the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Arctic Ice Video- 16000 Views

Posted by Jeff Id on June 11, 2009

You know what’s great about blogging, when you make a video that takes several days and it catches the attention of a small city.

arctic ice video

Click to watch on you tube

Originally I put the video here, it got a hundredish views after a half day from almost two days work. I have Anthony Watts to thank for carrying the video and for wisely putting it on YouTtube, many of those who watched came from WUWT.

At one point it had 30 something honors for as high as 7th most viewed science and technology video world wide (for some unknown timeframe) on you tube. I should have put a link to the blog in it. Anyway that’s pretty awesome and a lot of people learned not to worry so much about a small change in ice level.

It reminded me of how fake it always sounds when media people thank the viewers/readers or whatever. It’s a hard thing to sell, but it needs to be said anyway – thanks to you all for having the same interest and taking the time to check it out.

21 Responses to “Arctic Ice Video- 16000 Views”

  1. TCO said

    Get over yourself. Get over all the blogging social dynamics and the enjoyments of hits. Write a real paper. That shows you can bring it. You ain’t there yet, ‘hopper.

  2. Bob H said

    TCO, is it too difficult to accept that most people, probably including yourself and definitely me, enjoy seeing other people appreciate the work put into a particular “product”?

    As for writing a real paper, it would be easy to discuss the bias currently present at the journals against papers that don’t conform to the “consensus” position, but let’s leave that for another time. Instead, it would be more productive to focus on the actual analysis and science produced.

    The internet has become the ultimate peer review, not because something is reviewed by a select few experts, but because it can be reviewed by anyone, from a high school dropout with an interest in the subject, but with maybe a unique insight, to the PhD who is an expert in the area of study. Granted, some comments will not be helpful, but as the analysis of Stieg, et al has demonstrated, a team of people who are not necessarily experts in that particular area of science, but may be engineers, statisticians, economists, and yes, scientists can make a valuable contribution to the review of study.

  3. rephelan said

    Ahhh, Jeff, wasn’t that a video of ARCTIC ice? Nice video by the way.

  4. Jeff Id said

    #3 What are you talking about. There are no mistakes on the Air Vent.


  5. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Get over yourself. Get over all the blogging social dynamics and the enjoyments of hits. Write a real paper. That shows you can bring it. You ain’t there yet, ‘hopper.

    Better yet, TCO, why not you write a paper on how the AGW skeptics blogs get it all wrong and do not publish and how easy it is to conjecture online when we all know that conjecturing never gets by the peer-review process.

    I strongly suggest that you spend all of your spare time doing what a real man would do and that is to publish your thoughts.

    In a fictional version you could relate how you come onto skeptics’ blogs and preach your good advice and how successful that approach has been. Reminder – this one is fiction. Give it a happy ending where at a point, when all bloggers feel this one note Charlie has become a menace to reasonable technical discussions and is regarded more like the homeless person on the street spouting epitaphs, suddenly and almost miraculously those skeptics (or classified as skeptics) that one note Charlie admonished to publish get published in increasing numbers. They all dedicate their introduction to one note Charlie and thank him for his persistence in pushing them to publish and for his suggestions on content and presentation. Suddenly Charlie is considered an eccentric but wise old man.

  6. The Diatribe Guy said

    Congratulations, Jeff. You do great work and have a great blog here. I check it daily.

    As for post #1, it is a failry silly comment. I understand that the rigors of a submitted paper certainly has merit and should not be discarded. But not everyone who has insight, intelligence, and good points to make necessarily cares to go through that process for any number of reasons. I know for a fact how many things I would like to do that I don’t do because there are only 24 hours in a day and one life to live! I have my interests and enjoy spending some amount of time on them – including blogging – but in the end I don’t particularly care whether or not the scientific considers it folly simply because it’s just a blog and not a scientific paper.

    Truth be told, the scrutiny that blog posts are subject to probably falls to a higher standard simply because of the sheer volume of eyes taking a look at it. Scientists and non-scientists alike can spot a deficiency. That makes reasonable discourse valuable. It is also why those who shut down discussion (Real Climate) are showing a disdain for the very process they claim they are trumpeting when they tell someone to “publish a paper and then we’ll talk.”

    In any event, I can also appreciate the satisfaction that one gets from seeing a high volume of hits to some work that you’ve done. If nothing else, it’s nice to see that something you’ve done is deemed valuable enough to other people that they would be willing to spend a few minutes on that day taking a look at it. It’s no different than an artist or author who takes pleasure in having others tell them they enjoy their work.

  7. Andy said

    TCO, go away you are making such a fool of yourself you are now on Watts up with that? with your idiot ramblings.

    Go away little boy, go away.

  8. TCO said

    Andy, I think this thread:

    is much more silly shits and giggles stuff than a reasonable discussion of whether negative predictors can occur, if there should be some over the top constraint to stop them etc. Jonathan Baxter has made essentially the same points that Carick and I have (and googling him) he seems to be rather qualified. If Ryan and Jeff have a proof of there point, they should engage on substance. Cite literature. Do math. And drop the “emphatic statement” method of argument. And drop the pictures of negative thermometers in Watts. It just makes skeptics look like brew crew sillies when you (we) do this stuff. ISAYAGAIN Baxter is the real deal in stats…

  9. SH said

    TCO – curious, what does “TCO” stand for? SH stands for Stephen Haxby, to anticipate an obvious (and justifiable) retort.

    My best wishes Sir


  10. TCO said

    10. I prefer to keep my identity private.

  11. Jeff Id said

    #9 The Commanding Officer.

  12. SH said

    10. I prefer to keep my identity private.

    So do I! But perhaps that is not always justifiable, particularly when personal insults fly in a public space.



  13. Andy said

    “And drop the “emphatic statement” method of argument.”

    Oh the Irony!

  14. TCO said

    13. Agreed. Avoiding all internet activity is probably wiser. So is not drinking. Working out. Marrying the girl who loves you. Etc. Etc. (I am not wise.)

  15. TCO said

    14. Andy. This is one of those do as I say moments. I am not claiming to be modeling the behavior that should be done. Yet it does not change the rectitude of what I say. (Similarly to the betterness of working out to drinking gin and tonics.)

  16. SH said

    TCO, none of us is wise. You have made an impact. Maybe just turn down the volume a little bit so we can hear what you are saying?

    With much respect,


  17. Eric Anderson said

    Jeff, thanks for the great work — keep it up.

  18. page48 said

    RE: #9, “TCO – curious, what does “TCO” stand for? SH stands for Stephen Haxby, to anticipate an obvious (and justifiable) retort.”

    Terrible Child Online

  19. page48 said

    Congratulations on the number of hits, Jeff. It’s a really nice piece of work.

  20. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    TCO said
    June 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    13. Agreed. Avoiding all internet activity is probably wiser. So is not drinking. Working out. Marrying the girl who loves you. Etc. Etc. (I am not wise.)

    well at least no one can say he is arrogant!

    Jeff, in joy this 30,000 moment, I had mine one at at time when some one would say, ” if not for you I would have” that makes the bad, uncaring few disappear and give meaning to the effert you have spent on all of it.
    TX Man and atta boy.

  21. Dave said

    Like Nathan on the Wilkins Ice Shelf blog, TCO is just one of those people who refuse to listen to another possibility. They are blinded by their beliefs and they do not let counterpoints get in their way. Sad and pathetic and scary that so many bright people in the world of science have fallen for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: