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.
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: @ur momisugly 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.