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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?