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.
Personally, I don’t like podcasts or videos that require me to listen to someone talk to me about a subject. I far prefer reading the transcript or text (no such thing as tl;dr for me) so that I can progress at my own pace and not have to listen to the vocal tics of the speaker. A site that is video or podcast-centric gets very few views from me. I know this site wouldn’t become that, but I wouldn’t see it as added value, either.
Gareth, You don’t have an idea about the goldmine against world leaders Merkel, Obama, Putin and that ilk.
gareth on July 31, 2016 at 2:57 pm
americans are worth – red Sox.
Yes, podcast good idea, so long as you have enough content to keep it up. My feeling is that the global warming scare is gently dying, but there is plenty of other interesting climate/weather/science stuff to be going on with. Maybe give Kenji a guest spot each week?
“So, what’s your take on the climate outlook Kenji?”
“Ruff!”
Kenji becomes the official consultant from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
could be interesting, but for me to hear it would need to simucast it over internet.
would your hearing issues be a problem with call ins or would there be second person/producer there?
Anthony,
You have proved yourself with WUWT to be a world leader.
You are a marketable commodity.
Why not let it be known that you wish to enter radio or video and let the experts chase you for a fee.
Don’t leave it too many years before you capitalise on all the prior hard work.
The radio and video pros know what you might be able to structure successfully.
Best wishes Geoff Sherrington Melbourne
I think it would be a good idea as long as it doesn’t put too much work/pressure on you as John Coleman said try doing it for a bit and see how it goes.
James Bull
Please, please, PLEASE do this show. We in the rational world are desperate for it. In fact, how about that for a subtitle: “Climate Science for the Rational World.”
Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. NAS 2016
Any thoughts on this new publication from the National Academy of Sciences on: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. (link below)
I’ve browsed through it and find no substantial change to SREX. The only clearly attributable ‘extreme’ events are: ‘more warm days and fewer cold days’. Ha ha!.
Otherwise, it tells us that attributing extreme events to CC is very difficult, and complicated by the infludence of natural variability. Wow!
There are two disturbing aspects. 1. The approach is: ‘we will keep trying, and if we try hard enough we WILL find a way to attribute extreme events to CC’. and 2. The long list of academics who seem content to sign their names to this crap.
https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=3u908pgur82dq#4124162708
Radio stations: I suggest a ‘YouTube channel’ that you add video/sound recording too.
Every week you could upload a summary screen with links that point to your latest recordings.
One of these could be a weekly ‘phone in’ via Skype multi-user.
Over time, you would build up a body of work which could be fed into an ‘internet radio channel’.
The whole operation will be very time sensitive and quite an additional pressure up on you.
I have a relative who does a 2 hour, twice a month program on an internet radio show (which uses ‘shoutcast’), and once per week on a local terrestrial radio station. The internet show is as pressured as the terrestrial one!
It is a very good idea as it may cater to those who do not like reading masses of words off a screen.
Mr. Anthony Watts , by the way, I think to be having similar hearing difficulties . Very pleased that you can talk about such easily.
Great time with you – Hans
nota benefits – with that new radio podcast : interested following.
Mr. Anthony Watts , by the way, I think to be having similar hearing difficulties . Very pleased that you can talk about such easily.
Great time with you – Hans
nota bene – with that new radio podcast : interested following.
_________________________
benefits 2 bene – really hate that autocorrection.
very afraid about THAT thread.
Have a great day. Hans
What matters the most is a definition of CO2=pollution, global climate models and other model projections based on those assumptions and the IPCC reports. These are considered to be infallible sources. World governments, along with numerous other entities have a plan, that usually enriches their agenda/self serving objective. We MUST follow this plan.
Those that get in the way must be marginalized/eliminated.
Climate science/meteorology, along with plant science, biology, agronomy and many other sciences have been hijacked for the purpose of accomplishing this mission.
Seriously, it can’t really be saving the planet because the actual greening planet is shouting out loudly that it wants more CO2.
A radio show might turn out similar to this blog – an audio version also dominated by bloviating amateurs with time on their hands, just not enough time to do real homework and actual research.
My objections to the science behind mankind driven climate change:
The greenhouse effect theory, i.e. upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation violates conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws. Yes, it really does! Not that it matters because the theory actually does not do anything, i.e. no net change in radiation balance at ToA.
The notion that the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without is incorrect. The conditions postulated for the “no atmosphere” scenario are quite obviously with an atmosphere. The true explanation of the surface temperature, heat transfer’s most fundamental equation, Q = U * A * dT, is ignored.
The Stephan Boltzmann ideal black body equation is incorrectly applied by ignoring the theory’s limitations and conditions, e.g. presence of a vacuum, no conduction/convection, emissivity, gas density, tropospheric temperatures, etc.
The eccentricity of the earth’s orbit causes a ToA TSI fluctuation 10 times greater than the atmospheric heating due to CO2. Natural variations such as eccentricity, albedo, water vapor, vegetation, etc. are orders of magnitude more influential over the climate than GHGs/CO2.
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
(Sorry, I’m not a food editor, unemployed standup comic, massage therapist, nematologist, or fresh out of journalism school so I might be unqualified.)
I like the idea of a radio show to spread the word to a more mainstream audience. But it is a different medium – it’s a ‘show’ – with all the trappings and props.
AND you better be prepared, because it’s a whole new level of Troll that’s going to come after you.
i think the idea of the radio show is a good one. If time zones will allow i definitely will tune in.
but a podcast would be nice too
actually if yuo plan to do a podcast mixcloud may do the job pretty well i for sure would tune in there if the time zone makes real time listening impossible.
I like Janice Moore and Christopher Monckton suggestions
IN UK any American radio station is seen as rabid right wing and automatically dismissed as biased and wrong eg Rush Limbaugh – Regardless of any actual merit, its just visceral. WUWT Radio might suffer the same fate. My sister -rabid greeny-constantly belittles any WUWT material . Its wrong because Anthony is a rabid conservative.and closet Exxon?Mobil /Koch. Shoot the messenger!
However I believe that the general even handedness and quiet politeness of WUWT does come through and that even alarmists do tune in. I would suggest that the format of the radio show or UTube should be accessible by a click from the regular WUWT Page. This would avoid having to build up a new audience base
a bit of humour, quiet persusiveness, impeccable science, and avoid the hysteria that the opposition loves should do the trick
The ACS climate change tool kit has a chapter that purports to explain why the surface of the earth appears to be 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. The explanation goes something like this:
340 W/m^2 (power flux) enters perpendicular to the entire spherical ToA. (NASA says ToA is 100 km and where the radiative in/out must balance.) 100 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo leaving 240 W/m^2 to be absorbed by the atmosphere and earth, land, ocean, etc. In order to maintain thermal equilibrium, i.e. The Great Balance, 240 W/m^2 must make its way back to ToA.
Inserting 240 W/m^2 into the S-B ideal BB equation gives a temperature of 255 K or -18 C. The S-B BB equation apples to a surface that is emitting 100% radiation, i.e. no convection or conduction aka no adjacent molecules, a vacuum. ACS represents that this is the condition without an atmosphere. Not so.
This is incorrect. The 240 W/m^2 is quite obviously NOT w/o an atmosphere. It’s the net after the atmosphere and albedo (see, an atmosphere) reflects 100 W/m^2 and it is emitted at the ToA. (There it is again, an atmosphere.)
What the earth’s surface would be w/o an atmosphere, oceans, water vapor, vegetation, etc. is anybody’s guess. Like the moon? Mars? What would be the barren albedo’s value?
The supposed accepted surface temperature (IPCC defines as 1.5 m above land only.) of 15 C or 288 K has a S-B BB radiation of 390 W/m^2. 15 C and -18 C = Δ 33 C. This 390 W/m^2 is also used inappropriately as the upwelling LWIR GHG loop.
About 17 W/m^2 rise from the surface as convection, about 80 W/m^2 leave the surface as evapo-trans, about 63 W/m^2 leave as LWIR, a subtotal of 160 W/m^2 which joins the 60 W/m^2 albedo to complete the 240 W/m^2 reaching ToA.
390 W/m^2 minus the 63 W/m^2 gives 327 W/m^2 for the perpetual GHG loop. But the entire 160 W/m^2 needs to be subtracted leaving 130 W/m^2. Basically the GHE theory has double counted the power flux leaving the surface.
My explanation of why the surface is 15 C is no different from explaining why inside your house is 20 C, Q = U * A * dT.
Line A on the table is he base case. The solar insolation at noon and 28° N latitude from design table in Mazzaria’s handbook are used for the power flux input. This must rise up through and to the troposphere where the temperature is -40 C or F. Using the equation above the atmospheric thermal conductivity works out to 17.87, a resistance value of 0.056.
The power flux at higher latitudes is reduced because of the oblique angle of solar incidence. The value at noon and 56 °N is 568.7 W/m^2. Everything else being equal dT would decrease and the surface temperature would fall to -8.2 C. Line B.
The troposphere is thicker around the equator than around the poles. Let’s assume that the troposphere is x at 28° N and 0.9x at 56 °. Because the atmosphere is thinner, it’s resistance is lower and conductance is higher. Just like the insulation in the walls of a house. As a result the surface temperature will now be -11.4 C. Line C.
Suppose the atmosphere gets 10% thicker. The surface temperature would rise from 15 C to 20.5 C. Line D.
IMO Q = U * A * dT offers a better explanation of why the surface temperature is what it is and how it changes. Much better than the incorrect application of S-B BB equations and hocus-pocus hand waving to justify and rationalize.
..…Q/A, W/m^2……Hot, °C……Cold, °C….dT, °C….U W/m^2-°C….R, m^2-°C / W…..Tropo
A………982.6………..15.0…………-40.0……..55.0………….17.87……….0.0560………100%
B………568.7…………-8.2…………-40.0……..31.8………….17.87……….0.0560………100%
C………568.7……….-11.4…………-40.0……..28.6…………19.86……..…0.0504………..90%
D………982.6………..20.5…………-40.0…..…60.5…………16.24………..0.0616………110%