the wake of Sandy, Michael Grunwald tells readers that scientists like me who studied the data from weather stations and come to the conclusion that there is no man made climate change, are just like Lance Armstrong. (Sandy ends the Silence, Time, Nov 19, 2012)
This is a very serious allegation, and I hope that Time Magazine will give at least one of these scientists an opportunity to respond.
I am concerned that the correct science is not coming over in the media and that the public is being lied to, to protect certain beliefs and interests.
First, can I just explain that Sandy was not due to or caused by “global warming”. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Remember from your schooldays that (more) clouds and (more) condensation are formed when water vapour cools(more)? It is the global cooling that is now causing some extra weather events.
You will see this soon also being confirmed by much harsher winters.
2nd, can I just point out that it has not been warming for about 16 years.
From my own dataset and others it can be shown that we cooled by at least –0.1 degree from the beginning of this century,
e.g. see here;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
3rd\, there is ample evidence to suggest that 90 years ago the situation in the arctic was exactly the same as now
e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
By 1950 all the molten arctic ice as reported lost in 1923 was frozen up again. My results show that in 2 or 3 decades from now, the lost ice on the arctic will also all be back.
Recent reports show that the Antarctic has already gained more ice.
My analysis of global maximum temperatures shows that we are now exactly as we were about 90 years ago:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The above graph clearly shows that global cooling has now started and will accelerate significantly.
So, please don’t worry about the carbon. Start worrying (a bit) about the coming common cold…
Lastly, I want to warn Time and its readers in the USA that they’d better be prepared.
New York: take some lessons from The Netherlands on how to stop flooding.
(you can verify my story by asking your tomatoes farmers in Anchorage about the reasons as to their failed crops? Lots more of those stories to come. It is not due to global warming)
Dr. Svalgaard went to Japan, on his sunspot business, I thought she should ask his hosts for the records of geomagnetic activity during the last years quake which led to an interesting, not to say fascinating correlation, :that anyone can reproduce (full instruction given)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm
Then prompted by Kev-in-UK I made an attempt to explain this yet one more ‘spurious’ correlation, here is my effort:
Hi Kevin
I don’t think anyone knows how natural variability works or what the extent of it is; if so than even less can be concluded for the AGW.
But let’s have a shot at it.
On the http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm illustrations map show tectonic fault (red line) and two major currents of the North Pacific, Kuroshio (warm current) and Oyashio (cold current). Relative strength of these currents determines if the N. Pacific and the lands of surrounding continents where lot of the glob temps come from, are warmer or colder. One could suggest that the tectonic movements have some effect on these currents.
So far so good.
Now, for the magnetic field. Its generation and changes of its intensity deep inside the Earth’s (outer) core are even bigger mystery than the climate change.
Movement of the tectonic plates (subduction see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/SubZone.jpg interferes with magma flow further down. These disturbances in the flow propagate slowly through the dense magma affecting thermal convection. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Outer_core_convection_rolls.jpg
which is assumed to be the generator of the magnetic field.
What about the 15 year delay?
In the last wiki link there are some cylinders depicted. This appear to be very complex subject, if so inclined look up article by a JPL-NASA scientist and an Oxford professor
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19162/1/98-0417.pdf
which considers mechanical disturbances propagation between the Earth’s core and lithosphere at various latitudes.
Thus
1. Tectonic movements affect balance of the two major n. Pacific currents (Kuroshio warm and Oyashio cold) and in doing so changes temperature across N. Hemisphere.
2. The same tectonic movements affect magma flow, which propagates slowly further down, where magnetic field is generated, and changes in the MF are observed on the surface.
There are number of experts from many fields of science, which may disagree, offer different more plausible ideas, or declare correlation spurious and the whole charabanc a nonsense.
Anyone would like to have go?
Don’t expect many AGW’s attempts but I would ‘warmly’ welcome it.
In any case, we are in the era of pornography. A lot people view what titilates, whether it be sex, weather, crime, violence, food or whatever. There is little significance to how many people watch something other than that’s how many people watched it. It says nothing about the actual value of the content or anything else significant.
Andrew
16,000 informed viewers vs. 16 million misinformed viewers. Watts making people smarter and Gore making people dumber. No contest.
Right and wrong.
We don’t cheat and lie. Everybody knows the truth, and it sets you free.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t watch a minute. I am, alas, still on dial-up and don’t participate in these things. I will, however, catch up at my leisure…..
I have found that since the Cook blog supporters are merely copying the IPCC script you only need to read the comments of one of them to know exactly what the others are saying. Convenient for independent thinkers to follow Cook’s non-skeptical approach to reality, I must say.
Dana Nucitelli is not the one Cook blog follower whose comments I read. NOTE: The one whose comments I read seems at the brink of starting on a really skeptical path.
John
4 points:
Many of the viewers they got must have been from sceptics.
Warmist media gave it a lot of free advertising – not so much for WUWT.
My guess is that once on Youtube WUWT video views will climb rapidly.
In science it only takes 1 person to be right for a theory to be put in the trash.
Just a day after the Goreathon, a new survey by Yahoo in New Zealand shows a mere 37% believe we Kiwis need do more to combat “Global Warming”
38% Don’t even believe in Global Warming
14% Think we are already doing enough (even after ETS was severely watered down last week)
11% Think it’s a lost cause anyhow
The poll is in early days however
Andi
link http://nz.news.yahoo.com/cloud/polls/popup/704d5e5c-dc49-38f6-99ad-0845c56f48e0/
Tisdale’s power point on ENSO parameters leads me to ask him if he has any thoughts about a short term forecast ? Watching the movement of warm pools in the past certainly uncovered predictable movement. Yes?
“Can the Goreathon really have reached as many real people …”
Of course not… all warmists lie, Albert Gore lies. Once a liar… always a liar. Surely everyone knows that beyond the shadow of a doubt by now. Heck, even the courts have ruled on poor Al, it’s all a stream of sleighed lies, many by omission, interlaced with scary naturally big number facts.
Gorethon had a sex poodle, WUWT-TV had Kenji; no contest.
I cancelled my subscription to New Scientist about a year ago, because I felt it had become superficial and unbalanced. However I bought this week’s edition because the front cover page was entitled “Climate Change – Five Years ago we feared the worse. But it’s looking even worse than that”
This unsigned editorial is headed “Don’r stay cool on warming”. There is also a colour pull-out “Energy Realities” promoting wind, solar sponsored by Norwegian Statoil attacking developing countries use of coal, plus a sponsored photo of a Siemens 300m wind turbine. There is only one balanced and reasonable article by Fred Pearce reporting a lowering risk of drought, but even this is “offset” by an article directly below by Michael Marshal stating “…but climate uncertainty is less cloudy”. The whole issue seems to have been driven by Michael le Page, a “feature” editor who as far as I can ascertain is actually a biologist seemingly unlikely to understand the complex physics involved in. Michael le Page wrote the leading article which for me is basically propaganda rather than offering reasoned argument. He even rubbishes Fred Peace’s article in the same issue who is someone I have always respect.
This is a classic example of New Scientist bias or perhaps perhaps that should really be “Post Modern New Scientist” . It confirms that my decision to cancel my subscription was correct.
I tried to link in down here, no go.
I’ll wait for the YouTube, watch it at my leisure.
Christopher Brooker (a columnist in the Daily/Sunday Telegraph broadsheet in UK) picks up on 28gate http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBCs-dirty-little-secret-lands-it-in-a-new-scandal.html
Will be in tomorrow’s (Nov 18) edition.
The powers that be are dysfunctional if they beleive they can control the planet with fraud.
Global warming won’t work.
I found the WUWT broadcast to be full of halts, especially the sound, which made it problematic to watch. The content I did see was good.
Hmmm…. 16 million views….probably the same lot that have registered between 140 percent
and 170 percent of the voters in certain “swing” states and counties across the US.
Just another hockey stick…..
In any case, what counts is quality, not quantity. I suspect that a lot of bots were among that
16M, and, as noted in other posts/threads, hits were registered even when the “gore ible”
page was only another window on a gateway page….what a sham (and a shame)….
Keep up the great work, Anthony (and everyone else involved), and take a well-deserved rest!!!
john said (November 17, 2012 at 11:44 am)
“…Political donations of Sue Halpern, Bill McKibben’s wife…”
Wonder if there’s any relation to Josh Halpern (Rabett Run).
Might explain his political leanings (part of the CAGW believers group).
16Million.
crap. Korean Pop does better
clivebest says:
November 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm
“Climate Change – Five Years ago we feared the worse. But it’s looking even worse than that”
========
translation. our grants are at risk.
Mark said (November 17, 2012 at 11:31 am)
“…It would be quite easy for the Gore camp to release a detailed audit report from their streaming provider(s) containing no personally identifiable viewer information. Such reports exist so that advertisers can verify viewership and would show the make-up of the audience and stream characteristics including session time, peak bandwidth, reconnects, etc…”
Too bad we can’t go to UStream and ask for those details. Or, failing that, find out some of the people who advertised on Gore-TV, and have them look into the possibility that the numbers are inflated. Have them check. See what their “click-through” rate was.
That alone may be enough to have advertisers question their involvement. Imagine – you advertise on an event that had 16 million viewers, and only 2 or 3 viewers click on the ads. Really effective advertising, eh?
DJ says: @ November 17, 2012 at 11:55 am
…. I, for one, would nonetheless be much happier amongst an educated few than be counted as bragging rights to the scientific equivalent of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
_____________________________
Agreed just as long as we don’t all end up in a UN re-education camp run by the North Koreans. So far it seems they are just content to kill off the wise old folks using the Liverpool Care Pathway or ‘Fuel Poverty’ and export it to the USA.
I didn’t bother with the Gore-A-Thon..but I did watch approximately 5 hours of WUWT-TV. Accolades to all who made it possible.
gore’s viewer numbers are no doubt as fake as his science.
Ric Werme says:
November 17, 2012 at 11:53 am
On adjusting aneroid barometers – Hey Kadaka – on setting barometers
Back in the day we went to the airport because elevation is key. Hang out for 45 minutes to an hour and then set accordingly. That was the place and altitude that gave the numbers. If your fishing for Bass that can be key 😉
Having dipped a toe into the world of blogging, I’ll post links to my first two climate-related posts:
How will we meet the Climate Change Act emissions targets? MPs respond to their constituents
UK Industrial GHG emissions fall 46 per cent since 1990 – how did they do that?
Given that an increase of 50ppm CO2 in the atmosphere can cause a catastrophic tipping point I reckon 16000 viewers should be sufficient to topple the rotten edifice of CAGW. (Of course I’m taking ‘forcings’ and ‘feedback loops’ into consideration here!)
Wouldn’t it be fun…..
…. to commission an independent poll to find out who actually watched either of the transmissions, and whether they were skeptics or not?
I believe that these polls need not cost a huge amount – there are lots of polling companies competing for the business…
Today, November 17 2012, is the anniversary of the November 17 2009 CG1 unauthorized release of UEA CRU documents and emails.
: )
A lot of controversial water under that bridge . . . . . n’est ce pas? I will quietly toast a scotch in memoriam.
John
Have I read this right? Gore supposedly had 16 millions views in 24 hours – thats 11000 per minute!
Now, correct me if I am wrong – but a Viral youtube video may get a million views in a day – and thats if its a VIRAL sensation! Does anyone really think a boreathon has done 16 times better than that?
in support of my post above I googled and found this
http://singularityhub.com/2012/03/12/most-viral-video-of-all-time-kony-video-released-7-days-ago-now-has-70-million-views/
John Whitman says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I’ll join you!
cheers!
What of the significant role of BBC’s reporter Harrabin in the effort to ban coverage of skeptical scientists in BBC’s worldwide news coverage?
At CA I posted the below in response to some general support there of Harrabin as a journalist because some of his articles on climategate were considered fair.
No overall positive view of Harrabin from me. He has participated, in a central role, in the censorship of the independent and open science dialog.
John
Anthony Watts wrote:
“We didn’t need an army of Gore viewbots to inflate the numbers:”
The point on the shorter duration of the average visitor to the Gore video is very valid and noteworthy in itself, but I highly doubt they were bots, though, for several reasons.
The Gore video was highlighted by the website on their front page (which has multiple videos on unrelated topics with millions of views). That would lead to a huge number of casual internet browsers clicking through to it. Upon seeing the basic idea in a few seconds and how it was essentially what they have heard from the media many times before (and not super entertaining either), most would leave.
On multiple forums, I have observed that the percentage of all viewers of a thread who will click on almost any link for more information is usually on the order of 2% or less, as seen in hitcounters. Most internet browsers in general have short attention spans, so to speak, if the topic is not of exceptional interest to them.
Similar can be seen even in hit counts for Wikipedia articles: the “Effects of Global Warming” article has only 14% as many monthly views as the “Global Warming” article, even though someone really believing in CAGW and naive enough to trust Wikipedia propaganda on the topic would in theory want to read more.
As yet another example, according to Alexa.com , the average time a (human) internet browser spends on the CAGW-movement skepticalscience.com upon reaching the site is 2 minutes 40 seconds.
Notice how similar such is to the Gore video result of how “an important constraint here is that the three observation points give a mean view time of only 3 minutes (approx.).” That’s probably not a figure for bots. That’s easily a figure for humans.
Watching or reading anything for tens of minutes, let alone hours, is the exception, not the norm, for general web browsers. (That visitors to the WUWT broadcast more often did so is good, exceptionally so).
In my opinion, the Gore-alarmist crowd has proven that the science does not exist to support cAGW since they continually refuse open, public debate against informed opponents. They continually attempt (mostly successful I might add) to keep any skepticism out of the main-stream press and they control who gets published in the “scientific” journals. If they had the facts or theory on their side they would welcome the opportunity to debate just as any scientist welcomes making fun of anyone who claims the earth does not revolve around our star. If it truly were an “open and shut case” they would be issuing challenges left and right to the skeptics and lukewarmers alike.
They also prove they are wrong when they support or look the other way as the data sets are continually “adjusted” to make their side look somewhat credible. They do things that would have gotten me kicked out of school back in the 70s. What has happened to our standards?
The WUWT show was credible and done by volunteers while the Gore-the-data-thon was done by people making a fortune trying to scare people.
Dana is simply mad that the Skeptical Science “Crusher crew” plans got exposed,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html
And everyone knows that Cook is an unqualified cartoonist,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
So why are the the videos Al is using via Vimeo showing such low numbers in their stats? Numeracy was never Als best subject…
Ruth Dixon says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Having dipped a toe into the world of blogging, I’ll post links to my first two climate-related posts:
How will we meet the Climate Change Act emissions targets? MPs respond to their constituents
http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/how-will-we-meet-emissions-targets/
UK Industrial GHG emissions fall 46 per cent since 1990 – how did they do that?
http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/industrial-ghg-emissions-fall-46-per-cent/
All UK readers need to visit Ruth’s blog posts. This is first rate research.
John Whitman says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Today, November 17 2012, is the anniversary of the November 17 2009 CG1 unauthorized release of UEA CRU documents and emails.
: )
A lot of controversial water under that bridge . . . . . n’est ce pas? I will quietly toast a scotch in memoriam.
_________________________
Yes that does deserve a toast. I will join you with a glass of white wine. I normally do not drink except for a good German white very occasionally but this is certainly the occasion. So a toast to the brave individual who gave us the key to the lock on the cage door the UN/IPCC keeps trying to slam shut on us. May you live long and free.
Reference in regards to Alexa.com – they don’t have the numbers up yet for the Gore-a-thon time frame, but it will be interesting to see how the numbers work out for that period.
These are numbers they CAN’T fudge, and will show if they peak out at the 16M numbers (and we need to see the “time-on-site” numbers, too).
UStream.tv has been averaging a little over 3 minutes per viewer, while Climaterealityproject.org had an averaging a little over 2 minutes per viewer. Only goes up to the 14th, though.
WUWT? About 4-5 minutes per viewer.
So we’ll look in again when they get the “climate-a-thon” numbers. See who peeks out then.
If 16 million actually watched that, I will s**t twice and die….
= = = = = =
Gail Combs,
I’ll drink to that.
Nostrovia!
The enlightenment yet lives . . . . even in what appears to be the twilight of reason.
John
EDIT / addition to recent prior comment:
For some reason I was thinking of it as 6 million instead of 16 million when writing, and I forgot to include that the human browser hypothesis would include a given viewer being counted multiple times by page refreshes and/or clicking through multiple sub-videos.
Checking ustream.tv now, though, actually I am finding some serious weirdness. The view count is simply gone on the main video page now, which is abnormal as other videos on ustream.tv show a count. Whether such was deliberately hidden by Gore’s group or removed by ustream.tv from being thought invalid (botted?) by ustream.tv, either way is striking. Meanwhile, at http://www.ustream.tv/climatereality I am seeing on the right a link to hour 24 of it with literally only “2.7k views” (only 2700 views, not millions) shown next to it. That might be for essentially a switch to the recorded non-live version for viewers afterwards, but it is still strikingly low.
Well, I see I could strongly argue against myself there: The bot hypothesis could be more likely part of it than I thought.
The general points in my prior comment, on how most human browsers will pass through quickly, are still true though.
In any case, certainly the number seriously watching the Gore video for more than a rapid click-through was not millions.
/// Somewhat Twisted Thinking Department ///
STOP the presses and call out the Climate Scientists!!!
Increasing CO2 may have led to the extinction of Twinkies !!!!!!
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/20115859/hostess-going-out-of-business-nearly-18000-to-be-laid-off
We must cut CO2 emissions now to save Twinkies !!!!
;-))
If I hadn’t heard about the Gore-a-thon here, I would never have known about it. I don’t know anyone who watched it.
Ric Werme
Nov 17 2012 @ 11:53
I have an old hand held Aneroid barometer that I check using continuously updated airport weather information information including QNH. You need a VHF receiver and it works across Australia; broadcasts are from military and civilian airports. It works best if you are located near to them in distance and altitude.
I’m just getting to the end of the classic Two Years Before The Mast and came across this: “. . . left us in lat 22 N, lon 51 W, directly under the tropic of Cancer. . . . It was hurricane month, too, and we were just in the track of the tremendous hurricane of 1830, which swept the North Atlantic, destroying almost everything before it.”
Sounds bad. Anything known about this great-great-great-grandmother of Sandy?
Any blame attached to coal (just getting under way, I believe, as a fuel source for ships and trains)?
I wonder if Sue is related somehow to the rabid Rabett?
pat says:
November 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm
gore’s viewer numbers are no doubt as fake as his science.
============================================================
He’ll claim victory. After all, his numbers surpassed what he said is the temperature of the Earth’s core … and he really can claim to be a Nobel Lariat!
(…give a Mann enough rope…)
A bit off topic …… but …….
A telegraph article was linked in this thread about “28gate”. I love to read the comments in articles that expose “alarmism” for the fraud that it is. Every so often you find something that rings like a bell. This is from a poster on the telegraph, not me. I have never heard anyone put the whole CAGM movement in perspective like this. Especially the first paragraph.
Katabasis
Today 03:08 PM
“If we survive, future historians will look back on this period as one of absolute collective insanity, much as many of us now look back on the German people of the 1930s and wonder in astonishment how they let it all happen.
My concerns about ‘survival’ have nothing to do with putative claims about a supposedly catastrophic warming, still lacking in firm evidence.
It is because of the kind of work promoted by one of the very attendees at the ‘gang of 28’ meeting – Mike Hulme – one of the “scientists” who is a leading promoter of ‘post-normal’ science and philosophy. This insidious successor to post-modernism; taking and embedding the very worst of post-modernism (which did, to be fair have some good points to make regarding subjectivity) and embedded it firmly within a culture I simply cannot recognise – it is as far from rationality as one could imagine. It is the promotion of ends over means and value over fact. Utterly alien to the enlightenment values that supposedly drove the West to its dizzy heights.
Now so many of us, myself included, have to write under a pseudonym to express our doubts. Vilified at every corner, usually by complete no-nothings who wouldn’t understand the difference between an argument from authority and an argument from their a**es, called “science deniers” and worse, and even having our careers put at risk for raising perfectly reasonable concerns about some of the most outrageous and astonishing claims made on the thinnest of evidence.
The weaknesses and falsifications in the official catastrophic doctrine are now so numerous it actually feels – frighteningly – like we really are existing in a dystopian fiction as so many people still rush to defend the official narrative at all costs, and no matter how many colossal holes are poked in it.
We’re rushing headlong into an age of complete unreason, an endarkenment that will kill our civilisation more surely than a very gentle – and primarily benevolent – rise in temperature that bears no relation whatsoever to the catastrophic claims made for it.”
Sorry to bore you with off topic stuff.
TR
I know I posted it. It was a quote from the Telegraph comments on a 28 gate article. Maybe it’s lost in the ether, …. or more likely the spam folder.
: X (angry emoticon)
The warmists’ strongest argument is the one from consensus, which marginalizes dissenters as a lunatic fringe in the public mind. Our side needs an effective counter. A list of the names and affiliations-and-honors of 100 dissenting scientists would do the trick, especially if posted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has made a good start, as it currently has a list of 35 names:
Currently Wikipedia lists 35 names, down from 42 in an earlier version, which included three deceased scientists. I bet twice as many notable names could be added, many from outside the Anglosphere. I suggest that WUWT start a “Notable Dissenting Scientists Nomination Project” thread with the aim of adding them to Wikipedia’s list. Wikipedia will require a citation to each nominee’s published or posted skeptical statement, but someone other than the nominator could track it down.
Probably many names could be added by contacting notable scientists who have signed petitions or made online comments but who have not gone more formally on the record with their own quotations. They could be asked to make a post to the nomination thread (which should be accessable permanently via a tab atop each thread) stating their position in their own words. (An earlier version of Wikipedia’s article, which I captured to my disk, included short quotations from each scientist. I could restore these quotes to WUWT’s list.)
Once our side compiles enough names, two things should be done:
1. The names of prominent and/or outspoken dissenting scientists should be added to Wikipedia’s entry. (If we attempt to add every natural science PhD in the Oregon Petition, it will amount to over a thousand names, so Wikipedia might freak out and drop the whole entry. I think we should aim for no more than 100.) Here are my nominations to get it started—I think that 30 more names could be added by WUWTers within a couple of days:
R.G. Brown at Duke
David Evans
_____ Loehle
James Lovelock
Leif Svalgard (sp?)
2. A link to WUWT’s list should be added to Wikipedia’s entry, prefaced by a remark to the effect that “A longer list, containing the names of less prominent and/or less outspoken dissenting scientists, and including short comments from them and from the scientists listed above, can be found HERE [link].”
Let’s then see what feeble and/or outrageous excuse Connolley’s Crew uses to delete it–which we can then publicize.
Here are the names and affiliations as currently listed in Wikipedia, which I’ve organized in alphabetical order for nominators’ convenience:
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [50]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49]
*******
Anthony: If you like what I’ve proposed, you could post the above as an article, after suitable editing.
Ric Wearme says:
November 17, 2012 at 11:40 am
==============================
Ric how often is the ENSO meter updated? I notice that the NINO3.4 SST is rapidly heading south but the meter is still sitting at about 0.5 – after having read a lot of Bob Tisdale I like to glance at the ENSO meter on WUWT on my way to the Ice Extent data below.
You folks are doing a stirling job – wish I could help in some way (other than the tip jar). The WUWT – TV was great and I look forward to all the content that I slept through in Australia like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and others being put up on youTube or suchlike. But I did manage to catch Burt Rutan – how cool was that :-)?
WUWT-TV was history in the making – up there with Neil Armstrong in my opinion!
Don’t spruce it up Anthony… as others have said the authenticity is priceless (not to mention the commentry from the UCS rep – go Kenji)!
As Germany closes its nuclear power stations coal use goes up. You really can’t make this stuff up.
James from Arding says:
November 17, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Ric Werme says:
November 17, 2012 at 11:40 am
==============================
The source data I use gets updated Monday AM. (About 0700 EST, I added stuff to check it, but haven’t had time to watch closely.) My starting point is the awkard and not very interesting http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=31&month=oct&year=2012&fday=14&fmonth=nov&fyear=2012&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
I’ll likely settle on 0900 EST (1400 UT) Monday. It can take a while to get past some web caches, Attempting reloads may not help.
View from the Solent –
posted the new Christopher Booker article on 28Gate. it is a shame the MSM outside the UK – CAGW gatekeepers one and all – are choosing to ignore this BBC scandal, because it is so far-reaching and, given BBC’s enormous influence worldwide, the public has the right to know about it, in detail.
tony newbery should have been contacted by MSM in and outside the UK. the Beeb should have been asked the hard questions.
how monolithic is the MSM? 28Gate has provided the answer. somehow, we need to keep the story alive.
@Tom, Worc, MA, USA says: November 17, 2012 at 8:37 pm
“”A bit off topic …… but …….””
It is an open thread. I agree with the comment. I feel this is an evolutionary thing.
The cost of producing food has rocketed world wide as well as the massive land grabs to produce inedable bio fuel.
Also the closure of nuclear power stations and forced dependancy on wind and PV which will be inoperable under coming heavy winter conditions.
Some of us are preparing for the coming cold. Most are not. What will be will be.
I am proud to say I was one of those 16 000
James Bull
16,000 views for WUWT-TV? It sounds unlikely, given the general traffic on this site. Here in the UK I, for one, was completely unable to watch anything as both sound and picture were either breaking up or just missing for extended periods every few seconds – I didn’t manage to hear a single complete sentence. With this sort of problem would I have been counted as one of the 16,000? Does anyone understand how the counting is performed (i.e . at what point is a connection counted)? Given the number of comments about this issue, would it be worth doing some sort of survey to find out how many people had this problem and from where? I suspect it will be a lot more than you think.
Ric Werme says: November 17, 2012 at 11:53 am
“Then, take the barometer down, keep it vertical, and use a small flat bladed screwdriver to turn the adjusting screw.”
Also, tap the barometer before taking it down, and tap it after each very small turn of the screw, then tap it again after putting it back up. Tap it a couple of times before taking a reading.
Tap, tap, tap, barometer need to be tapped gently. Air pressure changes are not a big force and the mechanism needs to be tapped to allow final movement. The tap should be very light, just enough to see that the measurement ‘bounces’ ever so slightly.
Roger Edmunds says:
November 18, 2012 at 1:10 am
Agreed – I tried to watch several times and got nothing but stuttering and spluttering (except, strangely, the advert – there was only one. Repeated endlessly)
I watched from the UK and after a bit of a stuttery start the stream was very good for the 4 or so hours I watched.
Breaking: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/disinvited-ipcc-will-not-be-going-to-the-un-cop18-party-in-doha/
There is currently a program on BBC with near to viewing figures and that is Strictly Come Dancing which is a fantasy glamorous dance competition. Bit like the Goreothon then.
I watched for lengthy periods over the whole 24 hours. My feed was good and I did not suffer from anything other than the very occasional choke on my bandwidth.
I would say it was an extremely good effort by all concerned. I know from a friend in radio how hard it is to stage a 24 hr series of programs and articles and I would say Anthony and all those involved did a great job.
A question for everybody:
It is very easy to demonstrate that GHGs radiate a great deal of energy out into space, more so than non-GHGs and at lower average temperatures. I took this up in the Coolist’s View article at anthropogenicglobalcooling.com. This easy-read article completely demolishes the simple models of global warming presented on warmist websites.
Therefore I conclude that the simple models of AGW are erroneous.
However the possibility exits that a more complicated climate reality exists which I have never seen expressed. In this alternate reality the cooling function of GHGs must be highly non-linear and have some dependencies of which I am unaware . I did get a clue from a paper that I read on line a couple of days back (perhaps WUWT?) in which CO2 is recognised as being a gas which cooled the planet until it reached a certain critical density.
As most skeptics have slight warmist sympathies can anyone tell me what the critical density of CO2 in the atmosphere is where it ceases cooling and begins warming?
Alternative explanations as to how GHGs can convert heat to radiation (which isn’t heat) at relatively low temperature, send it into the depth’s of space and warm the planet at the same time would be most welcome.
I really am puzzled by this and would appreciate any help that you skeptics can give me. I’m pretty certain that warmists would just chant mantras at me so I will not bother with them.
Stay cool.
Jimbo says:
November 17, 2012 at 11:15 pm
“As Germany closes its nuclear power stations coal use goes up. You really can’t make this stuff up.”
Our German Greens are very careful not to mention energy, cost of energy or Global Warming at all. Instead they concentrate on class warfare, trying to emulate Obama’s success. They messed up the energy market and now won’t have anything to do with it.
BTW, one of the most prominent German Marxists of the 20th century, the late Rudi Dutschke, believed that automation, computerization and nuclear power would lead to a 5 hour workday, freeing up the energy of the proletariat for a revolution.
He wrote that in the 60ies. He was later one of the first Marxists to hijack the antinuclear movement for his political purposes.
Steven Mosher says, November 17, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Everything’s in proportion, Steve. Always look at the derivatives, not the raw data. Parody inversion at it’s best, must have something to do with the lapse rate:
From a comment on Climate Etc.
I liked this so much I just had to bring it to WUWT somewhere.
manacker | November 17, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Reply
Girma
Wouldn’t it be nice and festive of us if we were to get this printed onto a Christmas card and send it to the ‘team’ and a good number of their associate priests. ?
Something I discovered accidentally tonight, PBS affiliate KQED’s Climate Watch (the online source for Northern Californian global warming alarmists) is defunct. They gave up the ghost on October 1st.
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/10/01/climate-watch-joins-new-kqed-science-unit/
Just as Joe Romm’s site was absorbed by Think Progress, Climate Watch has been absorbed by the more general topic http://science.kqed.org/quest/, where AGW will be relegated to a sidebar of defunct socialist bogeys; next to the spotted owl, Bigfoot sightings, low salmon runs and the like.
That puts their demise in the wake of Anthony Watt’s initial PBS interview with SPENCER MICHELS.
I’d count it as a pelt.
Roger Edmunds says:
November 18, 2012 at 1:10 am
16,000 views for WUWT-TV? It sounds unlikely, given the general traffic on this site.
____________________________
No it is not unlikely. How many of us badgered friends into watching too who do not visit WUWT? Sort of the “if you tell 10 people and they tell 10 people” sort of thing. With the internet the “tell ten people” becomes even easier.
Also how many of those people told were activist friends who started watching because they were going to point out the flaws and got caught in the science?
The best part of WUWT TV is that no one came off as the “Raving Loons” that the MSM and Lewandowsky accuse us of being.
From Eco-geek on November 18, 2012 at 3:50 am:
Using the commenter name link to the site yields:
Trying to draw our attention to a non-existent article on a non-existent site?
tallbloke says:
November 18, 2012 at 2:36 am
Breaking: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/disinvited-ipcc-will-not-be-going-to-the-un-cop18-party-in-doha/
____________________________________
OH MY…
I am speechless!
I wonder what this will do to BBC’s lower than whale poo reputation?
This was a key phrase
You really need to do a thread about this here at WUWT Tallbloke.
****
jkivoire says:
November 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm
For what it’s worth, I didn’t watch a minute. I am, alas, still on dial-up and don’t participate in these things. I will, however, catch up at my leisure…
****
I was too, until I figured out a single-provider DSL/land-line package was cheaper than separate land-line/dial-up providers. Check it out.
One more alarmist claim bites the dust. New paper says droughts are not getting worse and the Palmer index cannot be used to assess global changes.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/another-alarmist-claim-bites-the-dust/#more-1957
Martin says:
November 18, 2012 at 4:55 am
From a comment on Climate Etc….
….Both (sighing with relief): Whew! No, it’s just the sound of goalposts being moved.
(The lights dim as the two take another sip of Kool-Aid…)
Max
Wouldn’t it be nice and festive of us if we were to get this printed onto a Christmas card and send it to the ‘team’ and a good number of their associate priests. ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With the appropriate cartoon by Josh of course. Sounds like a great Christmas card. (Hint Hint Josh)
Eco-geek says:
November 18, 2012 at 3:50 am
It is very easy to demonstrate that GHGs radiate a great deal of energy out into space, more so than non-GHGs and at lower average temperatures.
===============
One theory is that GHG is responsible for the atmosphere cooling with altitude, because a column of air is predicted to be iso-thermal otherwise. Gravity limits this cooling to a maximum of the dry air lapse rate (DALR – due to conversion between KE and PE), but without GHG these would be no lapse rate. If that is the case then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can only lead to more cooling, and minimal at best, because gravity ultimately limits the effect.
The proof for this theory is seen in the temperature of the atmosphere. Above the height where the atmosphere contains GHG the lapse rate reverses and temperatures increase with altitude. This tells us that GHG cools the atmosphere, similar to a radiator in a car. You cannot heat a car engine by increasing the size of the radiator.
” Richard111 says:
November 18, 2012 at 12:03 am
…
It is an open thread. I agree with the comment. I feel this is an evolutionary thing.
The cost of producing food has rocketed world wide as well as the massive land grabs to produce inedable bio fuel.
Also the closure of nuclear power stations and forced dependancy on wind and PV which will be inoperable under coming heavy winter conditions.
Some of us are preparing for the coming cold. Most are not. What will be will be.“
This will become the great awakening of the warmists, when they find, they’ve been sold a bill of goods. There is a logic circle at work here for the intellectually handicapped – the planet is warming, so energy production is not going to be as important. Its use is mostly frivolous and hurting the planet and therefore, since the planet is getting warmer, we can reduce energy production to save the planet. There is no null hypothesis to their circularity. It’s a lemming spin into their own black hole.
note: I did not believe the iso-thermal column of air result until I undertook a length simulation project over at talblokes site with some other readers. We coded up a number of atmospheric simulations in Java and Matlab and each simulator returned the same result.
Gravity by itself did not create any atmospheric lapse rate. Which was very surprising because you would expect molecules to increase in temperature with decreasing altitude due to gravity, because of the conversion of PE into KE. However, due to collisions this is not what happens. Because the atmosphere is less dense above and more dense below, this favors high KE molecules rebounding upwards, which exactly balances the increased KE from falling downwards.
What this result implies is that something other than gravity is the cause of the lapse rate, and gravity simply limits the maximum lapse rate to the conversion rate of PE->KE. Which means that GHG cools the atmosphere, and gravity limits this cooling. Which implies that increasing CO2, if it does have any effect, it can only be to increase cooling efficiency.
8 million people watched the sky jump from 128k feet on Youtube alone. That was an event the whole world saw. If Gore got 16 million viewers, then I’m surprized how few people know about it.
Following up on my comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/17/weekend-open-thread-attack-of-the-gorebots/#comment-1150652 upthread, here are the names of 43 scientists who’d qualify for Wikipedia’s list, once links to their statements about AGW can be found. (It includes the five I’d previously mentioned.) Some of the names with only brief descriptions have been gleaned from the signers of an open letter to, or op-ed in, the WSJ, here: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/scientists-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/ Others are from names listed in the “Who We Are” section of the International Climate Science Coalition.
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor – Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”
R.G. Brown at Duke
America’s Reid Bryson, known as the “father of scientific climatology” and judged “the world’s most cited climatologist” by the journal of the Institute of British Geographers.
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Richard Courtney
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
David Evans
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as a fellow from the American Physical Society, saying he could not live with its nonsensical endorsement of global-warming alarmism
Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor of Physical Geography, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. See Professor Humlum’s important colation of climate data at http://climate4you.com/.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR, and a world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” Also says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”
IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
_____ Loehle
James Lovelock
Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth’s climatic history. There’s nothing special about the recent rise!”
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology and Paleontology), University of Saskatchewan
B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ doubled man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”
Leif Svalgard (sp?)
Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”
Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There’s no need to be worried. It’s very interesting to study [climate change], but there’s no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate Change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
Peter Wadhams (Dutch, cited by Marcel Crok of Climate Dialog)
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases,” Winterhalter said.
Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: “Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.” Their study asserted that “it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”
HenryP says in part, on November 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm:
“First, can I just explain that Sandy was not due to or caused by “global
warming”. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Remember from your schooldays that
(more) clouds and (more) condensation are formed when water vapour cools
(more)? It is the global cooling that is now causing some extra weather events.
You will see this soon also being confirmed by much harsher winters.”
The way I have seen it, there is a slight negative correlation between cloud
cover and temperature. More heat and water vapor increases the efficiency
of updrafts in convective clouds, meaning percentage of surface covered by
updrafts decreases. A warmer world makes convective clouds more
concentrated.
However, it appears to me that IPCC considers the cloud albedo feedback a
few times as much positive as it appears to me – it does not make sense for the
cloud albedo feedback to be more positive than the surface albedo one. And,
positivity of the cloud albedo feedback reduces the water vapor positive
feedback, since a less cloudy atmosphere with increased percentage being
downdraft would have less relative humidity.
As for windstorms in the extratropical northern hemisphere other than tropical
cyclones, the main energy source is horizontal temperature gradient. Since the
Arctic has warmed more than the tropics, the warming weakens such storms and
related winds. Major tornadoes are weakened, and Nor’Easters have their winds
weakened. Consider that once Sandy left the Gulf Stream towards New Jersey,
it was mainly a Nor’Easter. It was conditions favorable to forming a Nor’Easter
that made Sandy large in size while it was still over warm water.
I watched wuwt-tv for most of the day and evening here in the UK and had no problems with breakup tho I will admit to some stuttering at times. I can’t comment on the ads as i didn’t see any! (Firefox with adblock) I can only say that i didn’t intend to watch for all the time i did but i couldn’t stop. Every contributor was worth much more than the whole of the Gorefest.
Facts not opinions!
Congratulations to Anthony and all the contributors including Kenji
Gail Combs says:
November 18, 2012 at 5:35 am
tallbloke says:
November 18, 2012 at 2:36 am
Breaking: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/disinvited-ipcc-will-not-be-going-to-the-un-cop18-party-in-doha/
____________________________________
OH MY…
I am speechless!
You really need to do a thread about this here at WUWT Tallbloke.
Thanks Gail, I’ve submitted it via the top link.
ferd berple says:
November 18, 2012 at 6:48 am
note: I did not believe the iso-thermal column of air result until I undertook a length simulation project over at talblokes site with some other readers. We coded up a number of atmospheric simulations in Java and Matlab and each simulator returned the same result.
Gravity by itself did not create any atmospheric lapse rate. Which was very surprising because you would expect molecules to increase in temperature with decreasing altitude due to gravity, because of the conversion of PE into KE.
It’s still worth having a think about the dynamic situation as well as the contained situation. Our conceptualisation of energy is a human construct. No-one has ever observed PE being converted into KE as a physical process in the wild.
For those in the UK:
Sandy: Anatomy of a Superstorm – 8.00pm on BBC2 tonight, for those interested in the Beeb’s take on this event.
BBC2 are also currently currently showing Operation Iceberg – 7.00pm – Life and Death of a ‘berg.
This is the 2nd part of a 2 part series examining what causes a berg to break up
anybody care to do the math to determine the relative contribution to buoyancy in a hot-air balloon of the ‘less dense heated air’ and the ‘WATER GAS’?
convection is not required for water gas to rise.
(and heat is not measured in degrees)
tallbloke says:
November 18, 2012 at 9:56 am
It’s still worth having a think about the dynamic situation as well as the contained situation.
============
My point was more that even our understanding of the lapse rate is subject to competing theories and if you accept that gravity is not the cause of the lapse rate, then you end up with a surprising result that CO2 may in fact be cooling the atmosphere rather than warming, due to increased radiation of convected energy. Which would explain why we have seen flat temperatures with rising CO2.
What we found what that gravity alone did not result in a lapse rate. However, if we added a heater to the surface you got a lapse rate, but it was exponential. If you also added a radiator (GHG) to the sky, then you got a lapse rate similar to observed, and surface temperatures declined. If you then varied the gravity, the lapse rate increased and decreased, with the greatest lapse rate observed with the greatest gravity.
This suggests that both the gravity theory and GHG theory of lapse rate are incomplete; that the observed lapse rate is a result of the interaction between gravity and GHG.
The effect of the greenhouse effect … on greenhouses>
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-11/16/content_15936046.htm
Should there be a precipitous drop in temperature over the next decade or two, I predict the response from the warmists will be a rapid and uncritical (and irony-deprived) switch to “man-caused cooling, we’re all going to die, give us more money and power!”
Gorebots.
Gore is a politician with no scruples. He just wants to look good and rake in more “green”. (With maybe a massage on the side.)
WUWT is good, honest science and only as political as an error-riddled political agenda requires.
New topic: car thermometers. Car thermometers generally show a * when their readings get down toward freezing, The new car I bought in 1995, a Vauxhall Cavalier, displayed this at 3degC and below (in 1/2 degree intervals). My newer car, a Skoda Octavia, bought in 2010, displays it at 4degC and below.
Now, I traded one in for the other, so I couldn’t see their readings simultaneously. (Actually, for 10 minutes I could have achieved this and I wish I had.) My question is: are car manufacturers inflating their thermometer readings, to increase support for global warming (look how hot you car says it is!) but for safety’s sake then have to inflate the “danger” level, and we see this by the 4degC threshold instead of 3?
Though personally I don’t get particularly cautious about road conditions unless the thermometer is showing 1degC or less.
Anyone else noticed this sort of thing?
Rich.
Open thread?
Is Toronto prepared for another Hazel like event?
http://glendon.irisyorku.ca/wp-content/uploads/glendon/2011/07/TRAC-watershed.jpg
“It was like dumping a lake the size of Lake Simcoe on the Humber River drainage area and having it all trying to get out by way of the river at once,”
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ouragans-hurricanes/default.asp?lang=En&n=5C4829A9-1
Merovign says: @ November 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Should there be a precipitous drop in temperature over the next decade or two, I predict the response from the warmists will be a rapid and uncritical (and irony-deprived) switch to “man-caused cooling, we’re all going to die, give us more money and power!”
_________________________
Nah, The already worked that shift. That is why the third time round they are using Climate Change and Weather Weirding. Mother Nature could dance up to the White House and knock on the door and it still would not matter. It has always been about “Social Change” not “Climate Change”.
Reminds me of the Society for Creative Anachronism except those people know they are just playing around on vacation.
See – owe to Rich says:
November 18, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I hope that was a bit tongue in cheek? seriously, the freezing warning ‘guide’ is just that – and it’s based on the air temp at car height not actual ground temps. Basically a ground frost can occur even with apparent air temps of a couple of degrees (or four!), so the freezing symbol warning is just that – a warning – not a precise indicator! usually the sudden difference occurs in dips or ground hollows – many times I have been bundling along a road and suddenly found black ice just cause of topographical changes. It really is just a warning device for people who don;t get ot in cold weather much!
I don’t know Rich, my card is15 years old, made before there were thermometers 🙂 Also, here in ottawa, a thermometer that cannot read down to minus 40 C is worthless. -30C is hit sometime every winter; even mild ones.
Merovign, not their line will be: “Just imagine how much worse it would be if it were not for this fortuitous temporary cooling. We will all fry more suddenly later, and given the extreme amount of cooling introduced by this natural cooling, we understand the warming is even worse than we thought.”
From tallbloke on November 18, 2012 at 9:56 am:
No one has observed potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the wild? No one has ever seen an apple fall from a tree, or an object from a shelf?
I’ve done better than that, I’ve converted self-generated mechanical energy to potential energy while climbing a ladder, then experienced the conversion to kinetic energy when falling off the ladder!
If you’re going to be making such bizarre obviously-untrue statements, you should be using /sarc tags lest someone should accidentally take you seriously.
“””””…..Eco-geek says:
November 18, 2012 at 3:50 am
A question for everybody:
It is very easy to demonstrate that GHGs radiate a great deal of energy out into space, more so than non-GHGs and at lower average temperatures. I took this up in the Coolist’s View article at anthropogenicglobalcooling.com. This easy-read article completely demolishes the simple models of global warming presented on warmist websites……”””””
Well Eco, every single graph I have ever seen, of the EM radiation spectrum of the Earth as seen from outer space, shows a Black Body like spectrum, that generally peaks at around 10 microns wavelength, which correlates well with the purported 288 K mean surface Temperature of the Earth surface. (15 deg C or 59 deg F). The spectrum deviates from BB, in that it shows two dips in the spectral irradiance; one covering the range of 13.5 to 16.5 microns which is the CO2 degenerate bending mode resonance of the CO2 molecule; the so called 15 micron band. The other prominent dip is considerably narrower at around 9.6 microns, and is the well known absorption band of O3, Ozone. It is narrower than the CO2 band, largely as a result of the fact that the Ozone layer is a thin high cold low density layer, so the Temperature (Doppler) broadening, and collision (pressure) broadening of the band is much less than the CO2 band which is absorption occurring much nearer to the surface, at higher Temperatures and pressures.
The rest of the radiation is apparently directly from the warmer surface, unhindered by atmospheric gas absorptions. It differs from a true BB spectrum, in that the surface is far from uniform in Temperature at 288 Kelvins, ranging from as low as -90 deg C (-130 deg F) almost, and close to +60 deg C (140 deg F. This range is important, since at the higher dry desert surface Temperatures, the radiance is almost double the value for 288 K (390 W/m^2), and the spectrum peak is down around 8.8 microns, instead of 10.1 so CO2 is less absorptive, and even Ozone is muted. On the other hand, the colder polar regions like at Vostok Station, the Temperatures are so low, that the radiance is only about 1/6th to 1/5th of the 288 K value. Moreover it also peaks right on the 15 micron CO2 band, so the polar regions are very ineffective at radiatively cooling the earth; compared to the hottest tropical deserts; not to mention the asphalt of Urban Heat Islands.
Also despite what all the climatism text books say, non GHG atmospheric gases DO radiate EM radiation; but it is not molecular resonance radiation spectral components, but a continuum thermal radiation spectrum, depending only on the gas Temperature, just like any other thermal spectrum. And since the number of NON GHG gas molecules is thousands of times greater than the GHG numbers (other than H2O vapor), the amount of that radiation is not inconsequential. But it is hardly distinguishable from the radiation emitted from the solid/liquid surface, since they are at nearly the same temperature.
Of course even the total absorption of the atmosphere gases is so small compared to that of liquids and solids, that, it can hardly be described as a black body; but it must have the same spectrum.
As to a level of CO2 abundance causing CO2 to go from cooling to warming; the possibility of that occurring, must be prohibited by ANY belief in a theory that the CO2 abundance to global surface Temperature is logarithmic. If it IS logarithmic, ANY doubling of CO2 abundance, must increase the Temperature by whatever the climate sensitivity number is claimed to be. If that isn’t true, then the relation ISN’T logarithmic. There’s no experimental data that shows a logarithmic relation, nor is there a physical theory claiming it should be.
I don’t know if anybody is interested, but for fun I have plotted various graphs of the gorefest viewers for the period the “currently viewing” data was available (and from when I started collecting it). Alas, that’s only for about an hour starting in the second hour. There are also plots of WUWT-TV from the same period.
http://grostemps.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/early-viewer-plots/
As a personal aside, one of the many things I may do is work for a telecommunications company where I regularly shovel data to produce accurate bills, while generally keeping a look-out for Artificially Inflated Traffic.
Gore’s extravagantly produced and advertised alarmism are advertisements for his carbon trading company, and highly lucrative advocacy, but it is impossible for anyone on the “climate change” side to admit this, or that following the money always leads to them.
The following is somewhat off topic.
I simply don’t have the time, money, ability, and facilities to become expert in all areas of climatology, statistics, and computer modeling. However, the more time I spend at it the more it becomes obvious that the “denier” side is generally more open, honest, objective, moral, ethical, and polite than the “climate change” side.
Of course there are fools, ignorant, and incompetent on the “denier” side. Of course all the “denier” conjunctures / hypothesis / theories cannot be correct. But, the same is true for the “climate change” side; in my experience far more so, particularly the ignorant.
Most questions “deniers” ask of the “climate change” side are valid and significant. In many cases all the “climate change” people have to do to prove themselves is to actually fully publish assumptions, data, methods, computer code as the cannons of science demands they do, but they won’t. The only reasonable conclusion is they have no confidence in their own assumptions, data, methods, computer code.
They must also stop making, what seems to outsiders, arbitrary adjustments to data to “confirm” previous extrapolations, unless they give explicit reasons REQUIRING this. In any case they should give results with unadjusted as well as adjusted data. They must stop “moving the goalposts”. They must be constant about weather not being climate. They must not answer questions about IPCC models with references to anything except IPCC models and real measurements. Just because some climatologist, some where, some time wrote something seemingly consistent with current conditions has nothing to do with IPCC models validity. They must admit backcasting, I learned it as “truthing”, proves noting about forecasting; it is merely an aid to, hopefully, improve it.
I also occasionally follow “climate change” blogs. The other night I followed one exchange between a “denier” and some “climate change” people. They, seemingly intentionally, repeatedly misunderstood what the “denier” was saying and asking, which he repeated in several ways very politely. They were allowed the most extremely unflattering and impolite language. They were allowed to bring in entirely extraneous information. He was held to the most rigorous standard. They must hold themselves to the same standards they hold others to.
I dislike the sloppy way data is presented. I was taught:
Graphs linear scale start at 0. If this is too inconvenient, a break with the 0 is shown. When this is too inconvenient the known extreme ranges are shown.
When percentages, fractions, or ratios are shown, the actual numeric values are shown.
When anomalies are shown the actual value of the 0 is also shown.
When adjustments are made to data, data is omitted, or data from different sources is combined, attention is called to this, and a reference to the original unaltered complete data and sources is given. In all cases full explicit justification is given either in the paper or in references.
Do not believe the twelfth order consequences of first order data.
If the correlation stated is not apparent to the eye, it probably doesn’t really exist.
Every iteration extends the error bars.
Enough. I’m still learning. I may even may eventually find myself in the “climate change” camp. As for now, even if “deniers” are wrong, they seem a far more decent and honorable class of people, and I am satisfied to be with them.
[Here, on this site, we ask that you not use “denier” as a label. Mod]
OOPS! “conjectures” not “conjunctures”. Don’t know how I did that.
henrythethird says:
November 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm
“Reference in regards to Alexa.com – they don’t have the numbers up yet for the Gore-a-thon time frame, but it will be interesting to see how the numbers work out for that period.
These are numbers they CAN’T fudge, and will show if they peak out at the 16M numbers (and we need to see the “time-on-site” numbers, too).”
Looking now at http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ustream.tv since it has updated by now:
Average visitor time on site per day at ustream.tv was slightly above 3 minutes during the Gore-a-thon broadcast, which is merely the same as it always has been over the months. Certainly there was no huge surge of viewers watching a multi-hour video.
The bounce rate of visits consisting a single pageview was near 60%, again as usual.
On the 14th-15th time of the Gore-a-thon, traffic to ustream.tv peaked at around 0.18% of all global internet users. However, the vast bulk of those visitors would be watching other videos. The ustream.tv site is a general video hosting website, much like youtube, and over the months ustream.tv has ordinarily varied commonly between 0.14% and 0.2%.
The average for ustream.tv over the past 3 months has been 0.165%. Overall, I would guess a probable upper limit on net extra traffic from the Gore-a-thon to be anywhere between 0.00% (or negative) and +0.03%, as any more would have been more blatant rather than not even directly noticeable.
To convert that into numbers, I’ll observe that wattsupwiththat.com on an average day in the past 3 months gets 0.0085% of global internet users, which quantcast.com implies corresponds to around 15000 unique visitors a day and around 58000 page views per day.
Proportionately, then, the net extra traffic which ustream.tv received from the Gore-a-thon appears roughly on the order of 50000 extra unique visitors or less.
The plots are messy enough it is hard to be certain if there was even any net extra traffic to ustream.tv. Conceivably, the Gore-a-thon being highlighted on the front page of ustream.tv might even have primarily turned away viewers compared to days when more entertaining videos are in the same spot.
But my best guess from the preceding is up to tens of thousands of extra unique visitors, which would mean an unknown number of extra pageviews from humans including refreshes, perhaps up to hundreds of thousands of extra pageviews.
Total human viewers passing through the video, such as browsing for a few seconds to a minute or two, might often come from people already visiting ustream.tv for other reasons (and usually not particularly interesting in CAGW videos). So legitimate human viewers, albeit not really watching for long, could be higher than the preceding estimate.
However, 16 million is just totally out of the ballpark. So, overall it looks like the bot hypothesis is very likely so — either that or essentially some other form of computer error or falsehood. While any sufficiently huge sample of humans should statistically have at least some running the Alexa toolbar (the reason alexa.com can work in general), if there was one or more bots which did not, that could account for the figures.
Meanwhile, for example, skepticalscience (the CAGW site) is saying the Climate Reality Project (Gore’s program) got 16 million views; Wikipedia is saying the last one before got 8.6 to 9 million views; climaterealityproject.org is saying “last year’s live Ustream broadcast garnered more than 8 million views”; et cetera.
As illustrated, clearly all that is BS (for the implication to readers that a comparable number of humans watched), so actually Gore’s broadcast versus reporting of its viewership provides yet another example of the dishonesty typical of the CAGW movement.
Henry Clark said (November 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm)
Lots of numbers and stuff (all of it good and interesting) – but can you tell if some of their users went directly to climaterealityproject.org and not through UStream?
Also, how do the numbers from WUWT seem to be shaping up?
Sorry about the “d” word. I thought putting it in quotes would make it clear I was leaning over backwards, as was “climate change” instead of CAGW alarmists.
Those who are still misled into thinking that the temperature on Venus has anything to do with a greenhouse effect should read Section 8 of this paper
.
This will be one of those wars won by ragtag insurgent guerrillas armed with reality against professional armies of imperial domination equipped with deceit & deception.
Thanks to share.
henrythethird says:
November 18, 2012 at 8:01 pm
“Henry Clark said (November 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm)
Lots of numbers and stuff (all of it good and interesting) – but can you tell if some of their users went directly to climaterealityproject.org and not through UStream?
Also, how do the numbers from WUWT seem to be shaping up?”
For climaterealityproject.org itself, setting alexa.com to zoom in on the past 7 days, the number of people who visited it briefly reached 0.012% of global internet users for the peak daily value. That was a surge for the site, as it was much under 0.001% before and is presently dropping rapidly back down to an unknown but probably low number.
Using the WUWT comparison again, WUWT gets about 0.0085% of global internet users every day on average (not just on a special day) according to alexa.com , while meanwhile quantcast.com estimates that corresponds to 15000 unique visitors a day.
So, at that rate, climaterealityproject.org got on the order of 20000 visitors on its peak day from the 14th-15th Gore-a-thon.
But that is not much at all compared to the false figures of millions.
WUWT itself, as in wattsupwiththat.com , got a daily reach of around 0.0095% then, around 17000 visitors, a little above average but having averaged 0.0085% per day for the past 3 months.
In other words, climaterealityproject.org for a day got about 20000 visitors, with rapid fall-off afterwards, but WUWT gets roughly around 15000 viewers, every day, about 365 days a year.
Earlier in 2012, WUWT during a spike of activity reached 0.017% or about 30000 visitors in a day.
A bonus fact I noticed now:
Regarding the ustream.tv figures, Reg. Blank’s post (November 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm) links to his blog at http://grostemps.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/early-viewer-plots/ which practically shows a smoking gun for evidence of an automated false increase in view count (towards the 16 million absurdity): a linear trend so constant over time that automated bots could follow it but not a human visitor population more affected by the time of day or night, et cetera.
————————–
Some other material from the CAGW movement is more popular. The global warming article on Wikipedia gets on average 488000 views a month (though that is from a counter which counts any page refreshes from a single user repeatedly). Such corresponds to far more visitors over time than a nominal 16000 views a day, since it is a page many fresh visitors would pass through (as opposed to a lesser number visiting many times repeatedly). That could get up to millions of unique viewers over the years. That would far exceed even WUWT.
Largely, though, such is just from the general popularity of Wikipedia, with most people not even initially knowing that a CAGW movement team has taken over control of the climate articles. (Wikipedia is a decent source on information on totally unrelated topics without a partisan team to ensure dishonesty). 262 other articles on Wikipedia get more viewership, and the weekend versus weekday distinctive pattern in viewership of the global warming article means most viewers appear to be schoolkids. (There must be a lot of propaganda assignments in schools these days).
George (3.23pm): “non GHG atmospheric gases DO radiate EM radiation; but it is not molecular resonance radiation spectral components, but a continuum thermal radiation spectrum,”
I have been interested in this O2 and N2 radiation for some time. Perhaps you could help me with some documentation on it. My assumption is that it is still relatively insignificant when compared with water vapor, for otherwise we would not notice the effect of low cloud cover. But I suppose it could eclipse carbon dioxide.
ENSO index has been 0.12 deg for nearly a week (dropping fast), but the WUWT ENSO dial is still showing 0.5 deg.
On the Nature article: Drought Trends, Estimates Possibly Overstated Due To Inaccurate Science
WJR Alexander found no correlation of pan evaporation with the 21 year Hale solar cycle, but strong correlation between runoff and the Hale Cycle.
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development
David Stockwell found models predicting drought when reality was increasing precipitation. See:
CRITIQUE OF DROUGHT MODELS IN THE AUSTRALIAN DROUGHT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES REPORT (DECR)
I’ll try this again. Let’s see…16,000 WUWT/TV viewers versus 16,000,000 Al Gore viewers. Looks like Christiane Amanpour was right when she recently said, “…the denialist club is shrinking faster than the Artic Ice Cap.” And what’s WUWT’s answer, we’ll it’s another conspiracy of couse. You know, that’s getting a little old. JP
Conclusion
In response to a question about the article published today (to which I contributed) I will summarise what would happen in a hypothetical Earth with no water and an atmosphere of only nitrogen and oxygen, assumed not to radiate or absorb.
If this were the case the Earth’s surface would receive more radiation during the day because there would be (virtually) no absorption of incident solar radiation. When you then apply S-B (using integration on a real-world spherical surface) the majority of the radiation would take place directly from the surface at these hotter temperatures.
But there would still be an adiabatic lapse rate ensuring that the nitrogen and oxygen are much warmer at the base of the atmosphere than at the top, even if no energy flows in and out of the atmosphere. Thus is because an adiabatic lapse rate is just that – adiabatic – and so requires no energy input to maintain the temperature gradient. Thus the surface would not cool anywhere near as much as the Moon’s surface does at night. In fact, the surface temperature would be stabilised by conduction both from the atmosphere and the mass below the surface. There is no reason to believe its mean temperature would be much different, even though its temperature would vary more between day and night.
In a nutshell, this is why the accusation that radiating gases produce a GHE and raise the mean surface temperature is all garbage.
You can’t raise or lower the mean surface temperature significantly (within a few thousand years) without transferring an impossible amount of energy into or out of the whole Earth system, including all the mass beneath the crust, right down to the core.
That is the core of my argument.
See the big picture!
DC
Hey ClimateCyclist,
With regard to the comparison between Earth and Venus impedance of the air, and stability of the temperature across the day and night boundary, another candidate with the same conditions to a varying degree is Saturn’s moon TItan. Less than 3.0 degrees Kelvin difference between pole and equator, 1.47 times Earth atmospheric pressure. Nitrogen 95% methane 4.9% atmosphere.
I’d like to see Titan’s numbers plugged into your calculations. Might help to explain why Titan with it’s larger proportion of the GHG methane, and a surface albedo comparable to it’s close neighboring moon Hyperion, has the same surface temperature as that airless space rock.
What someone on our side should do is write a “counterpoint” article to the Wikipedia articles, especially the one on The Global Warming Controversy, which we could hand out or link to when arguing with those who’ve accepted the Wiki version as truth.
The same should be done for NOAA’s highly influential (especially with schoolkids) article, Global Climate Change: Evidence, at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ , which contains many half-truths and conveniently out-of-date claims. E.g.,
Unless the planet has a built-in thermostat.
Unless recent estimates have been mistaken, as seems apparent from:
Next:
According to what chart? Not HADCRUTs.
That relies on unreliable pre-Argo data.
See the comment from Bill Illis above on the rejiggering of the GRACE measurements.
That’s an overstatement and a half truth. They started retreating before 1950, most of them; They had retreated even more extensively in the recent past, as evidenced by debris and remains uncovered in the wake of their retreat; and they are not retreating in Africa’s Kilimanjaro and the Himalayas, according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
That’s a half-truth, because the average temperature in the US has been declining in the past ten years.
First, the numbers being used for this estimate aren’t really solid. Second, they misleadingly imply that we’re 30% of the way to oceanic neutralization. But actually that’s about two orders of magnitude (?) too high. Furthermore, the ocean’s have a negative feedback mechanism called buffering.
“””””…..ClimateCyclist says:
November 19, 2012 at 2:13 am
George (3.23pm): “non GHG atmospheric gases DO radiate EM radiation; but it is not molecular resonance radiation spectral components, but a continuum thermal radiation spectrum,”
I have been interested in this O2 and N2 radiation for some time. Perhaps you could help me with some documentation on it. My assumption is that it is still relatively insignificant when compared with water vapor, for otherwise we would not notice the effect of low cloud cover. But I suppose it could eclipse carbon dioxide……”””””
Well CC, we are talking about two totally different kinds of EM radiation. The GHG radiation or absorption; including CO2, H2O and O3, etc involves changes in the energy states of electrons in molecules; basically the molecular equivalent of atomic line spectra, first observed in radiation coming from the sun.
The EM radiation I was referring to, from N2, O2, H2, even from Ar, has nothing to do with atomic or molecular energy levels. So it has no discrete freuencies, but is a continuous spectrum of all energies. Its source is the acceleration of electric charge which occurs when atoms or molecules of a gas or anything else collide with each other, so as to distort the atoms during the collision.
Atomic or molecular gas electron clouds, have the same charge (opposite sign) as the nuclei, so the electrostatic forces are the same . But the nuclei of say N2 or O2, are about 3750 times as massive as the electrons, so virtually all of the momentum of such atoms or molecules is in the nucleus, so forces between approaching electron clouds have vastly different effects on the motion of the nuclei, so the atoms distort during the collision process, and the electric dipole moment is no longer zero, so the molecule or atom can radiate or absorb during those collisions.
Since the kinetics of the collision process, is entirely due to the gas Temperature, and of course pressure, the radiation is totally dependent on Temperature, which is why such radiation is called “Thermal” radiation.
Particle Physicists fully understand, how accelerated charges radiate, it is the entire reason for the existence of the two mile long Stanford, linear electron accelerator. Charged particles travelling in a circle are in constant acceleration so they must continuously radiate, which makes it harder to accelerate them to high energies.
I have no idea why climate scientists don’t understand this process, which is why all matter above zero Kelvins, radiates and absorbs EM radiation, following a generally black body spectrum.
It’s a process of individual atoms or molecules, and is weaker in gases since there are far fewer atoms or molecules, than in a liquid or solid.
What is the emissivity of N2 and O2 ? It would be fairly easy to calculate how much thermal energy is radiated upwards by N2 and O2 assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium. Surely someone must have been measured emissivity of N2 and its pressure,temperature dependence.
An isolated atom or molecule in free flight does not radiate EM radiation, and may not absorb much either.
But such an isolated particle has no Temperature, which is a property of macro systems; not single atoms or molecules.
@Robert A. Taylor ;
Another near(?) miss with near-homonyms:
I dunno who these cannons are, making demands, but the corrected clause reads:
“as the canons of science demand they do”.
Note the plural verb form, too.
_________
As for labels, I’m happy to be known as an AGW denier, but it’s used to imply “climate change denier”, far too broad (and nonsensical) a bin!
I kinda like the Doubter and Believer pairing, though!
@roger Knights Nov.20 9:12am What someone on our side should do is write a “counterpoint” article to the Wikipedia articles,
It seems to me you made a very effective start to that counterpoint.
Is this a candidate for a crowdsourced Counterpoint Reference Page?