Do not click on this image. Its all about me refers. This wasn’t terribly exciting the first time round, but now that dullard AW has finally noticed – its only taken him three+ weeks. And AW has only noticed because the Kalte cretins have recycled it.

Apparently I

openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC

which is of course true, at least the “sympathising” bit. My position on GW is hard to distinguish from the IPCC’s, and I’ve defended them in the past.

As for the rest: the substance of AW’s regurgitation dates back to nonsense I refuted ages ago. AW deliberately gets my title wrong, but one learns not to expect respect for accuracy or correctness from him. I’ve not got a clue what he or they mean by “umpire”.

You can see my (or someone else’s) wiki edit count from a shifting variety of toolservers; currently this one says I’ve edited 7,410 unique pages. But I think that include talk pages and non-article namespaces. “5428 Wikipedia articles” is definitely wrong (remember, though, AW is regurgitating stuff that is years old; my pages-edited-count must have passed through 5428 at some point), “most about climate” is not well founded and likely to be false.

[Update: there is (as you'd expect, and perhaps even hope) quite a bit of foaming at the mouth and carpet-biting in the comments over at WUWT. There's also quite a lot of lies (ditto) but I'll single out that slimy toad Willis Eschenbach:

Occasionally he comes over here to try to sell his alarmism. Of course, since he can’t control the conversation here, he doesn’t hang around much.

Willis is happy to talk big in a venue where he knows he's safe from any comeback: because as he knows full well I'm banned from WUWT for pointing out some of AW's more obvious errors (and, I think, for attracting too much attention: as far as AW is concerned, its all about him). WUWT is an unpleasant place if you're not a wacko, but I did my best to help them. The only reason I'm no longer able to help correct their more basic errors - such as WE's deliberate one above - is because they won't let me. By contrast, even the wackos are welcome to comment here, if they have something to say. But they don't seem to be very brave without their mob, and mod backup.]

Comments

  1. #1 Peter Hartmann
    2013/01/31

    Hilarious: »With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.« I think it was yesterday that Watts celebrated the one million commentary threshold on his blog, and I wonder what he would say if somebody told him that it’s unlikely he’s doing all the work on his blog for free.

    I’m proud to say that I have over 12,000 edits (almost 5,000 unique pages) on Wikipedia, not counting Wiktionary and Commons, and not only did I not receive a dime, I actually paid over one thousand € for it over the years…

  2. #2 Marco
    2013/01/31

    William, spread this far and wide. Remember this is the same Watts who got upset over the Lewandowsky paper. Now he’s actually referring his readers to a guy *who claims the moon landings are fake*!

  3. #3 bluegrue
    2013/01/31

    Poor AW, he has to turn to recycling some of his
    old “news”. AW links to Kalte Sonne, which links to Kopp-online hosting an article by moonlanding hoaxer Gerhard Wisnewski. As for those 5.428 articles, Wisnewski is quoting an opinion piece (“Wikipedia’s climate doctor”) in the National Post by Lawrence Solomon from 2009, as translated and published on klimaskeptiker.info in 2009.

    So the important bit, as it’s all about you, your article edits passed the 5428 mark (however competently counted or not) around 2009-12-18, as can be seen from the original URL of the Lawrence opinion piece from the time before NP redesigned their URL scheme.

    I guess “Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again” makes a better headline than “Reread this opinion piece from 2009 (that I already reported on back then) and pretend it’s brand new and outrageous”.

  4. #4 ob
    @geschichtenpost
    2013/01/31

    It’s interesting (or rather not) how Vahrenholt or Lüning (or whoever edits the Kalte-Sonne-blog) uses part of Peter-Hartmann’s comment to suggest huge problems in the German Wikipedia.

    It should also be noted that the original source (that Kopp-Verlag-thing) is obviously quite pseudo-sciency and open to conspiracy-theories. One glance at their title-page displays an anti-vaccination-article and an article on meditation for healing asthma or arthritis.

  5. #5 Carl Farmer
    2013/01/31

    “Now he [Watts] is referring his readers to a guy who claims the moon landings are fake!”

    That’s not all. Several weeks ago, AW published a guest post by Henry Dauer, author of ‘Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth’.

    About the book:

    “It looks in depth at the dominance of several specific theories, including the Big Bang cosmology, human-caused global warming, HIV as a cause of AIDS, and the efficacy of anti-depressant drugs. In a scientific environment where distinguished experts who hold contrary views are shunned, this book is an important contribution to the examination of scientific heterodoxies.”

    Anthony Watts wants his readers to purchase a book from an individual who has visited Scotland (over 20 times) in search of the Loch Ness Monster.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/henry-h-bauer/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Bauer
    http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/LochNessFacts.html

  6. #6 J Bowers
    2013/01/31

    How many posts at WUWT? How much to do a website for Heartland?

  7. #7 Peter Hartmann
    2013/01/31

    J Bowers, yeah, good point, totally forgot about that…

    ob, thanks for the heads up to the smear about me on the KS blog! Lüning is writing the blog, with occasional guest authors/collaborators. No idea if there are any interns involved, maybe he has too much time at hand. Right now he’s wasting my time at my blog, not understanding what his problem with science is. He tried to troll me with a “discussion” about his pet topics, but I didn’t bite, and now he’s resorting to character assassination on his blog. Great style, Mr. Lüning.

    As a matter of fact, I did not edit ANY climate science related article on Wikipedia. I’m a biologist by trade and on occasion added so much taxonomy that the skin of my finger tips almost came off :P Call me an activist with ties to the Darwinist scene ;) Yes, I do think that there is such a thing as evolution! There should be an inquiry into this conspiracy in Wikipedia ASAP!! Also, I have edited around 1 (one) article on the German Wikipedia (on the main German climate denier hub, EIKE), because the atmosphere there is so toxic (in any topic, not just climate. My father was banned without any warning after doing his first edit, and it took me two weeks to unblock him, even with 12,000 edits under my belt…). I can honestly say that editing in the German Wikipedia is bad for my health.

    The whole thing is telling of Lüning’s approach: never try to check or falsify himself, because this could lead to results other than he wishes. Better invent a huge conspiracy from the armchair. That reminds me of a hilarious story from some time ago: the fellow “climate skeptics” at EIKE discovered my website KalteSonneCheck (done through a free Wikia account), and I sarcastically told them that the website was made possible by a 200,000 EUR grant from George Soros. AND THEY BELIEVED IT! I’m still laughing to this day.

    I find it hilarious that Lüning is trying to patronize me by referring to the number of comments on my blog. There are zero comments on his, and I can’t even answer his smear. How’s this for enabling discussion? Also, outside of the mostly retired “climate sceptic” community, people have jobs and normally don’t have all day to spam the comment sections. Mr Lüning, it would be very nice if you could rectify the disgraceful update on your blog. We don’t have to invent stuff just to be right, do we.

    Kopp Verlag is THE German conspiracy publisher, with connections to the rightist scene. The infamous islamophobe Udo Ulfkotte publishes there (disgusting example article), as well as Eva Hermann, ex news announcer that was fired from state television for rightist remarks. Yes, they also publish creationist literature, and at least one book uncovering the lie that petrol is made of old plant matter. How’s that, Mr fossil fuel geologist Lüning? ;) I would say that Erich von Däniken is probably Kopp’s most reputable “scientist”.

    But let’s not forget that a bad source does not necessarily discredit a website about science. Presenting bad science does. Lüning argues that CO2’s effect is negligible, and that there might actually be cooling ahead. The climate science community may say otherwise, but of course a guy that doesn’t understand the simplest principles of scientific conduct (Falsification! Falsification, Herr Lüning!!) knows better.

    Enough time wasted on this.

  8. #8 PeteB
    United Kingdom
    2013/01/31

    I enjoyed the referenced

    http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

    infamy infamy they’ve all got it in for me :-)

    [I like that page so much I link from it on my wiki userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley. But the Watties are too stupid to understand parody, even inadvertently. I even blogged it a while back... http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/04/22/im-famous/ -W]

  9. #9 bigcitylib
    Canadian
    2013/01/31

    I notice wiki’s changed the Fred Singer quote re Phobos so he comes off a bit less nutty. You are obviously missed.

    [Singer's been whitewashed. There was a big fuss about it; I've been banned from it by the pitchfork brigade -W]

  10. #10 matt
    2013/01/31

    W, has your position changed at all since that expressed in the “My position on GW” link (July 2010)?

    Since you provided the link I guess it has not changed that much, but perhaps you are a little more/less worried. I’m mainly interested in your thoughts on part of point 4 “…we ought to do something about it”.

    [The sea ice melt is more than I expected. But then again the global temperature rise is less. So those about cancel out; I'd go for about the same, including point 4. If this summer sees even more melt, I'd need to rethink -W]

  11. #11 Peter Hartmann
    2013/01/31

    The Wikipedia WUWT page is a disgrace IMO. A layperson reads it, and thinks it’s a legitimate science website. At last, “climatologist and contributor to FAR” Pat Michaels loves it, and only some journalists don’t. In fact, this page is the only one on Wikipedia that really bothers me. It makes me wonder about true balance on Wiki, when facts get the lower hand.

    [Meh. If you know how to read it, its OK :-) -W]

  12. #12 Peter Hartmann
    2013/01/31

    W: Yes, but Wikipedia is written for laypeople, too. And imagining a person that first encounters the topic, and wants to check out if WUWT is legitimate, going to Wikipedia and reading this, makes me sick in my stomach. There’s nothing that indicates incompetence (at best) like here. Maybe I just need thicker skin…

  13. #13 dave s
    2013/01/31

    Ha, a very thick skin is needed to edit Wikipedia pages on topics like the WUWT page, plus good quality sources which pretty much rules blogs out. If you can find something useful such as a published paper or a newspaper article (preferably not an editorial) describing it as illegitimate or worse, go for it!

    Alternatively, put links to the sources here and someday someone can have a try. Tedious as it is.

  14. #14 Marco
    2013/01/31

    @Carl Farmer: thanks for pointing me to that. The name Henry Bauer is quite familiar to me. He’s one of those “let’s appeal to an authority” guys that I have encountered when discussing with a HIV/AIDS pseudoskeptic. I note that he believes in UFO’s, too (as in “them aliens are out there!”).

    But no, climate pseudoskeptics are sure the Lewandowsky paper must be wrong, no pseudoskeptic can hold so many crank ideas!

  15. #15 thomas
    2013/01/31

    I have no idea how history will treat you William, but I like you!

  16. #16 Neil Craig
    2013/02/01

    My sympathjies on your alleged being banned by WUTT – how dreadtul that anybody, except “sciencblogs” would do that. Perhaps like you he wasn’t censoring merely burying.

    [I've provided a link. You can read AW's own words. There is no need for you to wallow in ignorance and uncertainty - you can find out the truth for yourself! -W]

    Surely suporting the IPCC position is somewhat of a moving target? It would be a remarkable coincidence if anybody had agreed with what they said back when they were promoting Mann’s false Hockey Stick graph as genuine and at the time they were pushing the Himalays melting by 2035 nonsense and now and when the next report comes out.

    [You're being silly. The HS isn't false, IPCC still "supports" it whatever that means, and AFAIK I haven't have to shift my position -W]

  17. #17 Kevin
    2013/02/01

    [You're being silly. The HS isn't false, IPCC still "supports" it whatever that means, and AFAIK I haven't have to shift my position -W]

    You’ve got to be kidding, right? You actually think the HS is correct? And you call this a science blog?

    [Depends what you mean by correct. "correct" as in valid science, and a reasonable reconstruction: yes. "correct" as in accurate in every detail and superior to every other reconstruction: no.

    You've been reading too much trash at septic blogs -W]

  18. #18 Kevin
    2013/02/01

    > Depends what you mean by correct. “correct” as in valid science, and a reasonable reconstruction: yes.

    So, a reconstruction that does not include the little ice age or medieval warm period is valid science? or even reasonable?

    [If you want to re-fight the HS wars again, I suggest you find somewhere else. Its pretty unlikely you've got anything new to say. So far, you've provided no facts, evidence or refs at all. You're probably relying on the fakery from your pet blogs; see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/11/22/wegman-plagiarised-but-there-i/ for example -W]

  19. #19 Susan Anderson
    2013/02/01

    This only tangentially related, but IMHO worth trotting out again. Thanks for the excellent (and truthful) putdowns of the foot-dragging nincompoops that will buy anything as long as they agree with it.

    This is all from:
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/04/rhetoric-of-rejection.html

    - Perversity is claiming that any purposive action to improve something only exacerbates the condition one wishes to remedy
    – Futility is holding that attempts at transformation will be unavailing and will simply fail to make a dent
    – Jeopardy argues that the cost of the proposed change is too high and endangers some previous valued accomplishment.

    About 20 years ago Albert Hirschman wrote a small, but since well known, book “The Rhetoric of Reaction” about how conservatives think and argue.

  20. #20 Hank Roberts
    2013/02/01

    > sea ice melt is more …
    > global temperature rise is less.
    > So those about cancel out

    I have to ask, ’cause I couldn’t answer if someone asked me — do you mean by “balancing out” the ‘water stays cool as long as there’s ice to melt’ arithmetic in operation?

    (I don’t think so, I think you refer to ‘win some lose some’ balance — but if someone asked me I couldn’t prove it either way)

    [Yes, I mean the win-some-lose-some type stuff -W]

  21. #21 Susan Anderson
    2013/02/01

    OK, wrestling with sea ice melt more/global temp rise less (me Jane you Tarzan /humor). What about, as the sea ice melts and the oceans absorb warmth, the threshold where that moderating influence is going to be used up is getting closer, too close for comfort (understatement)?

  22. #22 BG
    2013/02/01

    You say:

    “WUWT is an unpleasant place if you’re not a wacko”

    you should do a test drive by of RealScience for a really unpleasant place (with a lot of non-science) unless you are a real off-the-chart wacko.

    [http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ ? NN I think -W]

  23. #23 dave s
    2013/02/01

    Could Kevin please give the title and authors of any 1,000 year reconstruction that does not include the little ice age or medieval warm period?

    Hint for the factually challenged: the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 reconstruction supported earlier theories that temperatures in medieval times were relatively warm, with Little Ice Age cooling seen after the 14th century.

    Perhaps what Kevin really doesn’t like is the finding, supported by more than two dozen other reconstructions using differing data and different methods, that late 20th century temperatures were warmer?

  24. #24 Kevin
    2013/02/01

    Esper et al … Journal of Global and Planetary change, and B. Christiansen and F. C. Ljungqvist.. climate of the past

    Both of these papers show temps 1000 and 2000 years ago that are significantly higher than Mann did, and are warmer than current temps!

  25. #25 Lars Karlsson
    2013/02/01

    Kevin,
    Ljunqvist’s latest (with Christiansen) is only for extratropical NH. There are a few decades around 1000 AD with temperatures like those of today, but most of the MWP was much colder .

  26. #27 John Mashey
    2013/02/01

    Which of these does Kevin believe?
    1) Central England Temperature, a la Adoration of the Lamb is THE TRUTH.

    2) Land+sea must be identical to land-only, and there is no such thing as polar amplification from ice/snow/albedo feedback that would cause N. Europe to have more extreme swings than NH-tropica, so temperature curves must look identical for extratropiccal NH (i.e., usually 30degN-90degN), 25% of the Earth and NH (50% of the Earth). Hence, any extratropical reconstruction with bigger swings disproves MBH99.

    3) A.W. Montford’s book is the TRUTH, and it shows the shaft of the hockey stick as horizontal, unlike MBH99 or IPCC TAR, Fig 2.20.

    4) Scientists’ use of error bars is meaningless, only the actual line counts, so if any point on a line is arguable, all results can be discarded..
    Anyone else believe any of these? (I don’t).

  27. #28 Kevin
    2013/02/01

    I believe that Mann made up his numbers to suit his purpose,

    [You can believe that if you like, but since you have absolutely no evidence to back it up, why should anyone pay any attention? -W]

    that there is more variability in the historical temperature record than his hockey stick shows. Just look at inter glacial reconstructed graphs, you know, the “saw tooth” graphs. Temperature history was never a straight line.

    [This is also incoherent. Because temperature behaves in one way over 100 kyr cycles, you insist it must behave in the same way over 1kyr? -W]

    Here is another of my beliefs;
    CAGW theory

    [CAGW is a strawman created by the septics. Don't try to blame it on anyone else -W]

    relies on the positive feedback loop with water vapor to generate the predicted catastrophic temperature increases. I believe that there are no such positive feedback loops in nature.

    [OTOH, WV feedback is both basic and fairly obvious. Your own personal beliefs, which you don't even attempt to support with evidence, interest no-one but yourself -W]

    If there were, we wouldn’t be here. There have been too many instances in history where the earth experienced extremes, if there were feedback loops, these extremes would continue. Since they didn’t, and we are in fact here, no loops!

    [Sorry guv, ignorance of that level can't be addressed in blog comments. Try reading the wiki article, it will help you if you let it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback#In_climatology -W]

  28. #29 Marco
    2013/02/01

    Looks like Kevin is seriously misguided in his beliefs. Apparently someone did not explain climate feedbacks very well, or Kevin decided not to listen, or Kevin does not have the mental capacity to understand.

    Two small hints for Kevin to think about how feedbacks may work in the climate system:
    1. Stefan-Boltzmann law (look it up, think about what it means)
    2. Ice albedo change (OK, I’ll give another hint with that: there just might be an upper and lower limit…)

  29. #30 Kevin
    2013/02/01

    1. Stefan-Boltzmann law (look it up, think about what it means)

    That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Additional CO2 will only add so much temperature increase due to GHG effect. The bulk of the catastrophic warming predicted by CAGW theory is due to positive feedback loop with water vapor – the warmer it gets the more wv in air..the more wv in air the warmer it gets….hence the loop. Stephan-Boltzman has to do with black body radiation, not the same thing. I am saying that this positive feedback loop does not exist.

    Ice albedo change is another example of a positive feedback loop, but not the one I’m talking about. It is also refuted by the same constraint. The more moisture in the air, the more clouds. The more clouds, the less sunlight gets through, also less heat, therefore, cooler.

  30. #31 dave s
    2013/02/01

    Hi Kevin, still no sign there of any reconstruction that doesn’t show a MWP and a LIA!

    re Kevin #24, Esper et al. 2002 dealt only with extratopical land areas, and didn’t contradict MBH, a point they later explicitly agreed. they did find warming “in the NH extratropics that appears to have approached, during certain intervals, the magnitude of 20th-century warming, at least up to 1990.” Are you still living in the 1980s?

    Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2012 doesn’t seem to agree with Kevin either: “The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008, 2009),”

    As for Kevin #30 and those comforting beliefs in feedbacks, they don’t seem to have worked very well in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. What are those beliefs based on: the Cornwall Declaration?

  31. #32 Jim Galasyn
    Seattle, WA
    2013/02/01

    I’ve gone a few rounds with Willis Eschenbach on climate science; he’s a piece of work.

  32. #33 Hank Roberts
    2013/02/01

    > Kevin
    > I believe that [ ... ] made up his numbers

    So are you a Founder type who thinks the first work in any field can be discredited by not being up to current standards therefore the whole field must be discredited?

    All the early work is “wrong” in science.

    Well, except climate, as Muller found after years of disbelief, when he checked the numbers himself.

  33. #34 David B. Benson
    2013/02/02

    Kevin — The water vapor soon precipitates out. So there is a limit to that positive feedback.

  34. #35 thomaswfuller2
    United States
    2013/02/02

    Hey [PA redacted]. You had a ton of comments that I just fished out of spam on my weblog. They are approved and up now. [PA redacted].

    ["fished out of the spam bin" - oh yeah. What you mean is "delay them so the conversation has moved on by the time they appear". So, lets look at your list:

    The ‘moderators’ of these blogs will cheerfully...

    * trash your comments - yup, you've done that
    * or delay them so the conversation has moved on by the time they appear - tick
    * or worst of all, ‘edit’ them - and you've done that too.

    Are you still pretending that WUWT doesn't censor comments as well? -W]

  35. #36 Rattus Norvegicus
    2013/02/02

    Methinks someone doesn’t understand the implications of the S-B law.

  36. #37 Harry
    2013/02/02

    “Anthony Watts wants his readers to purchase a book from an individual who has visited Scotland (over 20 times) in search of the Loch Ness Monster.”

    And there is absolutely no evidence that deniers are in any way conspiracy theorists or into any other signs of wackiness, such as cryptozoology.

  37. #38 Marco
    2013/02/02

    Methinks Rattus got it nailed. Methinks Kevin also has a really confused understanding, and may be too ideologically challenged to ever learn.

  38. #39 Heystoopid
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    2013/02/02

    Hmmm, the Willard blog of complete creative science nonsense, keeps on sinking itself, in it’s own creative slimy morass of self contradicting head in ass ignorance of all forms of reality of the real world A through Z. lmao

    Some ‘Scumbag Watts’ quickmeme’s to consider for the lol factor : link :- http://www.quickmeme.com/Scumbag-Watts/?upcoming

    As, for Kevin ‘in denial’, one should really ask, which of the basic laws of physics, energy, mathematics and the properties of all matter in this universe, do you creatively disregard and completely ignore ?

    Dr Lawrence J Peter, warned us way back in 1969, about the rise and complete failure of ersatz experts…..lol…

    “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.” ― Winston Churchill

    Such is life.

  39. #40 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    2013/02/03

    Kevin in Denial reminds Eli of PDQ Bach’s Iphaginia in Brooklyn. Humm a few bars pls.

  40. #41 Dunc
    2013/02/04

    If there is no water vapour feedback, how do you explain the current surface temperature of the Earth?

    I suspect Kevin may be making the all-too-common error of assuming that positive feedback always involves a loop gain > 1… Which of course it never does, with regard to Earth’s climate, because of the S-B law.

    [Likely; though its an easy mistake to make, since the way-of-speaking-about-it doesn't emphasise that all the little loops are embedded in the overall climate system, which has SB as a big negative feedback. The wiki page gets this right, because I wrote it :-) -W]

  41. [...] 2013/01/30: Stoat: Its all about me (again, yawn) [...]

  42. #43 Kevin
    2013/02/06

    When skeptics use the argument ‘Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas’, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn’t a major problem. If CO2 isn’t as powerful as water vapor, which there’s already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn’t be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.
    How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.
    How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

    This is fron SkepticalScience – a kindred blog –

    This is the positive feedback loop with water that I was talking about.

    1. It was warmer in the earth’s history. I’m not say dramitically warmer, just warmer. And more than once.
    Since the above is true, how is it that this positive feedback loop did not kick in and keep the warming going up. If it was warmer, there must have been more moisture….

    Does not have anything to do with SB.

  43. #44 Doug Proctor
    2013/02/07

    Too bad you are blocked. I’d love to see some contrary views, being a contrarian at heart.

  44. #45 freddy
    2013/02/07

    @Doug Proctor

    Unfortunately Dr. Connolley bans everybody here who dares to contradict his beliefs. So please be careful of what you say.

    [You're lying. Unlike WUWT, I can happily state that *no-one* is banned here, or ever has been -W]

  45. #46 Marco
    2013/02/07

    Kevin, read comment #41 by Dunc. In particuclar, ponder about:
    “I suspect Kevin may be making the all-too-common error of assuming that positive feedback always involves a loop gain > 1… Which of course it never does, with regard to Earth’s climate, because of the S-B law.”

    And I see freddy has decided to make false claims here, after he had a major disaster at illconsidered, needing someone’s ten minutes of googling and perusing the GISTEMP and NCDC sites to point out the many errors in his libelously false claims about GISS/James Hansen.

  46. #47 freddy
    2013/02/07

    Marco, are you of the opinion that self-complacency is a negative attitude a scientist should be afraid of?

  47. #48 Dunc
    2013/02/07

    Since the above is true, how is it that this positive feedback loop did not kick in and keep the warming going up.

    Because the overall gain of the feedback loop is still less than 1 (thanks to the effects of the SB law), therefore the total feedback effect converges on a finite value. You need to revise your understanding of feedback in general and the maths describing the sums of infinite series. Positive feedback does not always lead to runaway as you seem to think. This is really fairly basic stuff, and the general case can be solved without any reference to climate. For example, the exact same mathematics applies to the feedback loops used to linearise the frequency response of op-amps.

  48. #49 Kevin
    2013/02/07

    Kevin, read comment #41 by Dunc. In particuclar, ponder about:
    “I suspect Kevin may be making the all-too-common error of assuming that positive feedback always involves a loop gain > 1… Which of course it never does, with regard to Earth’s climate, because of the S-B law.”

    What does SKEPTICALSCIENCE blog say about that. It says that for every degree C increase due to CO2, there is one degree increase due to water vapor positive feedback loop, and another degree increase due to other feedback loops. I’d say that they are describing a positive gain loop.

    If there is no gain for the loop, then how does the CAGW theory come up with “catastrophic” temperature increases? If there is no gain due to SB, where is the temperature increase from? Are you saying that it is just from CO2 effects alone? Because if you are, that goes contrary to CAGW theory.

  49. #50 Kevin
    2013/02/07

    Unfortunately Dr. Connolley bans everybody here who dares to contradict his beliefs. So please be careful of what you say.

    Well, with a few exceptions, most commenters have been trying (and I’ll believe sincerely) to “correct” my mis-beliefs, and I have not been banned, nor do I expect to – mostly because I do not do juvinile attacks.

  50. #51 Dunc
    2013/02/07

    Nobody’s saying there is no gain, and the statement you quote to from Skeptical Science refers to the total feedback contribution at equilibrium, not that from a single iteration of the feedback loop. They’re saying that the sum of the infinite series of feedback terms converges on 2 degrees for every degree of initial forcing – which can only be the case if the loop gain is positive, but less than 1. It is a positive feedback, but it converges on a finite value rather than running away to infinity.

    I think you should perhaps you should read the wiki article on infinite series. I’m going to be generous and assume that the problem isn’t that you’re unable to conceive of a number which is greater than 0 but less than 1, despite the implication to the contrary in #49…

  51. #52 Marco
    2013/02/07

    Freddy, what do you think of people who make false claims, are proven wrong about those claims, and then don’t apologize for making those false claims?

    In the two cases I have encountered you, you have made false claims on both occasions, one about GISS/James Hansen (which actually consisted of several intertwined claims), and one about William banning people.

  52. #53 Marco
    2013/02/07

    Kevin, also remember that there is an upper limit to the amount of greenhouse gases. According to just about all climate scientists insufficient to get a runaway greenhouse effect (notable exception James Hansen, who doesn’t want to rule it out).

    However, if you think climate change can’t be catastrophic, try reading up what happened during the PETM. The temperature increase during that period was larger than expected from our CO2 emissions, but it took place over 20,000 years or so. Again, read up what happened during that period, and remember there was no ice on earth before the PETM, so you can add an event that may cause the biosphere some trouble that wasn’t present at the PETM.

  53. #54 Kevin
    2013/02/07

    Let me re-phrase it this way – and I do understand the difference between a gain of less than 1 and more than 1 –

    The problem still remains, even with a gain of less than one – meaning an upper limit to temp increases due to loop. Having a positive gain, will still drive the temp up whenever there is an external force applied to drive it down, the force pushing it to its maximum is still present even though it can’t push it past the max.

    OK so far?

    In the past, we had temps higher than they are now. What caused them to come down? To come down even though this force to keep the temps at their max is still present. This cooling force would have to overcome not only the temp inertia, but also the positive feedback loop gain (even if less than 1).

    So what caused the temps to come down? For that matter, what caused them to go up in the first place?

    “but it took place over 20,000 years or so. Again, read up what happened during that period, and remember there was no ice on earth before the PETM”

    Something must be wrong here. There was definately Ice here on earth more than 20,000 years ago.

  54. #55 Dunc
    2013/02/07

    Having a positive gain, will still drive the temp up whenever there is an external force applied to drive it down

    No, no, no… Positive feedbacks amplify negative forcings (cooling) just as much as positive ones (heating). So for example, if we were removing CO2 from the atmosphere (a negative forcing) we would expect to see approximately 2 additional degrees of cooling due to feedbacks for every degree of cooling due to the CO2 forcing. The adjective “positive”, when applied to feedback, applies to the sign of the feedback factor, not the sign of the result.

    So what caused the temps to come down? For that matter, what caused them to go up in the first place?

    Depends exactly when and what timescale you’re talking about – there are a number of other forcings involved. The obvious big ones over long timescales are orbital variations and changes in solar output, but changes in atmospheric composition from large-scale vulcanism play a significant role on occasion.

    Oh, and Marco said that the temperature increase during the PETM took place over a period of around 20,000 years, not that it happened 20,000 years ago.

  55. #56 Kevin
    2013/02/07

    ” Positive feedbacks amplify negative forcings (cooling) just as much as positive ones (heating). So for example, if we were removing CO2 from the atmosphere (a negative forcing) we would expect to see approximately 2 additional degrees of cooling due to feedbacks for every degree of cooling due to the CO2 forcing. The adjective “positive”, when applied to feedback, applies to the sign of the feedback factor, not the sign of the result. ”

    But I am not saying reducing the CO2 forcing. The whole feedback loop is saying that as it gets warmer, the air holds more moisture, as it holds more moisture, it gets warmer.

    There are no other forcings involved – just temp and water. So how would that work then. One cold day and we’re off to the races for cooling, and or one hot day and we’re off the other way, or one dry day……… My whole point to this train of thought is that there are not any positive feedback loops, that there can’t be. For this example – water and temp, I’ll interject that clouds would be involved in eliminating the feedback loop. The more moisture there is, the more clouds there are, so the cooler it is.

    Hopefully that provokes some thought.

    And sorry Marco, when I read yours I thought I saw 20,000 yrs ago,
    nevermind.

  56. #57 Marco
    2013/02/07

    Kevin, you’re forgiven for the misreading (but I still recommend you contemplate what e.g. 3 degrees of warming in 200 years would mean, especially when comparing it to 6 degrees in 20,000 years at the PETM).

    Regarding feedback, water and clouds, I think it could help if you think about the difference between relative humidity and absolute humidity and their potential relationship to cloud formation.A small hint: warmer air can hold more water before it is saturated.

  57. #58 dhogaza
    2013/02/07

    Kevin, rather than you continuing to assert that a big chunk of observation-based science is wrong, is it too much to ask that you go off and read a bit about that area of science and educate yourself?

    You’re a bit like the layperson who argues with a physicist that you KNOW that perpetual motion machines are possible, because you KNOW that the laws of thermodynamics are false. Arguing such a position doesn’t help that layperson learn physics. You’re similarly tilting against well-established physics, and doing so isn’t going to help you learn anything about physics …

  58. #59 David B. Benson
    2013/02/08

    I recommend Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange
    Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky”
    and
    “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
    as well as a basic meteorology text.

  59. #60 Dunc
    2013/02/08

    Yes Kevin, you have provoked some thought… Namely the thought that you’re completely obtuse, and there’s absolutely no point in trying to educate you.

    Oh, and the sign of the cloud feedback is still somewhat debatable… Clouds don’t just reflect heat back into space, they also reflect heat back towards the ground, which is why cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear ones. And they do so at both day and night, whilst they only reflect sunlight during the day. A naive argument on that basis would tend to suggest that the overall cloud feedback might be positive – but naive arguments are no match for actual observations or real mathematical modelling. Which pretty much sums up your whole problem here…

  60. #61 J Bowers
    2013/02/10

    I thought “runaway” simply refers to when feedbacks can no longer be countered by reductions in the initial forcing, and were nothing as dramatic as a Venus scenario?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.