This week is not exactly a true open thread… I do have one topic that I’d like to discuss. I’m considering doing a weekly radio show with the same name “Watts Up With That” and I’m interested to hear opinions on the topic.
The idea would be to have a show that would cover topics that we might not cover on the blog and allow interactivity including Callins via Skype, e-mailed questions, and questions submitted in advance.
A few years ago I had done a 24-hour television program to counter Al Gore’s 24 hours of climate reality. While that effort was reasonably successful it required a huge amount of effort to produce. Radio type programs however require far less effort and can be just as effective at communications and equally entertaining if not more. It would be streamed live so that people around the world could listen in, and would be recorded also as a podcast.
While not a sure thing that I will do this, I thought I’d ask readers to see what they thought about it and I welcome any ideas that you might have.
Of course, any other topics within our normal purview are open on this open thread as well.
Thanks for your input and thanks to everyone who commented on my personal note earlier this week. It was very heartfelt and uplifting that I have so many friends around the world.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pro-Trump super pac ad “It Takes Two”:
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2016/07/rebuilding-america-now-donald-trump.html
ps. Would you consider adding CC to your blogroll?
An excellent idea and I would expand on Lord M’s suggestion to reduce your personal load by employing youtube and teaming up with people like Dennis Prager for presentations of talks like this from Lomborg https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-whats-so-alarming
How about : “WUWT – The Week in Review”.
A weekly podcast reviewing the articles and subsequent posts on WUWT. You could do a short review of the articles posted that week and reference any interesting discussion/comments from posters on that article, kind of like a newscast. As we readers well know, there are many finer points brought up by those with experience in different areas which you could point out always referring listeners back to the written discussion on the blog. It would be a lot less work as the content of the podcast is already done. And, for those who could not read the blog that week for whatever reason, it be nice to know if there were any posts of interest for that person.
So any thoughts about the cruise ship planned passage through the northwest passage in August. If they run into an issue Canada is light on recourses in that area for aid.
The Atlantic hurricane season has been incredibly quiet (so far), with total Accumulated Cyclonic Energy (ACE) of 6 with the season average being 110. For details please see — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/yes-its-hot-but/
However, ACE really isn’t a terribly good measure of hurricane power, as it totally ignores the physical extent of the hurricane. I don’t know enough about what radar is capable of, so I ask is it possible to measure windspeed at the surface from a satellite in defined areas (say a square 10 kiloMeters on a side). Then a simple ‘integration’ could be done (a la Riemann). What does the readership say?
Anthony
These are general observations – don’t get too sensitive out there
This is a great idea, but what is it going to be?
Another site or location that simply knocks CAGW or AGW theories, there is enough of them already. They criticize but don’t offer anything concrete in return, and leave the viewer perplexed or non the wiser.
You must also remember that skeptics are mostly in a rut of knowledge just as much as the pro AGW crowd, because there is so little real knowledge out there. Where is the library of real facts that can be referenced readily – what is real. They need to be in one place.
There is a serious need unpick the current belief structure for reality to emerge, let me give a few examples.
The carbon cycle. The IPCC’s simplistic drawing and theory is just accepted by both sides, however this is a key foundation document. There are thirty sequential NASA OCO-2 images released on the 14th April that seriously challenge the IPCC theory, but no-one wants to acknowledge that they are there, let alone comment on them. Such is the poor understanding of the CO2 cycle. Where is the evidence to support the current IPCC carbon cycle theory. It is a theory. There is the content for first few shows, and don’t just skip through it. These are the most important images at this time in the debate. Is this not what the debate centers around ?? or have I got it wrong?
The keeling curves. There is no scientific explanation why the mid to high NH latitude keeling curves stop increasing and almost go flat during the NH winter when accumulations are are the highest..They do not show accumulation, so where is the CO2 bearing atmosphere going to?. If the IPCC cannot explain it in conjunction with the OCO-2 images then what are they basing their models on?
The debate needs to be widened in a calm and controlled manner, and starting at the very bottom is always a the best place. Build a new foundation, or seriously call the current foundation to question. We just cant continue waiting for next months temperature charts.
Regards
A good topic for the blog or any forum Anthony chooses to use would be:
What has happened to all the requests for the official keepers of the land based climate data to reveal the WHAT and WHY of their adjustments?
The satellite data spells it out clearly. Why should we believe 4 warmest records, none of whom will tell us what they’ve done.
OTOH, the whole corrupt climate alarmism gig is up if Trump be elected president.
Don’t bet on Trump being able to do much. The USA president has little power unless she has a Westminster Parliamentary majority. The best recent example of this was George W who came on with both a majority in Congress and a plan and therefore accomplished quite a bit. (Unfortunately, that includes destroying the Middle East -and the world- by starting Gulf War II. His dad, with CIA experience, refused to go there in 1989-93.)
However, it should be noted that George W, the oil baron did more for Renewable Energy than all previous USA presidents together by passing a 30% tax credit to install Renewable Energy. This was at first matched by NJ and CA, and now by most USA states. This is one reason the USA is leading in the use of Solar & Wind, to the point where Coal companies are going bankrupt. They’ve done so well that RE capex is often cheaper than other methods of generation, and the USA could be saving their treasury by weaning their country off the tax credit by 25% /year until it’s gone.
The best thing to come from CAGW alarmism will be much cleaner air, water and soil. (I’ll never know if my mum’s death from Alzheimer’s was caused by the mercury in the smoke from Nanticoke Coal-fired electricity, but it’s closing was predicted to save C$3B /year to the public Ontario Medicare system.)
If we’re lucky, RE will also put an end to the perils of Nuclear energy which is unaffordable, uninsurable, and undisposable.
“This is one reason the USA is leading in the use of Solar & Wind, to the point where Coal companies are going bankrupt”
No, the reason is: fracking.
“If we’re lucky, RE will also put an end to the perils of Nuclear energy which is unaffordable, uninsurable, and undisposable.”
It is not only “affordable”, but also very cheap once you remove all the silly “regulations”. It is insured. And there is no “disposal” issue.
The problems are self-inflicted, not technological limitations.
“It is not only “affordable”, but also very cheap once you remove all the silly “regulations”. It is insured. And there is no “disposal” issue.”
Un-Affordable:
Every refurbishment is over-budget in Ontario, where these costs are hidden in ‘Global Adjustment’ under the cost of Wind & Solar, rather than in the cost of having Nuclear electricity. Thus we have a false picture of the true cost of Nuclear electricity. New systems in Finland & England are over-budget.
Un-Insurable:
PM Harper forced the Canadian Nuclear industry to raise liability insurance limits from C$100M (1965) to C$500M (2013). For perspective, this is the expected settlement of the Lac Mégantic oil train crash which killed 147 and destroyed the town’s downtown. How much would it cost to evacuate Southern Ontario, and neighbouring Québec & Western New York if an unanticipated Fukushima-style event happened to Pickering or Darlington? (Can you imagine their 1965 builders planning for a tsunami on the Great Lakes? Today, we can all imagine how that might happen.)
Who paid the Fukushima evacuees for their losses of homes, businesses and jobs?
150,837 = the number of people displaced by Fukushima.
How much did it cost?
Un-Disposable:
55 years ago we were taught about Nuclear power in science class, and how safe our CANDU heavy water system is (it is likely the safest of all Nuclear systems). “The only problem,” said our teacher, is that they still don’t know how & where to store or dispose of the radioactive spent fuel for 300,000 years, and the radioactive concrete and steel buildings for 10,000. But don’t worry, the engineers will solve that in the next decade.” LOL! Ha!
Here’s what tiny Finland is doing:
http://www.IntoEternityTheMovie.com/150837/
What’s being done in USA? UK? France? Germany? South Korea? Russia? China? Japan? Romania? Argentina? Sweden? Who else makes electricity from Nuclear? Is Finland the only country actively building a place to store a mere 50-60 years of production, before the generators are retired and new ones are built?
Green energy may have occurred for the wrong AGW reasons, but it may yet save our grandchildren.
“New systems in Finland & England are over-budget.”
New systems in England are over-budget? Which new systems?
“this is the expected settlement of the Lac Mégantic oil train crash which killed 147 and destroyed the town’s downtown”
How would a nuclear accident possibly kill 147 persons and/or destroy the town’s downtown?
“unanticipated Fukushima-style event happened to Pickering or Darlington?”
Why would anyone want to evacuate in Fukushima unless coerced by crazy antinuc?
“150,837 = the number of people displaced by Fukushima”
Please explain why then moved.
“What’s being done in USA? UK? France?”
In France we have an underground site being tested for long term storage. We may never use it.
Do you realize all your inane “arguments” have been debunked like a thousands times?
Thoughts on radio program:
1) A radio format may make it easier to monetize the effort required to support WUWT. This is important as the growth of WUWT undoubtedly requires significant and increased time and resource from Anthony.
2) RADIO PROGRAMS & BLOGS ARE 2 VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS – personally, I would not relate as well to a radio program as I do the blog format. While I easily enjoy the good humor, the analytical components of the blog requires me to think about and re-read the material.
3) Interactive media (radio, TV, YouTube, podcast, etc) become personality, not topic/fact driven (did you ever really see a good guest host for Johnny Carson?). A few months of talk about George Mason college professors wanting to throw us in prison will get old pretty quickly, not to mention comments about statistical error bars.
3 a) A potentially interesting format might be to expand upon the 1-2 “most interesting” threads of the past week (most of Tisdale’s stuff lends itself to this treatment)
4) Other than on Earth Day, an incredible percent of the population (90-95%+?) has neither the skill set or interest to engage with this critical topic.
5) I certainly don’t mean to imply I can read Anthony’s mind, but if I were in his shoes, this would be a very sensitive open discussion & decision. We almost have a YAHOO situation here – lots of people use WUWT but nobody pays for it.
6) I am supportive of a WUWT subscription-based product (Example: read for free; $10-20/mo to comment?) if it is significant enough to appropriately reward Anthony’s efforts. This audience has previously rejected this, but we need to be realistic about the amount of effort WUWT’s continued success requires of a single individual.
I realize I have viewed this discussion from the single dimension of finance; hopefully others have will share wisdom on increasing the audience for a critical topic.
Anthony – HELP!
I’m trying to eat my own dog food and set up a recurring monthly donation on the PayPal page.
It looks like the page is set up for one-and-done contributions, or am I missing something?
Just make sure you get it on one of those “super radio” stations and become the Wolf Man Jack of Science for the South Western United States. I remember driving under the night sky along route 66 to that show.
fossilage ( great moniker that alone made me chuckle) And thanks for that comment , brought up lots of great memories.
Hmm there are many examples of taking the next step and losing it all..be careful, be sure you got it right. The Watts Up With That name is fantastic and suggests a show that is out there digging behind the scene, I think a show that looks behind the scenes at all things scientific would be better than limiting the scope to climate topics. I think it would be vital to attempt to provide the best participants for pro and con on any issue dealt with, if it is successful WUWT could become a fantastic platform for debating all manner of current science related issues in a manner that respects the highest standards of integrity, if this is done right I have no doubt that it could become a major success, the need is there hope you can fill it.
There may be a few Talk Radio host that would be happy to advise you for free. Maybe they’d even give you some air-time on their show.
Including the Mark Levin show Radio/TV….I am pretty sure he is aware of WUWT, because he brings up a lot of the issues discussed here.
Radio Station 2GB in Australia is prepared to interview ‘skeptics’, in a snappy maximum 30 minute format on prime time AM radio.
This is known as ‘Steam Radio’ yet captures drivers stuck in traffic jams.
The working, commuting population.
The thing to do is not to try and convert the USA.
Look for people in the English speaking world, as well as the USA, on any radio station and talk with them.
Put it as a pod on youtube with illustrative pictures.
I was in a minority of one yesterday with the relatives.
Topics I covered were,
97% scientist believe in AGW so if you don’t you cannot be right.
The nature of the scientific method. Hypothesis, predictions which are not changed after they are made, the results, do they confirm predictions?
I was once swayed by the Hypothesis of AGW, which is just an educated guess.
As the data unfolded the IPCC predictions are way too high and can’t be believed.
Science is not faith based, as the data comes in and theories don’t stack up then I don’t believe them.
In this case I don’t believe the IPCC.
Question’ Do you believe the climate is warming?
Yes, but not catastrophically, it could be good.
I asked, what is the Earths major greenhouse Gas.
Answer; CO2.
Then what is causing warming?
I don’t know, but the CO2 hypothesis relies on water vapour , the real green house gas, increasing, which is not happening.Our increasing CO2 output is suppose to increase evaporation of the oceans and atmospheric water vapour.
The theory says there is a hot spot in the equatorial region high up.
Its not there.
There are dozens of reasons to explain the failure of the IPCC models,but they need to be tested.
Subsequently talked about the Carboniferous, the high CO2 then without run away heating, Mars does not cook despite CO2, all the planets are warming anyway.
Plants evolved in a carbon rich atmosphere during the Carboniferous and are now deprived of CO2, so increasing CO2 helps them grow.The Biosphere has expanded 10%.
The Gaia theory where the planet would be better off without us is essentially hopelessness and
would need wiping out large parts of humanity.
We can manage things without fear.
I am writing this because these were the questions put by those being taught in the current secondary UK curricula.
Fertile ground I would think.
So these are the best topics to first cover.
Hello my friend Anthony,
Good luck with your “radio” endeavor, whatever form it takes, if you decide to proceed. I am hesitant to overdo my contribution to your thinking at this point. But, after several years of doing radio talk shows (Yes, I did radio as well as television.) I can’t resist a sharing a few of my thoughts.
First, you do not have to commit yourself to daily or weekly programs for a year or more. You can simply do programs for a week, a month or three months and then access the viability (in terms of income, reach, personal satisfaction, contribution to the cause) of the effort a decide to pull the plug or “turn it up” to a full time channel with a full team trying to turn the world upside down.
Second, every hour “on the air” requires a minimum of one hour in preparation. You either do it yourself or build a team to do it for you.
Most listening today is in the car. Wi-fi automobiles are beginning to come on-line. Most new cars at least have blue tooth connectivity so a program acquired on the phone can be heard via the “radio” speakers. You need to have the “broadcasts” available via ITunes, or Pandora or I Heart or Slacker, etc.
Yes there is lots of video viewing now on phones and pads and PC’s and You Tube is there for distribution, but significant financial viability is probably out of reach.
You are a driven, talented person and highly knowledgeable. Your amazing website will provide a the launch point and create a huge sampling. Turning this into a regular saleable tune-in will be one the biggest challenges of your life.
You know I will give you my support in any way you desire and I can manage. I am sure the line up of friends to climb aboard will be long and strong.
Good luck.
Regards
One more thought…How about lifting the audio from You Tube videos. They very often make excellent listening and video is un important. Who needs to see Michael Crichton to appreciate what he has to say. Listen to this while looking at other stuff. It works
Anthony,
Do whatever makes you the most satisfied considering whatever has the greatest impact to save us from the alarmists.
Several additional considerations:
1) Will it water down the impact of WUWT blog or are we talking about an addition?
2) For me I use the data and the plots to learn and send snips to others which is difficult on radio, OK for U tube.
3) Many of my contacts tend not to click on links, so I focus on charts plots and data to send them. How would this work with Radio or U tube.
4) U-Tube would be great if TV stations show snippets during NEWS or other programs.
5) Blog comes across well in Facebook if skeptic message appears on headlines, most will not click on page for more information.
All the best!
Does anyone know when all the global ice tracking satellite data will be fixed??
The pro-AGW “scientists” seem to have spliced JAXA data for some datasets, but, of course, JAXA data skews the data to make things worse than they are…
I’m confident when the powers that be “fix” global ice, they’ll use “new and improved” algorithms to make the data fit the CAGW gloom and doom narrative as much as possible…
Radio shows available as podcasts would be be great. While traveling I listened to audio books that I never felt I had time to otherwisee read. Similarly podcasts would be very attractive to people as a source of information while driving or engaging in other activities.
Would the radio show impact the updating of the Watts et al 2012 paper? If so, I’d say the paper has a higher priority.
I agree with Janice. If you start something and enjoy doing it – very well continue, but if it becomes a burden or interferes with this website (WUWT), I would have 2nd thoughts. Continue doing what you think is best. You have done so well so far, and I have every confidence that you will continue along those lines. What ever you decide “we” support you…
I would say that podcasts are the way to go. Just make sure that your guests are interesting. Alex Epstein’s Power Hour is very good, and EconTalk has had some brilliant people on: Judith Curry, Matt Ridley (fantastic).
A debate between the world’s leading alarmists and sceptics would be great fun, but I doubt the former would turn up. However, it would be good to have a platform where week in and week out you could say “We invited X on to the show, but he/she declined”.
It sounds a great idea to me, Anthony. Go for it! 🙂
I think it would be great whatever medium you decide to do it in – lots of subjects surrounding climate change science – best of success whatever you decide. 😀
If you do a radio show, I hope it would be in addition to, not instead of, WUWT as it now exists. The blog is up 24/7, and I can access it whenever I wish; a new radio program would require (for me, at least) tuning in when it is on, if a station hereabouts carries it. I’m sure I would enjoy whatever show you end up with, but I depend on your current format. Keep it coming, please!
Open question: Does CO2 “still” tend to follow T in paleoclimate?
and is this in itself a firm basis on which to “reject” climate hype?
Back in the dim past of May 2014 for the folks at Slashdot I laid down this layman’s view of my position on what I call CO2drivesT which I invite everyone to read, especially Mr. Eschenbach who is mentioned. My feeling then (as now) is that the lag is extremely important. Unless CO2 consistently leads T there would be an extraordinary burden of proof required to assert CO2drivesT, and it has not been met.
Since the I saw the subject there was this December post The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4 [Euan Mearns] which attacks the subject a greater depth and posits a CO2lagsT of ~8000 years (what’s with the mix of ~800 and ~8000 year lag figures I see on the net? I know the data resolution is not great but it’s interesting that the figures both begin with ‘8’)… and Mearns understates what I state loudly, very well but his final conclusion is no understatement,
[in Conclusions] “I am not the first to observe that CO2 lags temperature in Vostok [2] and indeed Petit et al [1] make the observation that at the onset of glaciation CO2 lags temperature by several thousand years. But they fail to discuss this and the fairly profound implications it has.
[…] The only conclusion possible from Vostok is that variations in CO2 and CH4 are both caused by global temperature change and freeze thaw cycles at high latitudes. These natural geochemical cycles makes it inevitable that CO2 and CH4 will correlate with temperature. It is therefore totally invalid to use this relationship as evidence for CO2 forcing of climate, especially since during the onset of glaciations, there is no correlation at all.”
So is this the elephant in the room? Just what direct evidence is there for extreme forced feedback, and in order to “prove” it must we attack the veracity and alignment of Vostok data?