Climate Reality

Al Gore’s Climate Reality site is kicking off another 24 Hours of Reality broadcast today at 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time. I strongly recommend not only that you watch it, but that you get some friends to watch it with you.

52 responses to “Climate Reality

  1. For those who have the bandwidth, may I remind you of a *great* opportunity to not only listen in to Gore’s broadcast, but to also slashdot WTFiUWT, on their “TV” show.

    Seeyan there!

    • Wouldn’t sceptics make a judgement based on all evidence. Could you explain why these “sceptics” scheduled their event at exactly the same time and you are actively trying to stop people hearing the scientific evidence, i.e. “a *great* opportunity to not only listen in to Gore’s broadcast”. Doesn’t sound very sceptical to me.

      • True sceptics would listen to both sides, then arrive at a conclusion, based upon that: I am in NO WAY saying that folks should watch Watt’s version of reality, over Gore’s show; Gore’s is based upon solid science, whereas Watts’ is just the usual parading of the usual denier claptrap.

      • Ah, sorry I misunderstood your post. :)

  2. You’ve gotta love the sample slide up on WTFiUWT. It expresses nearly everything they have got not even wrong in just a single slide:

    There is no observational/emperical evidence for how much extra CO2 raises the global temperature.

    It is all based on calculations/models.

    Because, like, an increase of 100ppm (over about 5000 years, coupled with increased insolation coming out of a Milankovitch cycle) is enough to raise the global average temps by 6C and bring us out of an ice age. And we’ve managed to add that much CO2 in just over 200 years due to industrialisation. What a grand and noble experiment we’re carrying out on the only planet we have.

    And, you mean observational evidence like the fact that we’re losing Arctic ice at an unprecedented rate, and nearly every glacier in the world is retreating? Spring comes earlier every year? Lakes and rivers ice out earlier every year? Species have migrated hundreds of miles north in the past few decades?

    And, denier dudes, news flash: calculations based on actual measurements is what scientists actually do. The models are there to investigate the likely effects of mankind’s atmospheric pollution on the future of the world’s climate, and what they tell us is not good news. They are not projections, but rather possible scenarios.

    • It is probably beyond their intellectual horizon to understand that in order to estimate e.g. climate sensitivity, you need both empirical data and calculations/models. At the very least, you need to perform some arithmetic on the data. These people have a comic-book image of science.

      WUWT: anti-science blog of the year!

      • These people have a comic-book image of science.

        Which reminds me … where is the Evan Jones/Anthony Watts/Roger Pielke Sr. (as godfather) paper that’s going to prove that everyone else in the world has been inflating the temp trend in the US by a factor of who?

        It was going to be out “momentarily”, after the minor setback due to not taking TOB into account.

        And how will RPSr defend it if he’s retired his blog?

    • It’s deja vu all over again, all over again….

  3. Obama addressed climate change seriously in today’s press conference.

  4. Horatio Algeranon

    “Recreational Reality”

    — Horatio’s slight perversification of a Bush aide(thought to be Karl Rove)

    We create our own reality.
    That’s simply what we do
    And while you study, judiciously,
    We’ll act again, create anew
    Other realities, to study too.

    And that’s how things sort out,
    We’re history’s actors…and you,
    All of you, without a doubt,
    Will be left to study what we do,
    And fail to do, on climate too.

  5. It is strange that Watts fails to mention who exactly is the ‘donor who stepped forward’ and paid for the LiveWebTV equipment worth at least $9,000.- .

    • Horatio Algeranon

      Isn’t that what WUWT is? A “dirty weather report”?

      How could Al Gore ever hope to compete?

  6. “Climate Reality” requires more bandwidth than I’ve got.
    (which could be taken metaphorically, or not)

    • Susan Anderson

      Yes, we require more … and more … and more … even the “best” of us

    • Susan Anderson

      I note onscreen there is a “low” option – sound and visuals seem fine on that setting. May not help you but perhaps worth a look.

  7. Currently Watts shows ~7500 total views compared to 2.4M for Gore.

    • Quite a difference in numbers there!

      And as was to be expected from a bunch of conspiracy theorists, some WUWT regulars simply cannot accept reality:

      “… it seems possible to me that there’s some automated “hit fiddling” going on to boost the viewing figures.”

      • Philippe Chantreau

        That’s because they’re projecting. They do that kind of stuff any time they have a chance. Not long ago, Watts pointed to an online survey and took care of pointing to the attention of his readers that multiple hits were possible. The very logic of it is beyond pathetic: whatever the reality of public opinion is, let’s make it look different on that one survey, as if it was going to change the reality. And of course they expect “the other side” to do just the same. Frankly, I don’t get these people any more, they are totally off the deep end of collective delusion.

    • Yeah, and one of those was it doesn’t count!

  8. Susan Anderson

    Thanks for the nudge. This is well done, glad I have time to look in.

  9. And in other (related) news, there’s an interesting initiative in play–a ‘dialog’ between scientists:

    (For the ‘skeptics’, it’s Dr. Curry.)

    I note in the public comments a comment by Douglas Keenan questioning whether the decline in Arctic sea ice is statistically significant, when autocorrelation is taken into account. He seems to think that the record is too short. I note that there was a paper, Parkinson and Cavalieri (2008), finding pan-Arctic decline significant to 99% (that’s 3 sigma, isn’t it?)–with data up to 2006:

    That means, of course, that it was highly significant *before* the crash in ’07. But I can’t tell, just from the abstract, if Parkinson and Cavalieri dealt with autocorrelation or not.

    I thought I’d read a clear and succinct statement on the question of statistical significance here–but somehow, I’m not finding it directly addressed in the search results I’ve been able to pull up so far. Someone want to give Mr. Keenan a statistical smacking–if, as I suspect, it is merited?

    [Response: The decline in Arctic sea ice is statistically significant. In fact it’s so strongly so that I haven’t felt the need to establish it — yet. But there is absolutely, positively, unquestionably no doubt, it’s for real.]

    • I hope Neven gets involved, if he hasn’t already.

    • Belay my last comment, Tamino: I see Neven has weighed in. You can dump this one, too.

    • I had hopes; HAD is the operative word. I responded, as a professional geologist, to an utterly-incorrect and ofttimes-debunked geologic notion the deniers like to trot out (“we cannot tell the difference between CO2 put out by a volcano, and CO2 we put out, and anyways, volcanoes release more CO2 then we do. Oh, and Mauna Loa sucks, too.”

      Bullshit, The USGS, in numerous studies, has put that to a lie, and I *respectfully,* never having uttered “f**k* once, refuted that in a reply to CD.o, and my comment was * disappeared. Clearly, it’s jsut a house organ for Curry et al, to promulgate the appearance of real science, while in reality, it’s just another ‘Let’s make ONE HUNDRED per cent sure we know what we’re seeing, *then* do something about it.”

      AAAK! Wrong. Even with the chops of Dr; Verheggen, it appears to be nothing so much as a pale imitation of WTFiUWT.

  10. This is just to let people know I’m starting an online climate time series database. Go to and click on “Annual Temperature Time Series 1850-2011”

  11. Other series will follow (greenhouse gases, etc.)

  12. Talking of sea ice…I’ve just spent the last few days over at WUWT trying to point out that the recent Holland paper in Nature Geoscience doesn’t prove that AGW is a hoax. It’s a pretty trying business arguing against Mr Courtney, D Boehm and JJ. At least I hope that I am enabling some lurkers to see though the garbage.

    • Monty, I saw your efforts: Good onya! It’s trying simply because the denialati WILL NOT kowtow to mere *facts* and *science,* since doing so would expose them as the fraudsters they are. I also try, if only for the same reason you gave; I loooooong ago gave up any hope of getting the denialati to bend to reason.

    • The last time ever that I posted on WTFiUWT, someone asked in the comments how could the seal level possibly rise 1m (from present levels) by the year 2100. I responded that all we would need to do to accomplish that would be to melt 1/7 of the Greenland icecap. Mr Courtney informed me that Greenland could never melt because it is bowl-shaped, and all the water would just accumulate in the middle and re-freeze. So then I asked him if he had ever heard of moulins. He responded that I was just plain wrong, and I should admit it, and stop bothering the WTFiUWT commentariat with my obviously stupid comments.

      That’s the last time I ever posted there. It has become The Great Wailing Wall of Teh Stoopid. With gatekeepers like Watts, Smokey, Courtney, et. al., it can never be anything else. I still read the occasional posts and comments there, for the LOLZ though. It’s almost impossible to resist, in the same way that an all you can eat buffet is.

      [Response: I think of it as hard to resist in the same way as a train wreck — the carnage has a certain fascination.]

  13. Well at least if the idiot deniers are responding to me they can’t pollute other sites!