Is climate change really a damp squib?

The crucial question has always been: what is climate sensitivity?

How much warming do we get for a doubling of greenhouse gases?

Matt Ridley tells that it might be a lot less than currently thought:

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in \”radiative forcing\” (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

If true (willing to believe it but it\’s an important enough question that I\’d need more than just Matt\’s word for it) then we can all go back to sleep then. The whole thing just isn\’t a problem.

Which would be nice, wouldn\’t it?

299 comments on “Is climate change really a damp squib?

  1. Well, it would be nice, yes. However, if I wanted to be negative, I’d say that what we have here is a zoologist who is trying his hand at climate science (presumably he regards it as the next great challenge, following his resounding success in the banking world), quoting the works of a “semi-retired financier” who we are assured is very good at maths and science. I’m actually not that negative, but I can imagine there are plenty of people who are, and this ain’t going to convince any of them. It doesn’t do much more than cause me to raise a hopeful eyebrow, and I have fairly hyperactive eyebrows.

    But I bet you’ll get a good comment thread out of it, anyway. Glad I got in before the mudslinging starts in earnest.

  2. I’d say the most important question was “Do scientists understand how our climate works?”. The answer is clearly “No”. That does not mean we shouldn’t invest in climate studies and monitoring, it does mean that we should stop subsidising green power and closing coal fired power stations

  3. @Rob: it seems from the article that the retired financier is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC, so they must be reasonably assured of his credentials?

  4. I seem to recall Moonbat is a zoologist. Greens don’t seem to mind him opining on the subject.

    I am surprised to see Mr Connolley on here. I should have thought he had his hands full over on Wikipedia keeping all the warmist plates in the air in the face of the refusal of the oceans to boil over. 16 years now…

  5. As Mr. Evans says, it is abundantly clear that the atmosphere is poorly understood. The one thing we know for certain abut the various climate change models is that they failed to predict the last fifteen years lack of warming, and are therefore insufficiently accurate.
    But don’t expect funds to be diverted away from “averting catastrophic global warming” any time soon. Too many influential people have their reputations and their money on the line for them to give up, and too many well meaning people have been convinced to the point of accepting this theory as an article of faith.
    There are of course signs of movement- only 37 countries signed on to extend Kyoto in Doha. (Incidentally I find it amusing that the only country that has actually cut its carbon emissions in line with the Kyoto agreement is the USA, which refused to sign).

  6. I don’t know about the maths or the climate science, but I see carbon dioxide continuing its steady rise, but no warming in fifteen years, and I reckon it’s time to invoke the shades of the great Feynman.

    Global warming was a plausible hypothesis, but it’s now been disproved by experimental data.

    Whatever’s going on, it ain’t what the warmist catastrophists claim, so we should ignore them.

  7. > @Rob: it seems from the article that the retired financier is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC, so they must be reasonably assured of his credentials?

    Does anyone really fall for that? Good heavens, there are some mooncalves about. Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.

    Sebastian Weetabix: you’re an ignorant tosser. But if you want to see if I’m busy at wiki, its easy enough to check my contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley Nope. Doesn’t look like I’m busy.

    Andrew Duffin: I can’t recall Feynman cherry-picking 15 years, that kind of stuff belongs to the cargo-cult people he railed against. Anyway,

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/global-temperature-update/

  8. The (obviously nonsensical) “no warming” meme is an absolutely epic demonstration of a meme, of the sort that Ridley might otherwise cherish. The linked graph is superb.

  9. Didn’t Connelly get chucked off Wikipedia as a result of his shenanigans?

    People busy making an honest living don’t have time for Wikipedia edit wars.

  10. On the subject of credentialism very few of the proponents of AGW have relevant credentials- the IPCC is headed by a railway engineer for a start. I don’t see that as reason to ignore their arguments, or to accept them. The arguments must stand or fall by themselves.
    The (obviously nonsensical) “no warming” meme, is an established fact- at least with the proviso “significant”. The medieval warm period has been established as, well, warm; something which the IPCC once denied via. its acceptance of the hockey stick graph. It is at present unclear whether or not it was warmer than today (as was accepted prior to the acceptance of the hockey stick), but it was clearly warmer than the last two hundred years.
    To judge by pre-release versions of the current IPCC report the sun’s activity affects the earths climate (who’d have thought it) something the IPCC was denying ten years ago.
    The fact that the IPCC got these wrong should lead us to check its other pronouncements before investing billions of pounds on schemes to solve the problem.

  11. > very few of the proponents of AGW have relevant credentials

    Rubbish. You just have to read their papers in the top journals. Those papers are published by… err, people who have written papers. In the top journals. Have you ever bothered read the IPCC reports, and look up the refs?

    > The medieval warm period has been established as, well, warm… it was clearly warmer than the last two hundred years

    No.

  12. I wonder if William M Connolley is similarly impressed with the credentials of those who don’t agree with him and are also published/peer reviewed (and not by their mates either)?

    Or is he going to be abusive to me as well?

  13. Hi William,

    Rather than the ad hom put down, I personally was hoping – from someone as knowledgeable as yourself on this – for a little more as to how and why Matt Ridley might or might not have something useful to contribute on this?

    For some time now, sensitivity has clearly appeared to be one of the bigger elephants in the room; and for me one of the reasons that however much one can easily accept individual aspects of the underlying science (with regard to the effects of CO2 on climate), I find it impossible to accept any establishment position which claims in overall terms that “the science is settled”. And, if it is not settled, we continue to learn?

  14. bloke in spain: you can’t spell, and you’ve got my title wrong. I’ve got a doctorate. Look me up on wiki, you lazy little git, its not exactly difficult.

    starfish> impressed with the credentials of those who don’t agree with him and are also published/peer reviewed …

    No idea what you’re on about with that.

    > Or is he going to be abusive to me as well?

    Certainly: you’re a troll. Happy now?

    PW: OK, fair point. The answer is, Ridley has nothing useful at all to contribute on climate. If you’re interested in climate sensitivity, and I agree its a very good thing to be interested in, then probably the best thing you could read is:

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html

    Read it carefully, and notice that its ruling out very large values, as well as saying that small values are unlikely. Or you could try:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    but its not a great page. It will at least point you at the AR4 discussions. At which point you’ll hopefully stop saying silly things like “any establishment position which claims in overall terms that “the science is settled””.

  15. It is virtually undeniable that mankind has, to some degree or other, created or contributed to global warming by burning 150 billion tons of coal and 100 billion tons of oil (plus lots of gas, wood, paper, straw …) in the last 30 years. The big question is not “should we slow down” but what is the optimum trade-off between the long-term ill-effects of burning fossil fuel and the short-term ill-effects on the world’s poor of preventing them burning fossil fuel.
    It is, therefore, unfortunate that the debate has hi-jacked by two groups, “alarmists” and “denialists” with scant regard for good manners or even the truth to the extent that the rational sceptics, and even moderate affirmers like myself who would like the UEA to tell the truth and the IPCC to check its facts, are denounced as “denialists” as if we were fans of Auschwitz by affluent alarmists who do little to curb their personal consumption.
    If William M Connolley could get round to reading Tim’s post before hurling insults he might learn that it was the Wall Street Journal that took Matt Ridley seriously enough to publish him and that Tim said ” it’s an important enough question that I’d need more than just Matt’s word for it”.

  16. Yes, Mr Connolley, with the ‘e’. Unfortunately, the only William M Connolley,with the ‘e’ I can find there is some bloke who’s the software engineer did the number crunching for the HadCM3 global climate model amongst other projects. Now colour me deluded but it’s very hard to see that translates into any competence on the sciences needed to comprehend climate. Unless this is some other William M Connelley we’re discussing here.

  17. I’m wondering if William M. Connolley is in fact ‘Arnald’ under another identity? Certainly the same level of abuse, profound ignorance and bile that we get from Guernsey’s finest, and of course his principal claim to fame is that Wikipedia threw him out.

  18. Hi William,

    Thanks for coming back. Just briefly for now:

    Re your comment on Matt: as you know – it’s Nic Lewis who Matt is referring to on this. Are you suggesting that Nic’s analysis has nothing useful to contribute to this?

    I’ll look at the 2006 JulesandJames article in more detail later.

  19. PW> Are you suggesting that Nic’s analysis has nothing useful to contribute to this?

    Certainly I am. I don’t think NL has anything useful to say. “Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change” is, AFAIK, just puff from Ridley (and as I’ve already said, you should ignore everything Ridley says on climate).

    If Ridley, or NL, were basing their stuff on an actual paper – and what Ridley writes is so vague its hard to tell – then I’d say read that paper instead of their inaccurate gloss.

  20. Well, given we have arch pier, fabricator, and general bozo Connelly commenting on the thread against Ridley, I is pretty much a given that Ridley is correct. Connelly, like the other deliberate fabricators prefers to spend his time gatekeeping to prevent relevant research being performed.

    Your deliberate distortions and mendacious behaviour as shown on the Wikipedia farce should have you laughed off any serious forum Connelly. You are even stupid enough to think that MBH 1998/9 was serious science !

  21. William M. Connolley – “bloke in spain: you can’t spell, and you’ve got my title wrong. I’ve got a doctorate. Look me up on wiki, you lazy little git, its not exactly difficult.”

    Plenty of scientists have been unpleasant people. God knows. But usually it does not affect their science. Or if it does, it is only them, it is not the whole field.

    But with Climate “science” Bill here really is the rule not the exception. This is not how real scientists behave. If they do, their peers stop them. If they have facts and theories to argue, they argue the facts and the theories. The fact that Bill here sees a need to smear people rather than discuss the facts shows the reality of climate “science” better than Ridley could – it isn’t science, it is Lysenkoism.

  22. Oh noes, Snackhead! Not the piers! Pray! defend us from the piers.

    Also you may like to delete the space before your ! or your ?

    Otherwise, well done!

    Rubbish spelling and ignorant typos aside (we all do them) (Although pier twice is ignorance, as is the rest of the post), I don’t think it helps Worstall to have such nonsense published. The US contingent will be on before too long and start accusing CO2 as being a communist invention, and the like.

  23. Dr Connolley,

    Are you really saying that that we should rely a 6-year old blog post? Surely there is something more up to date given the m£’s (quite rightly IMHO) spent on climate research?

    Surely there is something more recent that isn’t alarmist that we can read?

  24. SMFS,

    “But with Climate “science” Bill here really is the rule not the exception. This is not how real scientists behave. If they do, their peers stop them. If they have facts and theories to argue, they argue the facts and the theories. The fact that Bill here sees a need to smear people rather than discuss the facts shows the reality of climate “science” better than Ridley could – it isn’t science, it is Lysenkoism.”

    I’m reminded of that lawyer’s saying; “If the facts are on your side, bang the facts, if the law is on your side, bang the law, if nothing is on your side, bang the table!”

    Mr Connelly does rather look like someone banging the table.

  25. William Connolley – I don’t see your D.Phil. on Amazon which lists theses which are in Oxford’s Bodleian library. Why is this ?

  26. If you want reasoned scientific argument, I suggest you read scientific papers. They’re rather too long to fit into blog comments.

    I have no scientific evidence to support this, but I speculate that almost all competent scientists have the pattern-recognition capabilities to be able to spell a person’s name correctly immediately after having seen it written.

    It does this blog no credit that so many here wish to rain abuse on the commentator most competent to speak on the subject at hand.

  27. @William Connolley

    In fact I have just checked all my mates from Oxford and all their D.Phils. are on Amazon.

    Did you actually succesfully defend your thesis because all Oxford D.Phils are automatically stored in the Bodleian library and are all on Amazon.

  28. In general, if someone is willing to engage with the evidence, then debating them politely on the evidence is a good call. On the other hand, if they start in bad faith, ignore the evidence and seek to smear you, then calling them an ignorant cunt is completely reasonable.

    john77: the fact that something is published in the house journal of the business wing of the Republican party does not make it worthy of attention, other than as a demonstration of the current angle of ‘pro-business’ spin.

    Frederick: your premise is flawed, as Amazon doesn’t in fact list all theses in the Bod. William’s thesis is shown here.

  29. Sorry, Oxford’s system has stupid links that expire after 5 minutes. Click the link above and type “william connolley” into the search box.

  30. @Paul – yep “you have no evidence for this” and then you claim that not misspelling a name which has an odd spelling (I am Irish so I know at least 3 other spellings) is a sign of a competent scientist. How scientific is that. You are pomposity incarnate.

  31. “It does this blog no credit that so many here wish to rain abuse on the commentator most competent to speak on the subject at hand.”
    Depends on the opinions of the person speaking, PaulB. Mr Connolley, with the ‘e’ ( let’s reserve his title for when he’s writing on his area of competence) designs software for modelling climate from scientific data. Essentially he’s a tool in the scientists’ toolbox to enable them to reach conclusions from data that’s too extensive & complicated for them to comprehend directly. Or at least he should be. Once he starts expressing strong opinions on the the results of the modelling, biased in one direction, he undermines confidence in the entire process. What confidence can one have the models haven’t been manipulated to produce desired results when the modeler himself is so strongly advocating one particular interpretation?
    So sorry, Mr Connolley, with the ‘e’. Your very presence in the argument undermines the case you’re trying to make.

  32. Wikipedia’s eminent proctor
    Muttered “Post hoc ergo propter
    hoc.
    Now don’t make me shout
    You ignorant lout,
    And kindly address me as Doctor.

  33. The entire global warming (I refuse to call it climate change) debate is descending to the level of philosophers arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We’re all arguing over long term trends that are, as far as I can tell, not much more than noise given the quality of the dataset. Arguments over whether sea-level rise is 1, 2, or 3mm/year make me yawn. An earthquake can drop (or raise) local ground level by 20m easily.

    The only reason for ever taking it seriously was the tipping point argument. A gradual change over centuries – which is quite rapid in geological terms – we can easily adjust to.

    The only thing that matters is will there be a sudden shift – a la the Day After Tomorrow. From what has happened over the last 30 years or so, I doubt it.

    There’s precisely one fact in the whole debate – CO2 levels have risen. Everything else is supposition.

  34. @ john b
    Kindly engage brain before opening mouth. If you think, you will observe that I was pointing out that William M Connolley’s insult to Tim was aimed at the wrong target.

  35. LJAR: it’s well-established that there was a Medieval Warm Period in the North Atlantic. But unlike today’s warming, it seems to have been a local not a global phenomenon.

    Ltw: there are precisely two facts. CO2 levels have risen. And global temperatures have risen.

    All models predict that global temperatures tend to go up when CO2 levels go up.

  36. SimonF> Are you really saying that that we should rely a 6-year old blog post?

    No, certainly not. Ideally, you would rely on the peer-reviewed literature its talking about.

    However, its a fairly helpful close-to-layman’s language introduction to a difficult topic. Given the level of debate you find here, I doubt that many are capable of reading the scientific literature itself. Certainly its hard to see any sign that they (or you) have done so.

    LJAR> http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

    Did you read that? It doesn’t show the MWP as warmer than now. See fig 7. Its also only extra-tropical NH, but that’s a quibble.

    > show a medieval warm perod with large fluctuation in temperature without corresponding changes in CO2

    You’re fighting strawmen. No-one says that only CO2 causes temperature change, and no-one says there was nothing at the MWP.

    Ltw> We’re all arguing over long term trends that are, as far as I can tell…

    This is just Argument From Personal Ignorance. It means nothing, except you’ve failed to do your homework. If you’re actually interested in the subject, you need to read up the literature on the subject, or (more plausibly, since wading through the primary literature is hard) a good summary. Like the IPCC reports.

  37. PaulB: “All models predict that global temperatures tend to go up when CO2 levels go up.”

    Yeah, that’d be the models. I hang around in the saloon bar at WUWT, low-brow rude mechanical that I am, and the chat over there, in between the Neanderthal gun-nuttery and Islamophobia, is that the global temperatures have stalled over the last 16 years, while CO2 has carried right on climbing like a monkey over a chain-link fence, and so the models are all wrong, and only fit to be wheelbarrowed to the midden.

    Now obviously Anthony’s brigade of spit-on-the-floor knuckle-draggers are wrong, and you’re right, on account of how you’re a Real! Smart! Academic! and so is Herr Doctor Professor Connolley-with-an-e. Obviously. It’s just that maybe you could explain to me, preferably in real short words, ’cause I’m only a mud-stained old civil engineer, just how reality’s wrong and all them fancy models are right.

  38. If you quit the name calling and explain how the models are so far out of step with reality I might start listening and debating. Right now, I know who is looking like the cretin here.

  39. “We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. ”

    Elsewhere in the same article Ridley claims this amount of warming will do net good.

    Is the (economic) model he is relying on for that claim ‘empirical’ and ‘proven’ then?

  40. Connolley et al at it again ? Must be a proctologists … seems like they perpetually havea finger up someone’s rectum … oh sorry, it’s their own !

  41. Oh, Connolley is back spreading FUD again. Wasn’t he banned from Wikipedia for 6 months for questionable editing practices?

    Poor guy can’t let it go.

  42. How disgusting that Dr Connolley should call somebody an idiot, whatever their view. How disgusting that a person of such prejudice is allowed special influence at Wikipedia — this explains that encyclopedia’s extraordinary one-sidedness on the subject. How disgusting that he resorts to ad-hominem argument rather than addressing the issues raised in my article.

    For Connolley’s benefit, I first wrote about climate change in 1987 for the Economist when I was science editor. At the time I was an alarmist, accepting the Charney sensitivity estimates without question and to my shame dismissing the doubts of colleagues about this. I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.

    I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.

    Matt Ridley

  43. He may well be right about the science, I don’t know, but I think Connolley sounds like a very angry man on the edge of a nervous breakdown.

    It would not at all surprise me to wake up one morning to find he had killed his family and half the village before being slotted by armed police.

    And that he had been wearing a suit made entirely of tinfoil at the time. Don’t say you weren’t warned!

  44. Matt Ridley

    well said, although it has to be acknowledged that trying to communicate with someone of Connelley’s immense stature is attempting the impossible.

    it would be good if you could get this story onto the Beeb. Any chance?

  45. Wow, I knew William Connolley was not great at understanding the concept of science (after all, Mr Connolley, you are but a software engineer, aren’t you? By your logic you can’t possibly know anything about the philosophy of science) but I never knew he was so angry.

    Nothing but rage here, and of course the usual logical fallacies. I have yet to see a single argument for CAGW that did not involve the results of a model or a logical fallacy that any decent Greek philosopher could have discarded. Mr Connolley’s comment here are no exception.

    So Mr Connolley you have been closely involved with climate modelling. What is the empirical evidence to back the claims from the models that humans have caused almost all of the late-20th-century warming? What is the empirical evidence that the strong positive feedback in temperature assumed in all the models is correct? How do you explain the difference between the models and real-world observations in the temperatures between 20N and 20S between 300 hPa and the tropopause? Does this difference not mean that the models are fundamentally flawed?

    Quick hint: I have a degree in Earth Sciences and some informal education in philosophy, so I will not just accept bluster and logical fallacies. Empirical evidence trumps theory and models every time. Appeal to authority is good guidance as to what to read, it is not evidence nor a strong argument; ad hominem dismissals are utterly meaningless.

    Ad hominem attacks on your interlocutors are especially amusing when you then make a fool of yourself in similar vein (or perhaps vain in your case).

    ” its not a great page”

    You might check your grammar before criticising other people’s spelling.

  46. Matt – you say Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case, but they’ve only been able to do that AFTER you posted your WSJ article. And frankly, their statements amount to little more than “I just read this for 10 minutes yesterday, and there’s nothing *obviously* stupid”.

    You were a professional scientist once. What do you think the responsible course of action is when someone makes a scientific claim that contradicts a large body of existing evidence? Trumpet it immediately in the media, or allow it a thorough review by experts first?

  47. Clovis Man said: “If you quit the name calling and explain how the models are so far out of step with reality I might start listening and debating. Right now, I know who is looking like the cretin here.”

    Although it is from 2007 and hopefully things are better now, try this from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA National Center for Atmospheric Research occasionally a lead author of IPCC Scientific Assessments:

    “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

    Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”

  48. @ Thon Brocket

    ..It’s just that maybe you could explain to me, preferably in real short words, ’cause I’m only a mud-stained old civil engineer, just how reality’s wrong and all them fancy models are right…

    When he’s finished doing that, perhaps he could also explain it to the shade of Richard Feynman, who had some rather famous words to say on the subject of proper science…

  49. “Elsewhere in the same article Ridley claims this amount of warming will do net good.

    Is the (economic) model he is relying on for that claim ‘empirical’ and ‘proven’ then?”

    Did he say he used a model? There is certainly empirical evidence suggests that warm weather is beneficial for humanity; culture has stagnated in cool climate and advanced when the Earth has been warmer such as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Roman climate optimum. Given that he is arguing against bare assumptions, not even modelled, that is not an unreasonable argument.

  50. justice4rinka: It is unfortunate that you had to point us to Mr. Connolley’s poney tail, it’s an awful sight and looks more like a horse’s tail if truth be known, but nontheless, we should take his views on board.

    When I saw his comments I thought I’d accidentally wandered on to realclimate. The level of ucalled for insulting language was a tad too high for my taste. Having had more than a modicum of experience with them Mr Connolly, the man with the poney tail, appears to be one of those people who lack physical courage and was bullied at school. Frequently such people admire the bullies for their seeming physical courage and the only way they can emulate them it to attack and insult people who aren’t in their presence. I’m afraid Mr. Connoly may be trying to live out his fantasy of being a bully on this thread.

    Interestingly, the Charney report, written over three days in July 1979 estimated the sensitivity as 3C +/-1.5C. It’s not a very long report and I’d recommend reading it because it’s obvious that the science hasn’t moved on much since then despite the $80bn invested by the US alone.

  51. Don

    “What do you think the responsible course of action is when someone makes a scientific claim that contradicts a large body of existing evidence? ”

    What large body of evidence? Can you tell me what the empirical evidence is for attribution of climate change to human activity and for large positive feedback? I know of none.

    Model runs do not count as evidence. Models are useful in analysing evidence, and in finding out what evidence to look for to confirm theory, but (contrary to what climate “scientists” will tell you) they cannot provide evidence independently of empirical data.

  52. @Gareth: “Although it is from 2007 and hopefully things are better now…”

    Don’t forget that 2007 was the year of AR4 and the science and policies suggested were as a result of those models. I doubt very much that there have been any substantive improvements. Go check the Charney Repoit, the IPCC reports since 1990 have barely added anything to that document, with the exception of raising the bottom end of the sensitivity to 2C.

  53. Connolley’s comments degrade this thread, and display an all-but-unhinged intolerance.

    He has played a prominent part in the promotion of alarm over CO2 thanks to his frequent interventions on Wikipedia. He thereby helped degrade that knowledge-sharing initiative as well. Some details of that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_.28remedies.29. A selection of key comments from this decision by Wikipedia was given here by commenter ScientistForTruth: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/14/going.html. They are:

    “8.2) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation.

    8.3) …William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment.

    8.4) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject’s notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements.

    8.5) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.”

  54. Don Blue

    But that’s exactly the point. The new aerosol results, the new ocean heat uptake results, the Aldrin et al results, the Schlesinger group results — all these have indeed been peer-reviewed and published. Yet, as drafted the IPCC seems intent on relying instead on its models with their high sensitivity assumptions instead. Nic is trying to get them to reconsider this and I am publicising his reasonable effort to stimulate debate. Betts and Curry agree that debate is worth having; Connolley doesn’t apparently. Who’s in denial here?

    Matt

  55. Don Blue: “What do you think the responsible course of action is when someone makes a scientific claim that contradicts a large body of existing evidence.”

    Are you talking about positive feedbacks? If you have any evidence let alone a large body of it, let’s have it, you’d become the doyen of the alarmist movement overnight. Billy Connolly would be singing your praises on Wiki in a heartbeat.

    There is no evidence of positive feedbacks, I heark back to the Charnley report, where water vapour was first postulated as a positive feedback, they’ve had 33 years to gather the evidence, so let’s see whatcha got.

  56. Paul B

    “Ltw: there are precisely two facts. CO2 levels have risen. And global temperatures have risen.

    All models predict that global temperatures tend to go up when CO2 levels go up.”

    Forgive my ignorance but do we have any evidence on which one causes the other? Or is there the possibility that the correlation is caused by a third factor?

    Can someone point me to any research on this question. I am not interest in arguments but research I am happy to read and (try to) understand.

  57. Thon Brocket> I hang around in the saloon bar at WUWT… the global temperatures have stalled over the last 16 years… maybe you could explain to me… how reality’s wrong and all them fancy models are right.

    You need to stop reading trash blogs if you don’t want to read trash. There, that was easy. Try http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/global-temperature-update/ instead.

    Matt Ridley> How disgusting that Dr Connolley should call somebody an idiot, whatever their view.

    Darling, you’re such a delicate flower. But this is Timmy’s blog, where calling people gibbering loon is quite acceptable. So you’ll just have to live with me calling a spade a spade. But I also notice that you seem to passed lightly over the insults from the wackos.

    > At the time I was an alarmist, accepting the Charney sensitivity estimates without question

    See? You are an idiot. Accepting the std climate sensitivity values makes you part of the scientific mainstream, not an alarmist. You’ve drifted so far into the denialist camp that you’ve totally lost your bearings.

    Doubting Rich> By your logic you can’t possibly know anything about the philosophy of science

    Err, no. Try reading what I wrote. I said that nothing that Ridley (or NL) writes on climate change is worthwhile (actually, I said “On climate, Ridley is an idiot and you’re a fool for taking him seriously”). That’s true. I didn’t say *why* that was so, nor did I invoke credentials.

    If you want to know why I say it, well, its because I’ve read Ridley’s stuff before, and it reliably checks out as junk.

    How are you, humble members of the public with no particular expertise, supposed to know who is telling the truth and who is foaming at the mouth? Well, you could be an utter cretin and try to judge it by who is speaking politely to you and smarming you with pretty words. But you’re not dumb enough to believe that kind of crap from politicians, so why are you dumb enough to believe it in science?

    Better still, you could try reading and understanding the science for yourself. But none of you have the patience for that, sadly. So you have no choice but to rely on some authority. Which is what you’re doing, whilst simultaneuosly whinging about credentialism. But what you really mean is, that you refuse to accept the actual scientific authorities because what they’re saying is something you dislike.

    > I have yet to see a single argument for CAGW

    CAGW is the denialist strawman. If you haven’t realised that yet, you’re lost in the denialist camp so far you can’t see the edge.

    > What is the empirical evidence to back the claims from the models that humans have caused almost all of the late-20th-century warming?

    Ah, at last, a question. If you want to know, you can read the IPCC reports. Or you can read the summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change (an no, don’t whinge that its wiki so its all biased against you and you’re really sad; you can follow the links to the refs).

    geronimo> Charney report, written over three days in July 1979 estimated the sensitivity as 3C +/-1.5C

    Yup. It turned out to be right, somewhat by luck.

    > it’s obvious that the science hasn’t moved on much since then

    Logical fallacy. Just because the answer hasn’t changed, doesn’t mean the evidence for it and the science behind it hasn’t improved.

  58. @ geronimo

    I agree it probably is a horse’s tail.

    I say this because model runs indicate that horse’s tails are usually attached to horses’ arses. The evidence in this thread is that the cap fits Mr. Connolley very well.

    I notice from wiki that Connolley admits to membership of the Green Party, a fascist anti-technology cult. His “contributions” thus need to be understood in terms of religion and dogma. In effect, he is the polar opposite of an authority.

  59. This gets funnier by the minute. Don’t worry, WC, I’m not offended, but I am disgusted that you should think insult passes for argument. Still not a word on NL’s points in your ripostes.

    As for who’s the delicate flower, remember this from your own blog when redacting Ben Pile’s response to your insulting him:

    “William, interesting that you ‘redact’ the word ‘[redacted - W]‘, but ‘clueless’, ‘idiots’, ‘lying’ are fine.

    [Its my blog -W]”

    Who’s so delicate he needs to redact rude words?

    It’s clearer by the day that WC is a double agent paid by the Koch brothers to discredit alarmism. In which case he is doing a fine job.

    (By the way I use the word alarmist to mean somebody who thinks we should be alarmed about climate change whether mainstream or not. No insult implied.)

  60. William M. Connolley : >>On climate, Ridley is an idiot and you’re a fool for taking him seriously.<<

    Connolley sets higher standards for interlocutors than he sets for himself. On his blog, such language is verboten – http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/08/16/more-weird-sea-ice-stuff/

    It's hard not to wonder if the standards he sets for the scientific argument of those he battles against, slanders, and insults are equally higher for them than himself.

    It would seem so, since TW only asks that Ridley and Lewis should give us pause for thought, noting that Lewis's estimate of sensitivity is not not be conclusive by itself. Connolley maintains that even giving the question the time of day makes one a fool.

    Such intransigence is surely the idiocy and foolishness that Connolley rails against — Ridley and Lewis cannot even be considered, even to correct them if they are indeed wrong. So much for 'science' then, William; you demonstrate perfectly the extent to which environmentalism is ideological and has been fully internalised by environmentalists at the expense of their ability to reason.

  61. Thon Brocket: Fair question. Have a look at this chart. (It’s created by BEST, under the avowedly sceptical Richard Muller.) The underlying data are here. What you see is that there are relatively high-frequency fluctuations (the largest one is related to the El Niño Southern Oscillation) superimposed on any underlying trend. But the two recent peaks – in 2006 and 2010 – were higher than any previously recorded. To characterize this as “temperatures have stalled for 16 years” is not obvious. (If you’d like to see the chart at higher resolution, you can easily load the data into a spreadsheet program and plot them yourself.)

    Matt Ridley: I’m glad to see you here to speak for yourself. I read your Angus Millar lecture and agreed with the first three pages. But then you lost me with

    The graph relies heavily on … a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample at the expense of any other sample. When I say heavily – I mean 390 times.

    Because that’s a horrible mischaracterization of what the underlying data look like and how PCA works. Do you stand by your statement? Because if you do I’d like to make a serious attempt to dissuade you (and of course invite you to persuade me).

  62. Hi William,

    You say at post 23 that Nic Lewis’s analysis has nothing useful to add to sensitivity. I would be interested specifically to know why you believe that to be the case?

    You say: if “..or NL, were basing their stuff on an actual paper”. I notice that Nic Lewis has been author or co-author of a couple of recent papers on climate sensitivity, one of which – if I understand it correctly – challenged the way that, within AR4, the IPCC may (wrongly) have altered a peer reviewed paper (Forster / Gregory 2006) to suggest a higher sensitivity?

    In addition to both the links you very kindly provided and other information from IPCC etc, it appears that much of the earlier “model based” work on this subject suggested higher sensitivities (and some of these catastrophic). Indeed James Annan’s observational work (your reference above from 2006) itself then appeared to bring the bar down in effect compared to earlier papers that were previously considered to be “within the consensus”. He himself said in his article: “We think it (his paper) poses a strong challenge to the “consensus” that has emerged in recent years”.

    I have seen many references to more recent papers, since publication of AR4; which indicate sensitivities widely ranging from as low as ~1C to as high as 6C, or even as high as 8 or 9C “at the maximum” (Hansen, Dowsett, Pagani etc).

    I am aware that many papers are variously criticized / rebutted / counter rebutted etc.

    I also understand your suggestion that one should read the papers and understand them before judging. I accept that I am doing no such thing here (most of us will not have the time, even if we had the very broad level of expertise required). I try to look in summary at what those, with far more knowledge than me, are summarising (or are being reported as summarising) as a result of their separate specialist research.

    At that point, I am rationally led to the (what I regard as healthily sceptical) conclusion that, in this area at least, there does still appear to be a lack of consensus (or that any consensus that exists may still appear to be evolving), and hence that the science may not appear to be anything like as settled as some may seek to assert?

    I am not actually sure myself why that is a bad thing (as you seemed to suggest with your “silly” comment above)? Science evolves; and it would appear clear that climate science is – relative to some other areas of science – still in its infancy.

  63. PaulB

    I think you misread my lecture. I said “a particular method of” PCA, meaning Mann’s version of short-centred PCA. Fully agree with you that this is not how PCA is supposed to be done. Steve McIntyre’s, Andrew Montford’s and Edward(?) Wegman’s accounts all confirm this tendency to overweight some samples at the expense of others.

    Happy to debate further but writing is my day job so I don’t do long private debates by email: takes too much time.

    Matt

  64. Matt, I would advise against debating with PaulB. He is a revolting man who is loudly and proudly in favour of the drone-murders of children in Pakistan.

  65. I don’t know anything about Matt Ridley or Dr Connelley (with or without an e), but I do know that barely a day passes on this blog without Tim calling for some “lying cunt” to be “hanged” for their “gibbering insanity”, or some such.

    Which is fair enough.

    But for the regular commenters to then have an attack of the vapors about “ad hom” attacks, like someone’s Victorian aunt fleeing a mouse, is really quite amusing.

    Whether he’s right or wrong, if Matt Ridley objects to being called an “idiot” he might want to find somewhere else to debate. Tim sets the tone here, and that is to call people you disagree with cunts and demand that they be hanged.

    Tim adds: There is a certain amount of truth to that Larry, yes.

  66. Well, s’pose this thread puts the final nail in the climate change coffin. When you have the guy who designed the models the whole nonsense’s based on batting this hard for a particular interpretation, you can only presume the models are fixed to produce the desired outcomes. Bit like getting a mechanical report on a car from the garage who’s selling it. Doesn’t need a science degree to spot a scam.
    Mr Connolley, with or without your ‘e’, you’re peddling snake-oil.

  67. Matt Ridley> [Its my blog -W]”

    Ben Pile> On his blog, such language is verboten

    Yes, certainly it is. Part of my service as a blog-owner is to help the signal-to-noise ratio by stopping the commentators calling each other “what a prick you are” or “seems like they perpetually havea finger up someone’s rectum” or… Oh, but you don’t mind about *those* insults, do you? Hypocrite.

    Timmy permits “robust debate”. If you can’t live with that, find somewhere else to drool. But trying the “oooh, he’s used a naughty word, he must be wrong” fallacy is just an insult to the intelligence of the few commenting here who can see though it. Oops, Larry’s already said that. Never mind, *I* want to say it too :-)

  68. Matt: no, I didn’t misread it. The basic point is that you can get a lot of different results from PCA, depending on how you normalize (centre) the data. But whatever you do, if you combine enough Principal Components to explain most of the variation you will get about the same result. M&M’s observation that “Mann’s algorithm gives [the Sheep Mountain hockey stick] a whopping 390 times the weight in the PC1″ is irrelevant, because no one, and certainly not Mann, thinks one should look at PC1 alone.

  69. Here are some (science)facts

    Fact #1:

    Everybody is stupid except for me

    Fact #2:

    The sensitivity of the Earth’s climate is determined by whatever the hell my colleagues and I say it is. If you want to talk about this, that’s fine but first refer to Fact #1.

    Fact #3:

    You are a stupid moron with an ugly face

  70. For those just tuning in, a summation:

    Connolley: “Nic Lewis and Matt Ridley are stupid poopy-heads”

    Crowd: “What colourful language! Care to elaborate?”

    Connolley: “Just because I call people stupid poopy-heads doesn’t mean they are not stupid poopy-heads”

    Crowd: “Yes but why not discuss the actual substance of what they are saying instead of ad hominem attacks?”

    Connolley: “Read this 6 year old blog post”

    Crowd: “Yes, but what specifically about Nic Lewis’ analysis do you disagree with or see errors?”

    Connolley: “Just because I call someone a stupid poopy head doesn’t mean I’m wrong!”

  71. Paul B

    Just to expand slightly on what Matt said about PCA, Mann didn’t centre his data on the whole period, but on the 20th century. This is therefore not PCA, of course, although Mann characterised it as such after the event.

  72. Larry

    Frankly, I dislike Tim’s use of such words too. But at least he then gives reasoned arguments for his conclusion that somebody is a … whatever. WC didn’t. As I said above I had no attack of the vapours, I just don’t think insult should substitute for argument.

    Matt

  73. WC: >>Part of my service as a blog-owner is to help the signal-to-noise ratio by stopping the commentators calling each other “what a prick you are” <<

    What a hand-wave. You nonetheless set different standards for yourself. If signal-to-noise ratio is upset by the exchange of such language, it is as true of the exchange between blogger and commenters as it is between commenters.

    The point is not to say 'thou must not…'. I've used words like 'moron' a number of times. I think you are a moron, and have said so on Twitter. Not because I think you're wrong, but because you seem incapable of understanding words that (I must assume) are in front of your eyes. Maybe it's just a blind-spot, rather than a comprehensive mental failure, but the double standards, intransigence and the grotesque self-justification are clues to something inadequate about your level of thinking.

    To be more charitable about it, it's an ideological epiphenomenon, I argue, rather than an organic problem. The idea that someone might dare to estimate climate sensitivity for themselves, outside of official climate science seems to offend you personally. Indeed, challenges of any form to official climate science provoke such rage, we can't just be talking about cold, hard, objective science. The debate has been internalised. It's not a dispassionate discussion of facts. The question I have is about the extent to which that internalisation precedes — and contaminates — the discovery of cold, hard, objective facts. If you can't take the fact of challenges to The Science seriously, or at face value, what does that say about The Science? If you can't accept challenges to The Science, a priori — however well or poorly conceived those challenges are — it's not unfair to wonder if The Science is in fact merely dogma, and you a zealot.

    You just seem so spectacularly unaware of yourself. You're not alone. That demands some explanation.

  74. @PaulB: ‘Interested: You’re a liar. If you want to tell anyone what I think, give links to where I said it. Otherwise, speak for yourself.’

    In this thread (below), you said the only decent thing to do in the US election was to vote for Obama.

    Obama is an enthusiastic user of drones.

    His drones are killing children, and innocent men and women, in their hundreds.

    You could have said, if you felt that the drone-murder of children in Pakistan was abhorent and evil, that the only decent thing to do was to abstain.

    But you didn’t. You actively and enthusiastically encouraged people to vote for the drone-operator-in-chief.

    Decent? In your world.

    http://timworstall.com/2012/11/06/on-this-american-election-thing/

  75. “Indeed, challenges of any form to official climate science provoke such rage, we can’t just be talking about cold, hard, objective science. The debate has been internalised. It’s not a dispassionate discussion of facts. The question I have is about the extent to which that internalisation precedes — and contaminates — the discovery of cold, hard, objective facts. If you can’t take the fact of challenges to The Science seriously, or at face value, what does that say about The Science? If you can’t accept challenges to The Science, a priori — however well or poorly conceived those challenges are — it’s not unfair to wonder if The Science is in fact merely dogma, and you a zealot. ”

    Perfect.

  76. In this thread (below), you said the only decent thing to do in the US election was to vote for Obama.

    To give PaulB his due, both the (any chance at being elected) candidates were pretty much in favour of drone strikes. That being given, then, you can take a nugatory moral stance and refuse to vote for anybody who would countenance collateral damage in military / intelligence operations (which excludes pretty much every politician everywhere, everywhen) or encourage people to vote for the best (or, at least, least-worst) choice.

    Which in PaulB’s opinion was the less wealthy, slightly darker hued of the Rombama twins.

  77. PaulB: Vote Hitler!
    Voter: But what about the Jews?
    PaulB: Oh, never mind that, look at everything else he’s done around the place.

    You’re a revolting creature, mostly because of your slimy attempt to grub your way to the moral high ground, and take ownership of words like ‘decent’. But that’s the nature of the beast.

    SE: and the same applies to torture, but the drone-enthuser cut Romney no slack there.

  78. PW> Nic Lewis’s analysis has nothing useful to add to sensitivity. I would be interested specifically to know why you believe that to be the case?

    I think its more up to you to say why you think it is valuable. I can’t really say I’ve bothered to read it yet. Oh go on then, I suppose I’d better. I’ll look at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-its-new-aerosol-estimates/ . OK, having skimmed the first bit: the basic problem is he is using purely observational estimates. This restricts the time period you can use, and the data you can use, and means that the uncertainties (if you do it honestly) are too large to produce a useful value. Quite how he has fudged his error range down so small would take rather more poking about it the data to discover.

    > Nic Lewis has been author or co-author of a couple of recent papers on climate sensitivity

    Really? Are you sure you’re not picking that off Ridley, who has carefully phrased his language to make it appear so? I don’t know of any of his, but I would say that, wouldn’t I. But its easy to solve this: you or Ridley should ref the papers he’s written.

    > one of which – if I understand it correctly – challenged the way that, within AR4, the IPCC may (wrongly) have altered a peer reviewed paper (Forster / Gregory 2006) to suggest a higher sensitivity?

    Ah, no, now I know where you’re coming from: you are just reading Ridley’s stuff. But Ridley doesn’t say NL wrote a paper. “He first collaborated with others” is designed to make you think he did, though.

    I could be wrong though. Point me at the actual paper and I’ll read it.

    Ben Pile > I think you are a moron, and have said so on Twitter

    Oh sorry, I’d forgotten you. Yes, you’re a fool. See http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/08/16/more-weird-sea-ice-stuff/ for details.

  79. SE: and the same applies to torture, but the drone-enthuser cut Romney no slack there.

    I think (from memory – and I did try to avoid the soap opera the US had instead of an actual election) Obama has a (very slightly) less crazy position on torture than Romney. But I think a hideous percentage of the US population get their views on the effectiveness of torture from watching “24”.

    There’s a good reason torture is banned by (unfortunately not comprehensive) international agreement – it is inhumane. There’s a good reason the US is the only country which has tried to overturn its own ban – it simply doesn’t work.

  80. geronimo said: “Don’t forget that 2007 was the year of AR4 and the science and policies suggested were as a result of those models. I doubt very much that there have been any substantive improvements.”

    They’ve got faster super computers so they can get to the wrong answers quicker!

  81. @ William M Connolley
    “You’re fighting strawmen. No-one says that only CO2 causes temperature change, and no-one says there was nothing at the MWP. ”
    May I request that you visit the Liberal Conspiracy website sometime? I have been shouted down and abused for suggesting that variations in solar emissions, let alone the heat generated by burning fossil fuels, might contribute to global warming. Even pointing out that the Industrial Revolution post-dated, rather than caused, the end of the “Little Ice Age” was treated as heresy.
    I find myself a lone voice calling for honesty in the debate.

  82. PaulB

    “LJAR: it’s well-established that there was a Medieval Warm Period in the North Atlantic. But unlike today’s warming, it seems to have been a local not a global phenomenon.”

    Simply not true; not your lie I assume, but someone else’s lie that you believe.

    The North-Atlantic evidence for MWP is incontrovertible, given the historical records in Europe and the archaeological evidence such as farms in areas of Greenland that could not possibly be used for farming today. However there is increasing proxy evidence that it was widespread, with data as far as Antarctica and Australia.

    There is no evidence that it was not a widespread warming apart from the hockey sticks which have been addressed and shown to be deeply flawed.

    Note also that today’s warming is not global either, there are areas cooling too, and that much of the warming is exaggerated. Flaws and unwarranted adjustments to old data in US records have doubled the warming trend there, and similar flaws show up in New Zealand, Australian, Dutch and Icelandic records, and seem to constitute the entire trend in these areas (in the raw data these are not

    “Ltw: there are precisely two facts. CO2 levels have risen. And global temperatures have risen”

    Two facts and one basic philosophical premise of science: correlation does not imply causation. Does not imply, let alone provide evidence for, correlation.

    Have you not seen the graph “proving” that warming is caused by the falling number of pirates?

    “All models predict that global temperatures tend to go up when CO2 levels go up.”

    No-one here is denying this. What is in dispute is feedback, which is assumed in the models to be strong and positive. Empirical evidence, on the other hand, suggests that it is weak or negative. So models suggest warming of between 1.5 and 4.5 or even 6 degrees per doubling of CO2, most likely 3.3 degrees. Given feedback at the levels shown by empirical evidence warming would fall to between 0.3 and 1.7 degrees per doubling, most likely between 0.7 and 1.3 degrees.

  83. Ooops, accidentally submitted the comment unfinished.

    Should have been:

    Note also that today’s warming is not global either, there are areas cooling too, and that much of the warming is exaggerated. Flaws and unwarranted adjustments to old data in US records have doubled the warming trend there, and similar flaws show up in New Zealand, Australian, Dutch and Icelandic records, and seem to constitute the entire trend in some of these areas (in the raw data there is no trend at all). The entire trend in Russia comes from cherry picking of stations. The Russian meteorological office says there is no trend if all stations are used.

  84. @ Ben Pile
    Even Teddy Hall doesn’t take morons.
    If you are serious in thinking William M Connolley is a moron then *you* are stupid.
    @ geronimo #64
    Try reading the links. It is totally implausible that if William M Connolley had been bullied at school he would have chosen to go to Teddy Hall which was famous for rugby rather than intellect. The gentlest person I knew at SEH was a boxing blue (yeah, they tended to be gentler than the rugby types).

  85. @ WMC
    You may have noticed that I wasn’t on that post because I’d given up on LC. Give me a couple of days – their archive system frequently fails – and I’ll find a couple.

  86. @SE ‘There’s a good reason torture is banned by (unfortunately not comprehensive) international agreement – it is inhumane. There’s a good reason the US is the only country which has tried to overturn its own ban – it simply doesn’t work.’

    I think there are some words missing from your second sentence there, or else the words are there but they’re in the wrong order, or something.

    But anyway, if it worked, it would still not be OK, despite that fact, because it’s ‘inhumane’?

    Well, it’s a view.

    To me, it’s no more inhumane that shooting someone, or dropping bombs on them. The question of its efficacy is the only one.

    If it doesn’t work, it must just be that lots of professional spooks just like hurting innocent people for no good reason.

    Maybe that’s true, but I doubt it.

    Anyway, PaulB still actively encourages people to vote for the guy who dramatically upped the drone hits on schools in Pakistan. Nice chap.

  87. @PaulB ‘Interested: This thread is about global warming. And Godwin’s law applies. Go away.’

    Make me!

  88. I have been working out the real physics for nearly 3 years now. Only recently was I able to prove that there can be no CO2-AGW on any planet.

    It’s because of basic radiative equilibrium principles, known to every process engineer like me.

    What happens is that the near black body 15 micron CO2 IR annihilates the near black body surface IR so there is no IR to be absorbed by atmospheric CO2.

    The immediate consequence of this is that there is no positive feedback, needed for the other part of the Hansenkoistic fraud, the claim that all lapse rate warming is due to the GHE.

    This appears to have taken the wind out of the sails of the warmists.

  89. Connolley

    So the fact that you insist people must base their arguments on papers is not an appeal to authority? It is not saying that only climate “scientists” in a small clique are the only people who understand the science?

    “> very few of the proponents of AGW have relevant credentials

    Rubbish. You just have to read their papers in the top journals. Those papers are published by… err, people who have written papers.”

    This is not an appeal to authority, and self-proclaimed authority at that?

    OK, then. So your random insults were not even backed by the usual alarmist’s fallacy, that only climate “scientists” can understand climate. It was in fact only based on your disagreement with his work. Not very scientific is it, to go publishing base insults just because you disagree?

    About as scientific as demanding that papers challenging your work should not be published, or demanding (and getting) the sacking of editors who publish peer-reviewed papers with which you disagree. About as scientific, indeed, as hiding the decline because you disagree with your own data and the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from it.

  90. @ John77 – >>If you are serious in thinking William M Connolley is a moron then *you* are stupid.<<

    I go to some lengths to explain what I mean, and that what is at issue is his intransigence, his refusal or inability to take arguments in front of him at face value, and his lack of self-awareness. Those things, common to environmentalists in particular, need some explanation. How is it that such seemingly intelligent people have internalised things so comprehensively, that, even if they are right, they have such difficulty with dialogue, it is as if they see nothing at all?

    Of course it's not as simple as 'WC is a moron'. It just looks that way. I believe I know why. Is he bright? Possibly. Is he exceptional? Not at all. Nonetheless, he casts himself as a planet-saver, and has all the zeal of someone so consumed by the sense of self-importance that only self-styled superheroes can manufacture.

    The reason I think WC can't see the world, the climate, and the relationship between them is not that he is incapable of seeing them. I think it is difficult for him to see anything other than himself because he is bent over with such self-regard that his head is jammed up his arse.

  91. Connolley

    “Better still, you could try reading and understanding the science for yourself.”

    I have done so. Unfortunately most of it turned out not to be science. Science can be repeated and verified. This cannot be done if data and significant parts of the method are hidden. Science takes data, forms an hypothesis, looks for empirical tests of this hypothesis then rejects it when tests are failed.

    “CAGW is the denialist strawman. If you haven’t realised that yet, you’re lost in the denialist camp so far you can’t see the edge.”

    Denialist? What are we denying?

    CAGW is the whole point. If it is not catastrophic, then why are people advocating catastrophic action to prevent it? If it is not anthropogenic then the solution being advanced will not be effective. How can this be a straw man?

    Indeed AGW is the alarmist’s straw man, because we know that CO2 can warm the atmosphere. The question is how much, and how quickly.

    “Ah, at last, a question. If you want to know, you can read the IPCC reports. Or you can read the summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change (an no, don’t whinge that its wiki so its all biased against you and you’re really sad; you can follow the links to the refs).”

    None of which gives any indication of empirical evidence. For example the wikipedia summary given is:

    ” (1) A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
    (2) Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
    (3) Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
    (4) Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]”

    (1) a small effect, far too small to account for the warming

    (2) not actually true. Completely unjustifiable unless you cherry-pick alarmists’ estimates both of past and present climate change; we know the latter are exaggerated, and have strong evidence that the former are underplayed. Even using the climate alarmists’ figures the warming in the late 20th century was no more rapid than earlier in the century, at times when CO2 emissions were far lower.

    Also it is not empirical evidence; correlation does not imply causation.

    (3) not empirical evidence; given that we know all the computer models are wrong, not evidence at all

    (4) not empirical evidence.

    So what is the actual, empirical evidence?

    Note also that I didn’t ask one question; I asked four (or rather three, as the fourth really simply focused the third).

    “What is the empirical evidence that the strong positive feedback in temperature assumed in all the models is correct? How do you explain the difference between the models and real-world observations in the temperatures between 20N and 20S between 300 hPa and the tropopause? Does this difference not mean that the models are fundamentally flawed?”

    So what are the answers to these, Mr Connolley?

  92. WC = zealot

    You cannot reason with a zealot. They are blinded by their belief. The ultimate control freaks, rather than adjust their view to match reality, they are driven uncontrollably to change the world around them to match their beliefs.

  93. [Aldous // Dec 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm]

    Well done, sir.

    I would just like to stop by and observe that Billy Cannoli is being funded by taxpayer dollars. I only feel compelled to interrupt a fascinating and valuable experiment in Noble Cause Corruption to point this out because no better argument for tax/spending cuts is likely ever to be extant on this Earth, at any temperature.

    “What happens is that the near black body 15 micron CO2 IR annihilates the near black body surface IR so there is no IR to be absorbed by atmospheric CO2.”

    I’ve seen variations on that claim a few times, but nothing ever seems to come of it. Are there any published papers supporting this claim? (I know engineers are often wont to roll their eyes at the notion of publishing something rather than doing something useful.) I did once have a short conversation on the topic with a climate scientist who shall remain unnamed:

    “But, Venus.”
    “Yes, but Mars.”

    [This thread is about global warming. And Godwin’s law applies.]

    You know who else who used laws to silence people?

  94. Connolley

    One to add to my previous comment on Wiki’s (2) unusual warming trend.

    Given that we all, here, seem to accept some human attribution, unusual warming is again no evidence for attributing most of the warming to humans.

    Take a natural warming trend which is strong on the scale of the Holocene (not likely after the Little Ice Age I know; ooops, mistake there, it’s rather to be expected). Add in a human influence of, say, half that, then the trend would be 50% greater than a strong natural trend. That this was unusual, even the strongest trend since the current interglacial became established is perfectly consistent with only attributing 1/3 of warming to human activity. That is perfectly consistent with “luke-warm” scenarios of benign or benevolent warming.

  95. Every time Billy Connelly does this I wonder if he’s posting from either a pub or backstage at a comedy club.

    Has he used the word bozo yet? That’s his typical introduction.

    If I read this thread correctly he posted several dozen insults about Ridley, Lewis et al before acknowledging that he hadn’t read Lewis. Typical.

    It’s not about debating facts, papers or even issues. For this twat it’s all about controlling the conversation.

    One-third of all human emissions of CO2 have occurred since 1998 without any visible effect on global average temperatures, which plateaued at that time.

    Connelly wants to talk about how stupid we all are for noticing that and wondering what it means for elaborately constructed theories of high sensitivity. But he wants to talk about our stupidity precisely so we don’t discuss sensitivity.

  96. Isn’t Connolley that Wiki bully that abuses anyone who dares to disagree with him? An odious ex number cruncher that now works for some tedious electronics shop. Sad that he has to justify his existence by trolling in the field of climate science and pretending to have qualifications far beyond his abilities. But then that just about sums up most alarmists, cognitively challenged foul mouthed bullies!

  97. Dr Connelley said:
    “How are you, humble members of the public with no particular expertise, supposed to know who is telling the truth and who is foaming at the mouth?”
    Well, I use the scientific method. I look at what the theory predicts, then I look at the evidence (data about reality). If the evidence does not support the theory, then suspect that the theory is false.
    As far as I can see, the CAGW theory is not supported by the evidence.

  98. Connolley

    “> show a medieval warm perod with large fluctuation in temperature without corresponding changes in CO2

    You’re fighting strawmen. No-one says that only CO2 causes temperature change, and no-one says there was nothing at the MWP. ”

    Have you really missed the point that badly, or are you being disingenuous?

    The point LJAR made was that there was a large temperature fluctuation without man-made CO2. Therefore such fluctuations are possible, making it impossible to state that the recent warming trend (the one that stopped 16 years ago) could not have had natural causes.

  99. Dr Connelley said:

    “How are you, humble members of the public with no particular expertise, supposed to know who is telling the truth and who is foaming at the mouth?”

    If I were not a scientifically-educated member of the public I would look at the honesty and openness of the proponents of each side. Given the proven dishonesty, indeed admitted dishonesty in many cases, of the alarmists that would lead me to the same conclusion as the science does.

    As for openness, well we know how much effort is made to avoid the disinfectant of sunlight on cankerous sores of climate alarmism don’t we? We know it before the first release of the CRU emails, and after two sets and some further scandals it is worse than even I suspected.

  100. Funny to see the following in the comment policy of Connolley’s own blog:

    “Finally, a plea for politeness and civility …”

    He does not appear to extend the courtesy to others’ blogs, does he?

    Why is that, Mr Connolley?

  101. Tom Fuller> Has he used the word bozo yet?

    No, I was waiting for you to show up.

    > he posted several dozen insults about Ridley, Lewis et al before acknowledging that he hadn’t read Lewis.

    OTOH I have, *now* read Lewis. Aaannnddd: I’m still the only contributor to this thread who has read Lewis (to the extent of working out where he is getting his numbers from, rather than simply reading the headline and thinking “hmm, I like that conclusion, I’ll take it”. Not one of you so called non-credentialists have bothered to actually follow Lewis’s argument. Timmy certainly didn’t, because he can’t, and he’s got more clue than most of you.

  102. Oh, Connelly, quit trying to game the system and discussion. It didn’t work so well for you over at Wikipedia, did it?

    Tell a joke or something. Or continue being one.

    Slamming a paper before reading it and then trying to be all preachy about it? Yeah, tell us about science.

    C’mon you brazen hussy, you. Tell us all why the emission of 1/3 of all CO2 since 1998 is an argument for high sensitivity of the atmosphere. Or just keep showing us that at least one pinhead can tapdance on an Angel–at least if they’re in Sheffield.

  103. mr Connelley has a bit of a problem here trying to challenge Nic Lewis. Shortly before the IPCC Ar5 submission deadline Nic Lewis sent me a copy of his latest paper on ECS. Essentially, it takes Forrest 2006 to pieces. One issue there is another case of missing data. If Billy checks the Draft of AR5 version he will see that Nic’s latest paper is referenced ( Lewis 2012 ). Simply, Nic Lewis is no slouch. If he checks the record he will also find that the IPCC has issued an errata WRT another error that Lewis uncovered in Ar4. I trust the IPCC rather than Connelley when it comes to evaluating Nic Lewis’s work. The IPCC is right and Connelley is wrong. Now Nic has another contribution, using a method for estimating ECS vetted by previous IPCC reports. That approach, using a method previously accepted and more recent data produces a lower estimate for ECS. That is hardly the end of the story. In the past the IPCC has had similar low estimates for ECS counter balanced by higher estimates and nobody had a cow. Nic’s estimate falls in the lower range of the IPCC, what is the problem? Why would Connelley attack somebody who the IPCC relies on? I bet Connelley hasnt even read Lewis 2012 and didnt even know it was accepted.

  104. Connolley

    “I can’t recall Feynman cherry-picking 15 years, that kind of stuff belongs to the cargo-cult people he railed against.”

    It is not cherry picking. 15 (now 16) years of stasis is important counter to one important alarmist claim.

    Last lesson on scientific method and philosophy; I charge money for teaching (teaching the basics of meteorology among other subjects) and can’t carry freeloaders indefinitely.

    In effect one cannot cherry pick to provide evidence for an hypothesis, but a cherry that cannot be under the hypothesis can be happily picked to disprove the hypothesis. That is the burden of proof.

    You have advanced an hypothesis. You need supporting evidence, and you need to come up with predictions from that. Any prediction not born out means that the hypothesis is wrong.

    One claim used in evidence is that natural climate change cannot occur fast enough to account for late-20th-century warming, so some must have been caused by human activity. This is in fact essential to many of the argument of warmists.

    However we have had stasis now for 16 years. The reason given is natural variation, that the background climate of falling temperature by natural mechanisms is roughly balancing human influence.

    However the prediction from stating that nature cannot account for late 20th-century warming and that human activity did cause almost all of that warming is that warming will never cease for an extended period. If the warming was faster than natural climate change can occur and almost all man-made then natural climate cannot cool quickly enough to cancel out human influence.

    That prediction has not been borne out. Thus either the warming was not outside the bounds of natural variation or the late-20th-century warming had a significant natural component. One way or the other a key alarmist claim is wrong.

  105. Connelley:

    “Really? Are you sure you’re not picking that off Ridley, who has carefully phrased his language to make it appear so? I don’t know of any of his, but I would say that, wouldn’t I. But its easy to solve this: you or Ridley should ref the papers he’s written.”

    I refer you to AR5 and the chapter on sensitivity. If you had read the chapter as some of us did when the SOD first came out you would see a reference to Lewis 2012, accepted by journal of the climate I believe. If you wanted to read that you can as a reviewer request a copy. It is a very tough read and I am quite certain that you are not up to understanding it. nevertheless, it has been accepted and Ar5 does reference it. I’m not particularly impressed with the discussion dedicated to Nic’s work but this is only the SOD.

  106. I find it amazing that a failed scientist like Connelley, a failed politician and a failed blog owner has such a high opinion of himself.
    He no longer works in the field but the ‘professor’ thinks his views are so very important.

    To be his age, with no research group, grants or job tells you everything you need to know. I’m sure he is well respected for his Wikipedia articles.

    You are a unpleasant joke little William and this thread is read by large numbers of people and they are all laughing at you.

  107. To me, it’s no more inhumane that shooting someone, or dropping bombs on them. The question of its efficacy is the only one.

    Really? If I offered you the choice between the firing squad and the Inquisition followed by being burned at the stake you wouldn’t see any difference? I think you are just being tedious now.

    If it doesn’t work, it must just be that lots of professional spooks just like hurting innocent people for no good reason.

    Nobody said they were innocent (although some of them were certainly in the wrong place at the wrong time and others were certainly more Baldrick than Melchett.)

    You may also be confusing (you are certainly confused) torture as a punishment (for the deaths of friends and colleagues, or innocents, for months spent away from the family, for the breakdown of marriages etc, etc) with torture as a valid interrogation technique. I would also recommend you pick up a good book on the problems of organisational ‘group think’. This is a particular problem with the more Messianic sectors of us.gov (which includes the military and the CIA, but generally not State or the NSA.)

  108. I’d like to have a sensible debate about what Lewis has done, but there’s too much nonsense here to permit it.

    Just one example. AlecM’s analysis (which someone thought worth repeating): “What happens is that the near black body 15 micron CO2 IR annihilates the near black body surface IR so there is no IR to be absorbed by atmospheric CO2.” is not physics but gobbledygook.

  109. A joke.

    Q:What do men with pony tails and horses have in common?

    A: When you lift the tail you find an arsehole.

    Sometimes this is more accurate than others.

  110. Steven Moshling> Nic Lewis. Shortly before the IPCC Ar5 submission deadline Nic Lewis sent me a copy of his latest paper on ECS

    How sweet. So it hasn’t been published. Feel free to forward it to me if you want me to read it: wmconnolley(at)gmail.com, as ever.

    > I trust the IPCC rather than Connelley when it comes to evaluating Nic Lewis’s work

    But all the IPCC have to say re Lewis is “Lewis (2012) re-18 analyzed the data used in Forest et al. (2006) using an objective Bayesian method and find that use of a non-19 uniform prior lowers the upper limit of ECS. However, this author also presents two very different results 20 based on differently processed versions of the data used in Forest et al. (2006), one of them unpublished, 21 suggesting this may arise from a data-processing error. Hence neither the latter results nor Lewis (2012) are 22 shown here until these differences are resolved”

    So I don’t see that they have evaluated his work.

    Tom Fuller> Gone and introduced facts

    I must have missed them. I can’t see any facts from the paper that SM has introduced. Perhaps you could point them out, I bet they’re really exciting.

    Doubting Rich> You have advanced an hypothesis…

    Not here I haven’t. I have elsewhere, though. Sometime, you must try reading it, which is to say roughly the IPCC position, instead of the fantasy strawmen you make up. This will do: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/04/what-i-think-about-global-warm/

    > However the prediction from stating that nature cannot account for late 20th-century warming and that human activity did cause almost all of that warming is that warming will never cease for an extended period.

    No, not really. You just made that up. You could try finding it in the IPCC reports, if you think its supposed to be part of the canon.

  111. PaulB> I’d like to have a sensible debate about what Lewis has done, but there’s too much nonsense here to permit it.

    I’ll be blogging on it in a day or two – you know where I live. Whether the brave folk over here will be brave enough to show up and debate is another matter.

  112. “So I don’t see that they have evaluated his work.”

    And of course yours is regularly quoted! Is the IPCC now quoting Wikipedia?

    So the IPCC do not not evaluate literature now Willy?

  113. The folk here are brave enough to make the journey to your quasi-mammalian lair. I have noticed that some of the commenters (not the host) actually seem to be mammals.

    The problem is not that you clutch your pearls when someone uses language your rowing team might disapprove of.

    The problem is you censor comments. So you can bugger right off and continue with your fellow cultists.

  114. Lawrence Solomon: “All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

  115. Now, now Tom, you have to understand that little Willy’s abrupt and rude persona is merely an expression of his great and quite amazing intellect. Why the likes of you and me could not understand any of little Willy’s knowledge. So gifted and wonderful is he that we should thank him on bended knee for coming here with his glorious presence to put us straight.
    His AMAZING knowledge is why the climate science community are breaking down his door to publish with him!
    Thank you little Willy, we could not survive without you!
    It was a sad day for Britain when you failed to get elected by the slim margin of 50000 votes, Britannia for shame!

  116. Ah, Connolley has gone back to his cess pit, like all good trolls he can’t stand the light. Maybe his Wiki buddies can salve his fragile ego.
    Will he be missed, who?

  117. The only other guy who reminded me of his academic achievement was Joe Romm. Who is well on his way to losing a $1,000 bet with me.

    So that’s two for two–unpleasant idiots reminding me that they gradicated from skool.

    But he hasn’t said anything about the fact that one-third of all human emissions of CO2 have occurred since 1998–when temperatures plateaued.

    But since the point of all his surliness is to distract us from the inconvenient topic of atmospheric sensitivity to concentrations of CO2, I doubt if he’ll change his manner.

  118. Hi tom

    I expect connelley to ignore the facts.

    1. lewis 2012 is cited in ar5
    2. his estimate is within the range established
    as the consensus range
    3. He used accepted methods and data.

    as with all estimates of ecs there are grounds for quibbling. But arguing that ecs lies below
    3c is not skepticism, not denialism and not
    a form of conspiracy thinking.
    connelley has nothing

  119. William M Connolley says:

    “How are you, humble members of the public with no particular expertise, supposed to know who is telling the truth and who is foaming at the mouth? Well, you could be an utter cretin and try to judge it by who is speaking politely to you and smarming you with pretty words. But you’re not dumb enough to believe that kind of crap from politicians, so why are you dumb enough to believe it in science?”

    “Better still, you could try reading and understanding the science for yourself. But none of you have the patience for that, sadly. So you have no choice but to rely on some authority.”

    ” Given the level of debate you find here, I doubt that many are capable of reading the scientific literature itself.”

    I am only a humble member of the public, but I have a brain, an excellent earth science education, 28 years professional experience in the earth sciences and I have read a lot of relevant climate science papers, including MBH98/99 and others that followed; rebuttals by MM; Steig09 and rebuttal by O’Donnell etc and many, many others. More recently I have asked some open blog questions about GCM models and got some helpful pointers where to read up on those too.

    Like many others on the climate blogs and including, I suspect, many posting here, I have taken the time to become well-informed and in doing so have reached my own conclusions. I do not agree with you. I think it is entirely plausible that climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC estimates and I think Nic Lewis has made an excellent contribution to that scientific debate.

    Nic Lewis has presented a reasoned argument, he has shown his workings and assumptions, he provides references to published, peer reviewed papers and data. Many of those references are actually in IPCC FAR SOD. He is using real world observations, not models whose assumptions are likely wrong. What he is doing is called science. If you think his calculations are wrong, show us where they are wrong and embarrass him. If you think he is using incorrect data, show us which data is wrong and which he should have used and embarrass him. If you think his assumptions are wrong, show us so we can see why. Perhaps in showing us how Nic Lewis’ calculations are wrong, Nic can improve his answer and science progresses. If Dr William M Connolley (with an “e”) knows the answer and can prove that Nic Lewis’ rather elegant and well argued calculation is wrong, well show us.

    I suspect the reality is, Dr William M Connolley, that you do not possess the technical competence or skills to do so. Instead all you can do is arm wave and rant. And tell us all we are the ignorant unwashed, lazy public who must coming running to you to be granted crumbs of scientific authority from the table of Dr William M Connolley. Many humble members of the public are far more well informed than I suspect you are on the technical aspects of the climate debate. We don’t need you to make our minds up for us, thank you, we are quite capable of doing that for ourselves.

  120. and of course we can all comment at ConnollEEEEEEEy’s web-site…except we cannot because he does not welcome debate…I know , I have tried on 3 occasions to express anassenting opinion – one was about discount rates…still he knows more than I do as an investment advisor

  121. Hi, Thinking Scientist

    What Connelly fails to understand is that for humble and non-scientist types like myself, what is just as useful to us in arriving at heuristic sets is knowing who not to trust.

    I trust: James Hansen. I don’t trust: Michael Mann. I trust: Bart Verheggen. I don’t trust: Peter Gleick.

    As for the Idiot Brigade of which Connelley is a charter member, trust is not a consideration. Lambert, Tobis, Connelly, Romm, Tamino, Mooney–they are chiselers, whiners and frauds.

  122. William S Connolley says:

    “I’ll be blogging on it in a day or two – you know where I live. Whether the brave folk over here will be brave enough to show up and debate is another matter.”

    You think us “humble members of the public with no particular expertise” plebs are that stupid to think you of all people are going to host an open, un-censored debate at your blog? No-one is going to turn up at your blog where you can behave like RC and edit comments out you don’t like. And no-one is going to flatter your ego and vanity by doing so either.

    You are so cock sure and want an open debate with the likes of Nic Lewis? Why don’t you take up the challenge and blog somewhere where everyone knows the comments are not going to be censored. The obvious venue would be Bishophill where I am sure Andrew Montford would be more than happy to guarantee there is no censorship.

    The problem for you is that you know, deep down, on a level playing field , you have no hope of winning at all against people who actually know what they are talking about.

  123. the truly great thing thing is that since Connolley is getting smashed here, he will gain kudos in the Alarmist camp. in that way all our dreams come true – nwe have proof that they are un-scientific.

  124. RE: Tom Fuller says:

    “Connelly certainly doesn’t have the guts to debate here–witness his behaviour to date. Shows up, drops his load, takes off.”

    Premature evacuation?

  125. At his blog, William Connolley is only interested in what he finds interesting. He doesn’t find swarms of WUWT clones interesting – and who can blame him?

    Does he sometimes find interesting critiques of his positions uninteresting? Yes. Is he sometimes peremptorily abusive? Yes. Is he himself sometimes interesting? Yes.

    Has Connolley slowed his posting frequency at Stoat in recent years because he’s tired of moronic clones from WUWT and Wikipedia (and AUE) invading the comments? Dunno, but I wouldn’t blame him if that’s why he posts so little these days.

    People, if you want to argue with stoats, first read enough to be a weasel. Parrots needn’t apply.

    (Stoat: I surely get a free £100 sea-ice bet of my choosing for this – wholly unsolicited – comment. If I don’t: fucking mustelids. What are they?)

  126. ThinkingScientist> I am only a humble member of the public, but I have a brain, an excellent earth science education, 28 years professional experience in the earth sciences and…

    Err, well, you’re clearly lying about something. If you’re a scientist, as your username says, and you have prof exp, then you’re not a member of the general public. Make your mind up.

    Tom Fuller> doesn’t have the guts to debate here

    You’re a bozo and an obvious liar. I’m here, debating.

    Diogenes> except we cannot because he does not welcome debate…I know , I have tried on 3 occasions to express anassenting opinion – one was about discount rates…

    You too are a liar. I don’t suppress comments (though I do redact incivility). You (or some other anon with the same name, who knows) have comments at my blog at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/30/sun-down/ and two at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/11/28/architecture-and-morality/ None of them are very exciting, though.

    steven mosher> I expect connelley to ignore the facts. 1. lewis 2012 is cited in ar5

    Read comment 138, where I explicitly cite IPCC talking about Lewis. So that’s a fail from you. Meanwhile I’ve seen no evidence at all that you have actually read Lewis. Certainly you’ve given no indication of it.

  127. Instead of citing your own droppings, read Moshers. What a maroon you are, WC.

    You’re the one who hadn’t read Lewis, remember? Not Mosher, not the rest of us–you.

    You slammed Lewis and his paper. Then you admitted you hadn’t read it. Now you’re shucking and jiving, singing and dancing, doing your usual WC failure dance–we’ve all seen it a hundred times before.

  128. “But he hasn’t said anything about the fact that one-third of all human emissions of CO2 have occurred since 1998–when temperatures plateaued.”

    What evidence is there that temperatures plateaued since 1998? All trends I can find cover substantial warming since 1998 within 95%. Furthermore data since 1998 has increased the rate of warming since 1970.

  129. Vinny Burgoo says:

    “Has Connolley slowed his posting frequency at Stoat in recent years because he’s tired of moronic clones from WUWT and Wikipedia (and AUE) invading the comments?”

    How patronising to us “humble members of the public with no particular expertise” to suggest we are all “moronic clones”. Of course its not possible that we could have opinions that differ from those of the infinite wisdon of Dr William M Connolley (with an “e”) and that he could be wrong and one or more of us could be right. Or is anyone who disagrees with Connolley simply to be sneered at as some inferior?

  130. Wow I have heard so much about this Connolly guy. It appears to be all true. I avoid Wikipedia because of him. Thank you. When they make State of Fear into a movie they should write this guy into, if he isn’t already.

  131. MAMWAPT says:

    “Err, well, you’re clearly lying about something. If you’re a scientist, as your username says, and you have prof exp, then you’re not a member of the general public. Make your mind up.”

    So just to be clear…your is your point (a) educated people cannot be members of the general public of (b) educated people can be members of the general public but then must be considered liars or (c) the general public cannot include educated people or people that cannot think for themselves.

  132. Maybe my comments were not exciting, ConnollEEEEEEEEy, because they pointed out, objectively, using sums, that your concerns were so stupid that no one should bother with them unless they believed the tooth fairy. I know why why you censored them but that does not make you honest opr even intelligent. In fact, since you boast about rowing, it is clear that you are thick as shit.

  133. MAMWAPT says:

    “You’re a bozo and an obvious liar. I’m here, debating.”

    I think you will find that the consensus view on what you are doing here is either (a) being insulting or (b) making a fool of your self.

    Possibly both.

  134. One interesting thing to note is that at 1.7C ECS the various claims by skeptics that the world will cool (sun, pdo, silly theories, etc) become untenable.

    You can’t increase CO2 at the rate we are increasing it (plus other GHGs and low aerosol forcing) with 1.7C ECS and have the world cool for decades.

    All reconstructions for the last 1000 or 2000 years show nature doesn’t cause much global warming or cooling – compared to 1.7C.

    All I demand of skeptics quoting 1.7C ECS figures is they admit human CO2 must have and will continue to dominate global temperature changes, ie the prime driver of global temperature in the 21st century.

    One thing I notice by the way with Nic Lewis’s argument is that the equation he uses is based on climate models. The same climate models he accuses of being wrong. That might not mean the equation is wrong too of course but you have to wonder why so many skeptics aren’t questioning it…

  135. have you begun to invest as much in future generations as in your own pension fund, ConnollEEEEEEEy? Otherwise, you might come across as a hypocrite.

  136. (sorry, I’m monopolising the conversation, how rude of me. I’m off to bed now, so you can flame as much as you like:)

    One last thought: by my usual measure of “fuss”, which is some bozo popping up on wikipedia trying to force the latest nonsense into the GW page, this one scores a zero.

  137. Lolwot says:

    “One interesting thing to note is that at 1.7C ECS the various claims by skeptics that the world will cool (sun, pdo, silly theories, etc) become untenable.”

    How do you get an ice age? and then a warm period, and then another ice age, then another warm period, followed by an ice age….?

    How do you get an LIA or an MWP?

    How do you get the Younger Dryas event? How do you get Dansgaard-Oeschger, 25 times during the last glacial period?

    And how do you get all this with CO2 lagging temperature by about 800 years?

    Man is not the centre of the universe, ony his arrogance and hubris is.

  138. If I have this right spelling actual words is of no import. The only important issue facing the human race is to spell the name of our holy wiki gatekeeper correctly? Damn and all I cared about was if it’ll snow any more.

    In my defence I am an avowed conspiracy nut (it’s in my job title) and it’s heartwarming to know that I am not unique in my delusions of grandeur.

    I do wonder – which I believe is still legal despite the consensus – what if there was a spellibg mistake in the code? Easily happens in most jobs. I’ve seen the funniest stuff slip through a ‘proof read’.

    Any way must go as it’s 21 12 12…see you in the next life pal ;-)

  139. +1 Tom Fuller…if only ConnellEEEEEEEEEy had the ability to say , like the late Tommy Trinder…”Trimder’s the name”. What would the Conn’s name be?

  140. ThinkingScientist says: “How do you get an LIA or an MWP?”

    The LIA and MWP weren’t close to 1.7C warming or cooling departures. So if a doubling of CO2 produces 1.7C warming as Lewis argues, and given we stand to more than double CO2 (with other ghg equiv), the human warming from GHG stands to dominate over natural variation.

    There is no arrogance here, just common sense. If you accept a doubling of CO2 produces as much as 1.7C warming then you can’t believe anything but man is driving climate.

    Nature simply doesn’t operate typically on that scale over such a short-timescale.

    “How do you get the Younger Dryas event? How do you get Dansgaard-Oeschger, 25 times during the last glacial period?”

    Mainly regional events. Globally the fluctuations are thought to be much smaller. And we aren’t going to have any of those in the 21st century.

    “How do you get an ice age? and then a warm period, and then another ice age, then another warm period, followed by an ice age….?”

    Those took long periods of time. Likely a small orbital forcing, amplified by feedbacks. Again it’s not going to happen this century, also as an aside it’s a reasonable argument for climate sensitivity being higher than 1.7C.

  141. William M. Connolley> wikipedia vandal, climate cult idiot, and all around jackass…what a versatile and accomplished buffoon he is.

  142. Eli>

    Someone called you a rabid rent-seeking fraudulent cunt. The first step in changing yourself is accepting who you are, so good on you for responding to that title, I guess.

  143. +1 thegingerzilla you make more sense than a supposed DPhil of a reputable eductional establishment. Connolleweeeeeeeeeeey is a disgrace

  144. Connelley:

    Steven Moshling> Nic Lewis. Shortly before the IPCC Ar5 submission deadline Nic Lewis sent me a copy of his latest paper on ECS

    How sweet. So it hasn’t been published. Feel free to forward it to me if you want me to read it: wmconnolley(at)gmail.com, as ever.

    ##########################

    Can you not read. The paper has been submitted to the Journal of the Climate and accepted. It is cited by Ar5. You doubted that Lewis had anything meaningful to say about sensitivity. You are wrong the IPCC and the Journal of the Climate are right. Stop being obtuse.

    ##################

    > I trust the IPCC rather than Connelley when it comes to evaluating Nic Lewis’s work

    But all the IPCC have to say re Lewis is “Lewis (2012) re-18 analyzed the data used in Forest et al. (2006) using an objective Bayesian method and find that use of a non-19 uniform prior lowers the upper limit of ECS. However, this author also presents two very different results 20 based on differently processed versions of the data used in Forest et al. (2006), one of them unpublished, 21 suggesting this may arise from a data-processing error. Hence neither the latter results nor Lewis (2012) are 22 shown here until these differences are resolved”

    So I don’t see that they have evaluated his work.

    ##########################
    I see that you havent read the paper. And you haven’t addressed the issue. You Seem to think that Lewis has no standing on the issue because he is “only” a reviewer. You doubted he was published in the area. I think the IPCC is right to consider his opinion and you are wrong to dismiss it. You should not that BOTH methods Lewis uses in his JoC paper deliver lower estimates. In stead of showing that they have thrown out both Forest and Lewis’s re work of Forest. Pretty slick. But the point I made remains. You are so behind in your reading of the relevant texts that you didnt even know about this issue.

    ########################

    Tom Fuller> Gone and introduced facts

    I must have missed them. I can’t see any facts from the paper that SM has introduced. Perhaps you could point them out, I bet they’re really exciting.

    #################

    The facts were simple. You, without checking facts, doubted Lewis’s credentials. I presented the credentials. The IPCC understands that he has standing in this field. You do not. As I said, they were correct to consider to his writing, you were wrong to dismiss him without reading the papers . I trust them, not you. You were wrong to question and dismiss him without doing any checking, if you were up on the literature and actually reading the Drafts you would have known that Lewis had a paper accepted by JoC.
    unless of course you dont read and check references.

    #################

  145. Lolwot>

    I believe they were talking metaphorically. It wouldn’t be unfair to describe the beatdowns people give the likes of you and Scharführer Connelley as metaphorically raping intellectual children, given the degree of resistance you are able to put up to your violation. I’ve been known to dabble.

  146. One last thing to point out.

    Connelley writes

    “But all the IPCC have to say re Lewis is “Lewis (2012) re-18 analyzed the data used in Forest et al. (2006) using an objective Bayesian method and find that use of a non-19 uniform prior lowers the upper limit of ECS. However, this author also presents two very different results 20 based on differently processed versions of the data used in Forest et al. (2006), one of them unpublished, 21 suggesting this may arise from a data-processing error. Hence neither the latter results nor Lewis (2012) are 22 shown here until these differences are resolved”

    So I don’t see that they have evaluated his work

    ########################

    The facts.

    1. In ar4 4 Forest 2006 was cited and used
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2.html

    2. Nic Lewis’s 2012 paper identifies some fundamental problems with F2006, and in addition he derived 2 estimates of ECS . Both lower than F2006.

    3. The IPCC on reading Lewis’s paper decides that Forest 2006 results are not to be relied on.

    4. Connelley claims the IPCC did not evaluate Lewis’s work.

    This of course is an odd definition of “evaluate” . In the eyes of the IPCC Lewis’s work was good enough to knock out Forest 2006 from being relied on anymore. Now, did they just look at the title and just toss Forest 2006 which they had relied on? probably not. A moronic skeptic might see work challenging Forest and just toss F2006 out because they are stupid. But I suspect the Lead author’s read Nic’s work and considered it important enough to reconsider F2006 . Here is what Connelley is saying

    “The IPCC did not evaluate Lewis’ work and based on their non evaluation they decided not to not show Forest 2006″

    So, the simple bet I have for Connelley is.

    Will the lead author say he decided not to show Forest 2006 because of this non evaluation or will the lead author say that they evaluated Nic’s work and decided that Forest 2006 was no longer a definitive result.

    William you need to stop trashing the IPCC and the Lead authors. They obviously read the work; they obviously evaluated it. And they obviously decided that it was important enough to remove F2006 which they had previously relied on in Ar4 and cited in the ZOD.

  147. “William M. Connolley // Dec 19, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    On climate, Ridley is an idiot and you’re a fool for taking him seriously.”

    ——-
    On climate, he’s figured out the Magic Gas isn’t hiding the Magic Heater in the Sky from the most sophisticated electronic space-age you’ll ever apply your criminopathy to.

  148. Tim Worstall, this is a really wonderful brawl you have going on at your site. I’ve really enjoyed reading all the comments, during my first visit. Wm Connolley may not be the most pleasant visitor, but he does seem to attract other visitors like myself.

    It is fun to study how he answers without answering. I will avoid his site, however, because I want answers.

  149. Connolley’s behaviour and aggression suggests deep insecurity. There are two periods in peoples’ lives when growing up that are crucial to their emotional development and feeling of security: from infants to children (ages 4 to 6 approx); from childhood to adolescence (ages 11 to 13 approx). Any trauma such as an accident, illness, child abuse (that may or may not be sexual), or violence (including the threat of violence) while itself is bad, the real tragedy is that he or she was not believed or listened by his or her primary caregivers, particularly in the case of abuse. This last point is worth repeating: while the abuse is itself bad it is the disbelief or lack of (loving) support by the primary caregivers that does much of the damage and helps creates the insecurity.

    This impact is exacerbated by the trauma or abuse happening at a very young age (under 6 say) when the child is preliterate, i.e. is unable to express themselves, and also when the caregivers themselves also carries this insecurity. This latter point is very common in dysfunction families and some like-minded groups (groupthink?) for the simple reason that many sufferers recognise in other people that “you think just like I do”, not recognising (or even having the ability to know) that the similarities in thinking and behaviour are the result of the unbelieved or unresolved trauma or abuse.

    It has only recently been discovered (via MRT brain scans) that there is empirical evidence now to support this social welfare theory on the impact of trauma on preliterate children. The almond-sized and shaped amygdala, a lobe of the brain’s cerebellum, controls (in part?) the body’s fight or flight response, i.e. the impact of adrenalin on the system. In traumatised children, especially those of preliterate age (say under six) the sudden onrush of adrenalin would be enough to overwhelm and kill an infant; the amygdala overcomes this (somehow?) by controlling the onrush so as not to jeopardise the health of the infant – which is why small infants can seemingly witness violence or abuse and remain “unaffected”.

    Unfortunately they are affected as the amygdala’s response is to imprint behaviours on the brain such that anytime in the future that person undergoes any stress that releases adrenalin the response is the same: fight or flight, more often than not resulting in aggressive, violent (be it in word or action), abusive, loopy or otherwise inappropriate behaviour – this manifests in the personality as a type of narcissism, most commonly expressed as blaming others for one’s own (negative) feelings, or of feeling superior. The other unfortunate aspect is that to these people their behaviour is “normal”, it being what they are used to, and the older they get the less likely they will do anything about it except “blame the other”.

  150. Likely a small orbital forcing, amplified by feedbacks. Again it’s not going to happen this century, also as an aside it’s a reasonable argument for climate sensitivity being higher than 1.7C.

    But ‘climate sensitivity’, in this context, is to doubling of CO2. And you posit that the long term natural fluctuation in temperature is due to orbital effects. So unless there is a very significant causal effect on global CO2 emissions either from the orbital change itself or the consequent rise in temperature, the climate sensitivity value is an irrelevance in this case.

    This is the sort of ‘any suggestion or event must mean that we are right’ lack of logic that really grates about the CAGW crowd.

    And, no, that not a strawman. If it is not catastrophic, why are we panicking? If it is not anthropomorphic, why are we concentrating on reducing human CO2 emissions as the sole possible solution?

  151. TallDave // Dec 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    ‘I’ve seen variations on that claim a few times, but nothing ever seems to come of it. Are there any published papers supporting this claim’

    I think you meant me not Aldous. This is basic radiative equilibrium. The atmosphere is a near black body emitter in the major GHG bands as is the Earth’s surface. You go back to Maxwell’s Equations. Only net radiative flux in any wavelength can do thermodynamic work, Poynting’s Theorem. So when the models assume 396 W/m^2 goes up as a real flux, when it is an artefact of the pyrometer, and 333 W/m^2 goes down, but is also an artefact, they exaggerate warming and create imaginary feedback.

    In reality the main CO2 signal disappears. The main residual IR absorption is a bit of water vapour side bands, not in self absorption and ozone. The two-stream approximation used by Houghton is wrong at the boundaries and there can be no CO2-AGW. Most of the GHE is the rise in surface temperature from reduced surface emissivity.

    It’s taken an engineer with a PhD in applied physics to show the climate dolts got basic heat transfer wrong, shouted about it too early and are now hoist with their own petards, inventing imaginary polluted cloud cooling and ‘abyssal heat’ to try to finesse AR5.

    Ultimately, we have a bad case of mass hysteria, the belief that ‘pyrgeometers’ measure a real energy flux when the signal is temperature. The manufacturers correctly mention in the small print that only the net signal is an energy flux, the most basic of physics imaginable: http://www.kippzonen.com/?product/16132/CGR+3.aspx [near the bottom].

    This is an amazing story of experimental incompetence allied to the hubris of arrogant people. And yes, I have done lots of experimental work with coupled heat transfer!

  152. WC writes: “How are you, humble members of the public with no particular expertise, supposed to know who is telling the truth and who is foaming at the mouth?”

    Somehow, I think we humble members of the public here have worked that out.

  153. Somehow, I think we humble members of the public here have worked that out.

    It is a fairly reasonable assumption, possibly even the modern usage of Occam’s razor (but not the original formulation which was a ‘proof’ of the existence of God) that anybody screaming about “THE TRUTH” is probably no closer to ‘the truth’ than could be achieved by me and a dart board (or any other high-entropy randomisation method).

  154. Is this the thread where I finally have the opportunity to call Mr. Conelly (ALWAYS misspell the name,always!) a complete twat and the post remains up?
    Oh, please!

    Tim adds: Of course: Although we do usually prefer something a little more constructive here in hte comments. But chacun a son gout.

  155. Blimey, its like one of those brawls in a cowboy film that starts in a bar between two cowboys and slowly sucks in the rest of the cowboys in the bar. It then spills in to the street and drags in all the cowboys from nearby bars. Eventually everyone’s forgotten what the initial row was about, if they even knew or cared, but they’re enjoying the fight anyway.

    Its been a good way for Tim to attract traffic though!

  156. Since an assortment of the scientists Matt cites have already written the WSJ to complain of his gross misrepresentation of their work , his views on climate sensitivity seem damp as a squib in a Yorkshire coal mine, of which the Ridley estate owns several:

  157. SimonF: what you must realise is that this brawl has been developing for 30 years as mainstream science has gradually realised the danger of the climate science cuckoo in the nest.

    The Marxists set out to take over science. Connolley’s behaviour over Wikipedia shows the extent of their conspiracy, to create the globalised totalitarian state via the CO2-AGW scare.

    Before 1997, they had the science on their side. After then they started systematic fraud. The hockey stick in 1999, the claim by NASA in 2004 that clouds with small droplets had very high albedo.

    Alongside this there was promotion in many mainstream subjects on the basis of adherence to the creed. This means our Universities, UEA the best example, have been hollowed out in terms of intellect.

    This is why anybody who is a ‘sceptic’ came under vicious attack. The Royal Society has become a host for Eugenicist Paul Erlich who has advocated poisoning of water supplies with a contraceptive with the antidote only available to the politically favoured. – Holdren, Obama’s Chief Scientists is a past colleague of Erlich.

    Climategate changed it all by revealing the extent of the conspiracy, including boasting by CRU academics that they taught incorrect physics to climate e science students.

    That was unforgivable and why I joined in to reverse engineering climate science. I have concluded there can be no significant CO2-AGW and identified 7 mistakes in the physics, 3 of which are elementary, unprofessional behaviour on a massive scale.

    They covered themselves by teaching fake science and getting in non-physicists like Nurse and Jones to do UK propaganda when they haven’t a clue about it. The modelling can’t predict anything.

  158. “But ‘climate sensitivity’, in this context, is to doubling of CO2. And you posit that the long term natural fluctuation in temperature is due to orbital effects. So unless there is a very significant causal effect on global CO2 emissions either from the orbital change itself or the consequent rise in temperature, the climate sensitivity value is an irrelevance in this case.”

    There is a significant causal effect on global CO2 emissions. Part of the feedback to and from “ice ages” included large changes in CO2.

  159. lolwat; there is no connection between CO2 and the end of ice ages. Its increase occurred 2000 years after the last ice age started to end.

    CO2 increase is solely the result of the ocean warming from other effects – reduction of cloud albedo hence bistable climate.

    You get that by correcting Sagan’s incorrect aerosol optical physics which the warmists use to claim increased cloud albedo is hiding CO2-AGW. That is simply not true and they know it. Abyssal heat is their last play, and that has no basis in physics.

  160. Moshling: wake me up when Lewis is actually published. Or, as I said, feel free to send me a pre-release copy if you want me to read it. Since you appear to have declined that invite my best guess is that you don’t want me to read it.

    > Nic Lewis’s 2012 paper identifies some fundamental problems with F2006

    That would be fun, if true. But no, I’m not going to trust an unpublished paper, nor am I going to trust your assessment of it.

    > You, without checking facts, doubted Lewis’s credentials. I presented the credentials.

    Lewis’s credentials, as presented by you, are (a) being cited by the IPCC and (b) being published. Well, the latter isn’t quite true. The former, I agree, is a credential. But isn’t it rather ironic, if you read back over the “credentialist” part of this thread from all your fellow-travelling wackos? They certainly wouldn’t accept either as a valid credential.

    And, in fact, I had very little to say re Lewis’s credentials. Go back and re-read #9, #23. You’re making things up. And you *still* have nothing to say about the actual content of Lewis’s work.

  161. @AlecM – to be taken seriously you must write up what you are claiming as a working paper with clearly expressed and referenced arguments so we can understand what you are saying. Otherwise you come across as a crank.

  162. Frederick: I am writing it up.

    The radiative heat transfer physics I am using is standard from long before climate science borrowed the incorrect two-stream approximation from astrophysics and made the mistake, from meteorology, of assuming a pyrometer measures energy flux instead of a temperature signal.

    Read up the heat transfer chapter in Perry’s Chemical Engineering handbook, co-written by Hoyt C. Hottel who first established GHG physics in the 1940s at MIT. this is the baseline to which climate science must return before it can get back on the true path….

  163. LolWot successfully explains why the Moshers, Currys and Fullers of this world are ridiculous: the assertions they make are blatantly internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.
    And here they are demanding we believe that some unpublished paper giving a particular sensitivity value trumps the dozens of published papers that give similar sensitivity values.
    How many times have we seen this happen before? They seize on these tiny scraps – and each time it’s the final nail in the coffin of global warming….and each time they look like chumps when their scrap turns out to have been wrong.
    And yet they keep coming back for more.

    The average Joe public knows damn well that climate change denialism is stupid because the average Joe can see perfectly well that this denialism relies on every logical fallacy in the book.
    And cranks like the looney posting above.

  164. Connolly is a well-known fanatical troll. Best ignored since nothing useful can come from addressing his pointless gibberish.

  165. Craid:
    I thought the significance of the Lewis work had to do with not using the output of simulations as data ?

  166. Konnnolee is useful in one respect – he has drawn my attention to the term “mamwapt”.

    There should be a picture of him on the wikipedia page for this term when, as it surely should, it gains wide enough traction to get one.

    Meanwhile I’ve submitted a definition of it to urbandictionary.com.

  167. The average Joe public knows damn well that climate change denialism is stupid because the average Joe can see perfectly well that this denialism relies on every logical fallacy in the book.

    Really? From my experience the average Joe public took on board all the dire warnings in the 80’s and 90’s, and let’s not forget that even Maggie Thatcher was convinced by the arguments then, and is now wondering what all the fuss was about. An increasing number of them are starting to think they’ve been had.

  168. The global warming clowns have tried to teach to all who’ll listen that an incredibly plentiful stream of incoming infrared,

    when initially blocked for all the gases are worth by a class of infrared opaque gases

    when that stream of infrared photons coming from a disk cross section many, many times the size of earth itself – hence that stream coming from almost 5 sides – dead on, above/below/left/right –

    after these gases block this incoming infrared energy to the point they’ve stopped 20% of the sun’s energy from getting to earth,

    whatever does get to earth is then picked up by the majority species of that class of infrared gases – water – and tunneled upward in a convective engine comprising an actual phase change refrigeration cycle –

    to hillbillies who believe in Magic Gas, this class of gases accomplishing all this, is WARMING the earth.

    Blocking 20% of the sun’s incoming energy then creating an atmospheric pressures gradient phase change refrigeration system is WARMING to hicks like Connolly who apparently, can’t have the effect of a screen blocking incoming radiation explained to him.

    He’s a fraud perpetrating fraud so his friends can perpetrate as much fraud as possible and he’s a criminal.
    Period.
    If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have found himself grouped in with the men who foisted that a battery drill is too difficult to get into the woods to take bores on trees,

    grouped with the men who foisted that ignorant scrawls making hockey sticks are a ‘whole new branch of mathematics!’

    grouped with the men who foisted that the magic hockey stick looker, makes a bore hole, a treemomitur

    grouped with the men who had their political leader try to add CO2 to a jar and have that jar cool and therefore have to switch thermometers.

    Switching thermometers and getting caught???

    grouped with the men who were found using government databases as nothing more than hog wallows, in which endless streams of alterations, deletions, and sheer manipulations, not were – but ARE the course of the day.

    It’s crime, Connolley’s one of them. And he deserves to be in jail with his science hick friends.

  169. Ignorant, insipid descriptions of radiative transfer that involve the infrared coming toward a molecule from a source so plentiful it utterly swamps the limited number of gas molecules – more than half goes by because there’s simply not enough gas to interrupt those photons’ reaching earth –

    descriptions of the placement of more, of this screen of gases into the atmosphere as likely trapping more – the amount coming from the earth side being quite small in intensity relative to the larger sun-side –

    and, the sun’s disk being many times larger means the number of directions any particular gas molecule is impinging on is leveraged far to the side of blocking incoming photons –

    there simply aren’t enough directions in physical space for Magic Gas Huffers’ fantasy physics to approximate a warming much less impart some fantastical measurability.

    A far less intense stream is coming from a smaller disk: the diameter of the earth.

    Therefore the much more intense, and physically wide attack angles, from the sun side,

    must predominate, and if a single molecule is being impinged on by incoming light from more sides, due to it’s coming from a larger diameter disk,

    then placing more of those molecules in the atmosphere means blockage of more incoming photons.

    There’s the old photo of the laser trying to plow through a container of CO2. It can’t.

    In that photo the sun side, is the side the laser comes from;

    and the earth side, is the side that gets blocked more and more, as the sun-side’s more plentiful infrared, tries to get through.

    What science – WHAT FIELD do YOU WORK IN where you are REQUIRED to DENY the POLAR SIGN of a major mathematical element of your work, because ‘if you say it like that’ (telling the truth) and acknowledge the gases cool,

    the whole science folds in on itself and crushes like Mike Mann’s car thrown into a crusher with him and hicks like Connolley in the trunk?

    What field do you know
    where every single supporter of a fantastical farce that not ONE single INSTRUMENT known to man – including an entire array of infrared astronomy equipment –

    can find a single iota of – after all, there isn’t a risen CO2/water infrared level in the atmosphere –

    works for government or is a very close friend and political fellow traveler –

    and proudly purports unprovable claim after unprovable claim

    and says to you that they think they are going to make law around you on those points?

    What industry do you know of that gets away with that?

    The GRANT APPLICATIONS INDUSTRY.

    That’s what industry.
    It’s not science.
    It’s crime.

    Period.

  170. Bizarre claims, of entire atmospheric infrared energy components, so large they can change entire economies –

    when the entire infrared astronomy field looking since the BEGINNING of the entire, infrared astronomy field,

    sees precisely Z E R O of this prepostrous “Magic Gases that can only Warm’

    SCAM.

    The entire optical astronomy field – the guys who put Einstein on the map helping him measure the deflection of a beam of starlight by gravity as it was passing something in space

    yeah those guys –

    computerized, motorized, mirror flexing apparatus in place, to secure quality of viewing in face of EARTH SHINE FREQUENCY INFRARED DRIVEN CONVECTION –

    THE definition of HEAT on gas being MOTION therefore unMASKable –

    all these optical astronomers, in ALL these years, checking atmospheric infrared levels each day, marking down how much exists each hour, so people can know which experiments can be best done on what days –
    this studious marking of every measurable parameter of the sky, from the ground, from space –

    not ONE mention of ‘rising atmospheric infrared limiting viewing through many earth-based telescopes’

    – this kind of reason means nothing to intellectual cockroaches like Connolley.

    He’s an ignorant criminopathological hick who was too stupid to know that his exploits will have his grandchildren being pointed to as descendents of one of the most evil men of the early 21st century.

    It’s crime.
    Put him in jail.

  171. Hey Connolley go get the hick who is going to explain how all the infrared and optical astronomical observers for the past thirty years are Magically blinded by the Magical Gas that Magically hides Magically held heat

    making people think their observations and instruments are being made on perfectly working instruments, perfectly working pens, and paper;

    when in fact the Magical Gas class is hiding the Magically so big it’s Magically too small to measure Magically hidden heat.

    Go get the hillbilly you claim you thought was a physicist whom I won’t have this entire forum cracking up at, without need for even referencing a book.

    I’ll simply remind them like you of the stars over your ignorant criminopath head mocking your
    lying
    criminopath
    fraud.

    When you go outside and stare up wondering what a life of crime is going to get you, ask yourself how long you can claim the gas in the atmosphere stopped moving more as it got warmer for the past decades.

    Hick.

  172. At least if I can’t put you in jail I can point you out all over the internet and then explain to my kids that if the SCAM you PRESENT was real, astronomers would have been systematically measuring the rise in motion in the atmosphere.

    The stars twinkling.

    Since you can’t scam all things, stupid,

    your kids are going to know you as just another prodigious, but evil, criminal,

    weather scammer.

    At least you will to my children, and their dad’s an electronic engineer who’s specialty is the transmission, capture, and analysis of electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds needed to make all that happen.

    Your kids will be ‘that weather scammer guy’s’ kids.

    Forever hick.

  173. > What Did I Tell You!? …misc Sky Dragon Ranting…

    All very dull, and you’re not even brave enough to use your real name. Still, its a nice illustration of the S/N problems you get at unmoderated blogs.

  174. It’s all perfectly clear William. Smart astronomers like Einstein and Mr Tell You can see individual gas molecules moving through their high-resolution telescopes. And therefore you are wrong.

  175. William M. Connolley // Dec 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    > What Did I Tell You!? …misc Sky Dragon Ranting…

    All very dull, and you’re not even brave enough to use your real name. Still, its a nice illustration of the S/N problems you get at unmoderated blogs

    ————————-

    It’s moderated by the fact you can’t find a hillbilly who can feed CO2 into the jar Al Gore had to switch thermometers in.

    It’s moderated by the fact you’re too stupid to explain to your children why your Magic Gas is making the atmospheric infrared grow

    but not a single
    optical
    or
    infrared

    instrument
    on earth or in space

    has found it,
    and that BECAUSE the Magic Gas is so magic,

    the STARS even don’t twinkle more.

    Hillbilly Hick.

  176. Interesting, that Matt Ridley takes is disgusted when people make nasty insinuations against others:

    –snip–

    How disgusting that he resorts to ad-hominem argument

    –snip–

    Interesting that Matt Ridley’s disgust seems to be rather selective:

    –snip–

    The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC’s existing 2°-4.5°C “likely” range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely— ***given the organization’s record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.***

    [...]

    On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy ***driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends,*** one can only hope the scientists will do so.

    –snip–

    Interesting, and sad.

  177. TallDave // Dec 21, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    Four word thread recap:

    Trolling is a art.

    ——————-

    So’s explaining the Magic Gas so Connolly’s kids get laughed at as little as possible at school.

    It’s the part about the whole astronomy and electronic ages vanishing,
    and magic gas making the laws of physics reverse polarity, mostly, that’s the art part.

    Fortunately the only people who believe in it are art students in the Occupy movement.

  178. Okay that’s not true it’s being taught everywhere government grant money can buy prestige enough to run education into the ground.

  179. Seriously: can you imagine being Connolly and, sitting there on the patio looking up,

    explaining to your kids that the Magic Gas was just’a heet’n an’uH HEET’n, but nun uH THAT gas moved more, when delivered a higher infrared load,

    because that’s Daddy’s special magical gas?

    They aren’t like regular gas because the regular laws of physics don’t apply.

    Can you imagine Connolly’s kids in college?

    Trying to get in front of a class and explain why daddy’s magical gases are oblivious to the laws

    of optics
    of infrared astronomy

    because they hold magic heat nobody can find,

    even though they block 20% of the sun’s energy, then after that, the predominate one sets up phase-change refrigeration COOLING of the system,

    and that the surface of the planet’s about a mile deep in the liquid, (1800 times more concentrated than the gas version or so) phase change refrigerant

    water
    known as the main ‘heater’ in ‘daddy’s speshul gas signts?’

    Can you imagine with a straight face answering a person without them ever cracking a book, in front of a class of high schoolers,

    using Daddy’s Magical Gas-ie-odie-ology?

    I can like I said, and I’m explaining it to people each time I talk about it: what it’s going to be like, the enormous outbursts of laughter in their faces

    when people ask them questions about ‘Daddy’s Magically Instrument-Immune Gaseology.’

    No matter how big a criminal gets
    it’s still just a stupid criminal that doesn’t think how transparent it’s all going to be before their family live down that they are…

    criminopaths. Just evil liars without a single moral scruple, just for the sake, of being as evil as possible.

    And as rich while not working, just scamming.

  180. It’s crime. It always was, it is now, it was, when it was Hansen-Odie-Ology about the ‘mite bee ‘asPLODING tropopause!’ scam.

    It was crime when Al Gore used it to sway energy markets,

    It was crime when Mann et al got in front of Congress and lied about a battery drill being too hard to get into the forest to take more bore holes,

    It was crime whenever one of these weather scammers wrote a program that made hockey sticks from calibration data, then claimed it made a tree, a treemomitur.

    It’s crime, and Connolly’s one of the criminals that keeps the criminal wheel running by pretending he believes magic gas is hiding infrared spectrum light in the atmosphere not a single detector can find.
    Not one optical telescope,
    not one infrared telescope,
    not one amateur looking for that ‘easy A’ paper, getting out photos of the sky over periods of years through particular instruments, and noticing – “Hey – look – more, and more, atmospheric scintillation as earth-shine frequency light, aka heat, builds up in the atmosphere!’

    Not one.
    Not one.

    Because everybody doesn’t understand the magic gas like Connolly over at unmoderated wikipedia, where people drive thousands of articles into the ground, frivoling drivel about magical infrared light spectra so special we can’t really understand the giant heater in the sky.

    It’s crime pure and simple, and you can see it with the offhand ease of explaining why the stars twinkle to a seven year old –
    as long as you leave out Connolly’s Magic Gas-ie-odie spectral epileptic fit, where the laws of optical astronomy get suspended.

  181. It has been my practice, when outside my field of expertice, (Geology) to study the theorist along with the theory.
    Name calling and mud slinging are indicative of a defensive lack of confidence in a POV; rare in science…. but rampant in politics.
    It is also amusing to read a computer scientist deride a zoologist for study outside his field.

  182. Wuh? I come back to this thread after one day, and there’s more shit being thrown than at a drunken baboon’s Christmas party.

    Doubting Rich – I believe you asked what empirical evidence there is for global warming being mainly our fault. There’s plenty if you want to look. As a starter for ten:

    Regarding the link between fossil-fuel burning and the CO2 increase, there’s the changing ratios carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere and the decreasing oxygen concentration.

    Regarding the link between CO2 and most of the surface warming a) the stratosphere is currently cooling – expected from CO2 warming, but the opposite of what would happen if the Sun was responsible. And b) ocean heat content is going up, whereas it would be going down if the oceans were responsible.

    And not a ‘model’ in sight – at least in the sense I think you mean.

  183. Since one of the main reasons this thread exists is the admission by the IPCC’ that there effectively is no warming it’s going to be hard to find some empirical evidence something that didn’t happen is mankind’s fault.

    We Americans put those ARGO buoys into the world’s oceans and let them comb the water for years – more than a thousand buoys.

    Water temperatures are LOWER than were expected by a slight amount. The guy who oversaw the project was told go back and cull the coldest buoys till slight but statistically insignificant warming was shown. He stated so to the media independent of his boss, off government property.

    Randomly mentioning the stratosphere cooling is a far, far, FAR cry from even approaching the viscinity of a claim you believe the earth has trapped: for years – so much heat from the sun that the stratosphere stopped being warmed due to the thermal disconnect at the tropopause – that IS what Magic Gas’s claim boils down to – that the lower atmosphere is somehow ‘hiding’ such massive amounts of energy the fact you think it’s credible on it’s face is aNOTHer indicator which end of the global warming argument pool, you’re at, Don.

    Don’t mean to be particularly impolite to you Don but you had better start describing some physcally very plausible physics when you say you suspect there’s a point in the atmosphere where the lowest few percent volume wise started trapping so much heat, it was like it got wrapped in aluminum foil and the stratosphere just started cooling off because there’s no energy getting out of earth.

    You’ve got the massive problem of the men living in submarines since….well at least since the Nuclear era when men began living underwater in 4,000 ppm of CO2. In all those years not one nuclear, mechanical, thermodynamic, acoustic, structural, electrical, electronic engineer, not one ventilation technician, not one submarine thermostat manufacturer – issued one word about somehow,

    the amount of man made CO2 in the air 4 THOUSAND ppm vs 4 HUNDRED for open air –

    altering anything about ANYTHING
    in that nuclear submarine manned by individuals whose sole occupation when they were off duty was to pay attention to every single unusual nuance of the physical or psychological or ANY aspect of that submarine.

    So basically Don you’re back to trying to claim you think a gas that can do nothing anyone notices for 50 years at 4 THOUSAND ppm

    is magically holding heat no one can find, to the point where it cools the stratosphere, at 4 HUNDRED ppm.

    That’s just not going to be cutting the old empirical mustard.

  184. Yup, I should’ve guessed some of that brown stuff was gonna hit me too.

    Have a good Christmas, WDITY!?

  185. Not sure, but I think Tim’s been reverse trolled there. By the WDITY poster. Load of tinfoil hat ranting to break up the discourse. Probably by someone who spells his name with an ‘e’ or one of his pals.

  186. Someone does not understand about IR astronomy

    “explain how all the infrared and optical astronomical observers for the past thirty years are Magically blinded by the Magical Gas that Magically hides Magically held heat”

    In majic airplanes of course:) The semi-serious answer is that at the least you have to get very high up (Mauna Kea or the Atacama) in dry places to eliminate the water vapor, and if you want to look in the regions of the IR covered by the ozone and CO2 bands you need satellites

    It would help if you stopped embarrassing yourself

  187. What Did I Tell You!? – Bombing a thread just increases the speed of the centre wheel of my mouse. Give us a fucking break – the adults are talking.

  188. Eli Rabett: in this traveling band of innumerate, illiterate pedants,

    you’re the one who’s like the guy from the movie Airplane

    who started talking about dinosaurs when asked ‘how’d this all begin?’

    3X2:
    That’s why you’ve been sold or given a mouse with a wheel that changes speeds. Don’t pretend you’ve got to get back to the car and deliver those pizzas, so you don’t have time to read what I have to say.

    If you don’t like it don’t claim to not read it.
    The fact you say such is simply a transparent attempt, to make the dressing down I was giving Connolly, somehow dependent on your approval.

    I don’t need your approval to call Connolly and his Magic Gas Scamming criminal friends what they are.

    And you’re welcome for that center wheel that changes speeds.

    When we electronic engineers invented it,

    we included that feature, with thought about that

    very thing, before hand.

    I’ll let you run back to your Magic Gas investigations since you might run out of attention span if distracted any more.

  189. For those of you who aren’t thoroughly familiar with this entire Magical Gas scam,

    Eli Rabett is one of the original internet kooks who was championing Magic Gas online. He’s a Hockey Schtick Scam Team Groupie from the early days when they still took groupies.

    As far as 3X2 goes he’s just someone on a blog,

    and maybe he’s really a seriously inquiring person;

    or, maybe he’s just another Magic Gas MoonBatBilly who thinks the giant heater in the sky
    is too special to be analyzed by the soiled minds of carbon sinning doubters.

    In any case, it’s a scam.

    It’s why these people are found scamming,
    scamming,
    scamming:
    Mann with his fake math
    Connolly with his thousands of scientific articles defaced,
    Hansen with his ‘the tropopause could AsPloDE!’
    Jones with his utterly destroyed world climate data repository that he, and his cohorts TRASHED until it’s no longer even a database –

    lying through their teeth at every turn – go check Al Gore’s online “24 hours of climate truth” experiment where he SWITCHED the THERMOMETERS –

    and why the government employee criminals doing it, are fighting Freedom of Information Act law at every turn.

  190. Don Blue // Dec 21, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Handily, it’s the first result you get if you Google “ocean heat content”.
    ———————————–

    Don you DO realize that those heat calculations are just that: calculations and there wasn’t a way to actually sample ocean heat content until the ARGO buoys correct?

  191. Don Blue if you’re one of those who are legitimately investigating this, my apology for presenting as though nothing you think or say matters to me.

    This is a scam that has had many years’ evolution.

    And Arnald I’m going to stop now. You guys have a nice and safe and good and enjoyable Christmas.

    Sorry if whoever’s blog this is, got offended at me burning down that criminal trash’s hut on his page.

  192. Tell the people in this forum again how you believe speaking of yourself in the third person as though you’re a media savant makes you anything but demonstrated as having a personality disorder.

    Magic Gas Hick.

  193. Magic Gas Hillbillies believe that when about half the sun’s energy comes to earth in form of infrared,

    and a few percent of the atmosphere’s gas blocks about half THAT, from ever reaching earth,

    that’s called ‘heating the earth.’

    Then when some light gets by and turns to infrared when it wasn’t before,

    the gases that are continually so busy diffracting infrared they never accomplish diffraction of more than about half what’s coming in, and coming in from several sides as well as dead-on –

    are now somehow, having a heating effect.

    Magic Gas hillbillies show you a laser firing into a container of CO2 and say ‘SEE?’

    When you remind them the sun is the laser side and the other side of the container where no infrared gets through, is the earth, and that means the gases cool,

    the subject then changes to the fact that maybe the visible light getting through being turned to infrared is being trapped, warming the surface of the earth.

    You then point to the thermometer showing that when you added the atmosphere including the infrared gases, you had temperature reduction; and, that even though the slowing of cooling means a higher average surface temperature,

    it still means cooling: because daytime temperatures of 150 degrees are hotter than daytime temperatures of say, 65 or whatever.

    Then it becomes a matter of ‘well how do you know the magic gas isn’t making it hotter, although the thermometer only goes half as high, because if you average that, it really does make it warmer?’

    To that you answer if the temperature ever starts to rise, due to say volcanic heat, or upwelling to water’s surface, the heat is immediately removed by the power of evaporation as infrared-resonant gases chug heat straight up through the atmospheric mix to belch it out radiatively at higher altitude; while simultaneously dragging other, non-infrared resonant gases upward with them, to also dump THEIR heat radiatively, from a higher position than they would have, had the refrigerative cycle not taken place.

    This is heating when the wind blows and you feel like the day is 65F degrees because water is evaporating off you so fast.

    If just that oxygen and nitrogen had been there without that water to evaporate and cool you?

    That would be heating too.

    So when the liquid phase change refrigerant is chugging heat past the tropopause and indeed CREATING the tropopause indirectly – CO2 that gets left aloft sort of rides on the top of the lower troposphere after water vapor carries it up repeatedly in convective lift –

    that’s all heating.

    The power of evaporative cooling?

    That’s all heating.

    Magic Gas Hillbillies have the trademark that not a single instrument known to man can find this mysterious ‘effect’ of warming. When Al gore pours CO2 into a jar with atmospheric air?
    He has to switch the thermometer because the jar was a degree and a half COOLER.

    When Tony Watts, avid magic gas believer himself, reproduces the experiment live in an unbroken feed, without switching the thermometers, the JAR with the CO2 ADDED was a degree and a half or two, COOLER.

    Over and over the magic gassers simply insist you stop pointing out the loonbark madness of a gas,

    somehow storing heat in our atmosphere at a rate influencing the whole somehow,

    when the very optical telescopy which would magnify the effect of earth-shine frequency convective heat rising thousands of times as a matter of unwanted ARTIFACT –

    reports NOT ONE WORD of REDUCED ATMOSPHERIC SUITABILITY for OPTICAL ASTRONOMY from the ground.

    Not a word while the sky is heating.

    Not a word from infrared astronomy about the unmistakable climb in readily observable infrared spectra (heat) in the atmosphere, accompanying all this Magic Gas.

    It’s a scam and the fact that Mann, Connolly, Jones, Hansen, and this clown Rabett who speaks of himself in the third person are all leading advocators for it should be proof enough,

    if you didn’t have to explain to yourself the hilarious story Connolly has to tell his children about how there’s more atmospheric scintillation but because only believers can see it, the stars don’t seem to twinkle any more at night now, than they did all those years ago when optical astronomical photography of the sky started.

    They don’t twinkle more because well… because the stars don’t believe that bullshoot story about more earth-shine frequency infrared in the atmosphere,

    or neither optical nor infrared astronomy would have the least problem revealing it.

    They’re criminals.
    They’re scammers.

    Period.

  194. I said ‘optical astronomical photography of the sky’

    I meant to say ‘highly magnified optical astronomical photography, of the night sky.’

    In any case they’re scammers and all you’ve got to do is imagine sitting there under those stars,

    asking yourself what Connolly and all Magic Gassers MUST TELL THEIR CHILDREN about why the sky has more infrared energy in it,

    but the infrared and optical astronomy fields are PIN-DROP QUIET about how their instruments can’t see the infrared,

    and all that heat.

    The entire field of earth-based optical astronomy AWE STRUCK that the ATMOSPHERIC INFRARED just keeps CLIMBING and CLIMBING

    but the stars don’t waver more under the defined action of that heat, on that gas, scintillation.

    Not a word.
    Not one professor looking for that stunning proof there really is magic gas holding magical heat.

    Not one student looking high and low for that easy A, for that position as assistant, for that paper that makes their mark in the world of atmsopheric energy dynamics.

    Every semester.
    Around the world.

    Not a single word about how all that Magic Gas, has Magically trapped all that Magic Infra Red, and those stars are showing that indeed, HEAT on GAS does equal MOTION.

    Not a word.

    Magic Gas Hillbillies: they’re what’s left when the Magic Gas requires telling children the sky’s warmer, but the stars don’t twinkle more,

    because they’re sad because of carbon sin.

    Hicks.

  195. The Argos era? Well I did shop there a bit in the 90s…

    Seriously though, AlecM, I had a look at charts 4&5 on the NOAA link a provided, if that’s what you’re referring to. I’m not seeing the decrease since the 50s I’d be looking for. Care to elaborate?

  196. “Moshling: wake me up when Lewis is actually published. Or, as I said, feel free to send me a pre-release copy if you want me to read it. Since you appear to have declined that invite my best guess is that you don’t want me to read it.”

    You odious twit. request a copy from the TSU. And stop suggesting that I violate confidentiality agreements.

  197. I’ve just read most of the exchanges between William Connelly and others. And in the real world I would conclude that he was a completely untrustworthy and unconvincing figure. If his real persona is as unpleasant as his online one, I would probably avoid him and his work like the plague.

    But apart from flailing around insulting others, I think I detect an undercurrent of deep intellectual insecurity in his remarks. Something is driving him to this continual need to reassure himself that he is cleverer (in his own mind at least) than anybody else. But this is entirely counter-productive as he is persuading nobody but himself with his immature antics. From a clever-clever 14 year old, one might expect them, but if he is old enough to have a D. Phil, he should have grown out of it by now.

    Just saying.

  198. My my Connelly( with an e) you’re still one angry dude, wheels falling off the AGW wagon one by one. And poor old Willy missed the gravy train all those teamsters rolling in the celebrity and money grants and poor old Willy left outside in the cold, no grants to do any modeling,no Wiki to alter history,fact or peoples achievments..all thats left is to come on to blogs and bloivate and call people names,how the might(in his own mind ) have fallen,cock of the roost on daye feather duster the next, ain’t live a bitch,LOL,LOL,LOL,

  199. Watts wrong on everything keeps blathering about IR astronomy. For those interested, get one of those IR sensitive thermometers and point it up in the air at night. You will be detecting IR emission from the atmosphere, the reason why we can’t do IR astronomy from the surface. Roy Spencer describes a somewhat more elaborate version of this on his blog.

  200. Mycroft, now some, not Eli to be sure, might think it was Dave not Wm. who said

    “Someone called you a rabid rent-seeking fraudulent cunt. The first step in changing yourself is accepting who you are, so good on you for responding to that title, I guess.”

    and others, not Eli to be sure, might think it was Ed who said

    Well, given we have arch pier, fabricator, and general bozo Connelly commenting on the thread against Ridley, I is pretty much a given that Ridley is correct. Connelly, like the other deliberate fabricators prefers to spend his time gatekeeping to prevent relevant research being performed.

    Your deliberate distortions and mendacious behaviour as shown on the Wikipedia farce should have you laughed off any serious forum Connelly. You are even stupid enough to think that MBH 1998/9 was serious science !”

    Angry dudism is so yesterday.

  201. Don Blue:
    “Regarding the link between CO2 and most of the surface warming a) the stratosphere is currently cooling .”

    Where did you find these erroneous readings?

  202. It’s interesting that WMC gets so riled about spelling and calls people idiots and cretins while misusing “its” and “it’s” at least five times on this page. Many people would consider this kind of usage evidence of a sloppy mind.

    And in the vast majority of cases, they would be correct.

  203. @ eli rabett
    and where do you placey yourself in all this.Another gatekeeper or climate activist troll who comes to blogs to stick his fingers in his ears and shout BLAH BLAH BLAH whenever skeptics bring a new piece of data,method, to the table???ithink i know but would be interested to know how you describe yourself?

  204. This was my favorite, quoting WMC:

    “Steve: err, no. And yes, you are a cretin. And you can’t spell (I know, its so difficult).”

  205. Well Mycroft, what exactly did Eli post to set the nutters (TM Wm Connolley) off? As to information, Eli did present some about infrared astronomy and then had to spend some time wiping the inside of his monitor screen off from What’s spittle. Hard work that.

    In short, you want a reasoned discourse, play by the rules of reasoned discourse. You want a knife fight, don’t object when others haul out their machette.

    Still, just to show what a nice Bunny Eli is allow him to make a comment about the stuff Dave Tufte is selling the first link of which is:
    ——————————

    One pitfall in doing these calculations is that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a ratio measurement, while the temperatures we’re used to are interval measurements. The solution is easy: use the Kelvin temperature.

    Data on temperature is easy to come by. World average temperature is about 290º (big differences in that guesstimate will have little bearing on my final result). Over the past 50 years, temperatures have increased from about 289.8º to 290.5º. That’s a change of 0.25%.

    Data on carbon dioxide concentration is also easy to come by. Over the past 50 years it has increased from 315 to 392 ppm. That’s a change of 24.44%.

    Very roughly, the elasticity of temperature with respect to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is the ratio of those two percentages: 0.25%/24.44% = 0.01.

    ———————————

    There are two simple mistakes in this calculation, one in the numerator, the other in the denominator.

    Let us look at the more significant one first. A BOE (back of the envelope) calculation of the percent change of temperature for looking at elasticity is not the full interval (290K), but the average earth temperature without any greenhouse gases, generally given as 255 K (lots of sources for that, lots of quibbles, and lots of detail if you really care, but close enough for our purposes).

    Thus the difference of 0.7K/35K or about 2%.

    The response of the atmosphere to CO2 changes is not linear, but sub linear, roughly logarithmic, so the ratio of the forcing would be (again roughly)
    [log (392)-log(315)]/log(392) = 3.6%

    and the ratio of [CO2]/DT is about 1.8

    The reason for going into this detail is that youse (Eli comes from Brooklyn) guys overestimate what you know, and underestimate what the climate scientists know. This leads to the sort of nonsense we are seeing here. Don’t feel bad, condensed matter physicists do the same.

  206. @eli rabbet
    Nice side step, but you did address my question
    gatekeeper or climate troll,the fact that you used to run with Connolley onWatts site when ever some one posted negative about a team player and now you seem to throwingConnolley under a bus speakes volumes to me..but i like to hear it fom the rabets mouth as you might say??
    and Watts is spelt Watts not whats.

  207. And Eli does not beat Ms. Rabett (except occasionally in cribbage). Among other good habits the Bunny does not answer ill formed questions from bags of wind with the earned derision, so Mycroft, enjoy your Christmas Holiday:) Good Cheer

  208. Whats so ill formed about my question? is it too taxing for that cuniculus brain for you to answer? Any derision is your side,being unable to answer a straight question is the behaviour of a imbecile or coward too afraid to reveal his true nature and considering all your replys in the “third person” i have to consider you the imbecile, and one must feel so sorry for Ms Rabett.
    Conversation with you must be a blast and i fear the next beating in the Rabetts house hold will be Ms Rabett coming to the end of her tether with such a sanctimonious, self righteous prig. but then you do keep strange company, a rabett coming to the rescue of a stoat??
    A merry yule.

  209. “And here they are demanding we believe that some unpublished paper giving a particular sensitivity value trumps the dozens of published papers that give similar sensitivity values.”

    I am doing no such thing.

    First, I am arguing that Connelley was wrong to dismiss Lewis out of hand and wrong to question his bone fides. I am arguing that on the basis of.

    A) having read his paper accepted by the Joc
    B) having read the IPCC evaluation of his work
    C) having read the errata to Ar4 that his error catching occassioned.
    D) having read his work ( and code ) for his paper on Antarctica.

    As I stated above I do not think his lowest estimate is
    A) outside the consensus
    B) the final word.

    I would say that it’s more likely than not that the true ECS lies between 1.5 and 3C. That is, I am more than 50% confident that ECS is less than 3C. This is actually the consensus position although they dont state it that way. Loking at the time period involved in most of Nics work I would say that his values do not likely include slow feedbacks.. Perhaps his value is more representative of TCS than ECS, but there is rich debate there. His work is not the last word and I actually prefer hansen’s Paleo approaches, which indicate higher numbers.

    But in all of this I think an unbiased look at all the methods for ESTIMATING ECS reveals that there is room for honest debate about the true value, whether it is 1.6 or 4.5 IS AN HONEST DEBATE, its not denialist bull crap. Denying Nic contributions out of hand is denialist bullcrap. Accepting it without question is over reaching bullcrap. So, stop the bullcrap. The consensus is that the value lies between 1.5 and 4.5. deal with that. Dont have a cow when somebody publishes 1.6 and dont plan a parade when somebody else published 4.2. Dont claim victory when somebody publishes 1.6 and dont scream fraud when Hansen argues for 3C.

  210. And Steve Mosher is 50% confident that the climate sensitivity lies above 3K (and almost certainly below 4.5 to 5K. It is also clear that conservation of energy requires that the climate sensitivity be greater than 1 K as a generous lower limit. Nothing new there in any case.

    But there is more even beyond the discussion of whether transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity is being estimated.

    Further, if someone tells you that the mode (highest value) of their distribution of estimates for the ECS is at 1.6 or 4.2 K, the fact that the distribution has a width of a few degrees means that they are really saying something very different than if they say 3 K, and if their distribution extends much below 1.5K they are in trouble with just about every other estimate and a lot of very basic physics. That takes you into sky dragon territory.

  211. What Eli Rabbett is,

    is another government employee, too fascinated with manipulating the minds of young people, to have gotten a real education.

    Therefore he spends his life talking as though because he has a keyboard he has something to say.

    He’s as evil as the other government employees taking up for government employees just because they’re government employees.

    He acts as a smokescreen to try to deflect every argument he can from the More Government Money Gravy train.

    Here’s the shakeout on HIM:

    and who, and what, HE is:
    ——————————————-

    Tony Leigh November 6, 2009 at 6:50 am

    ” I believe it was Newsweek magazine that recently rated Howard University as the second worst college in the U.S., out of several hundred they rated.

    And who is one of the worst rated teachers, in the second worst school in the entire country?

    It’s Eli Rabett, the guy who writes in the affected 3rd person voice, like an insufferable valley girl. I mean really, who else writes in such a juvenile manner? Name even one.

    “Eli” is a prime example of the abject failure of government education. His teaching is rated as “incompetent,” and based on everything he writes for his blog during class time (when he is being overpaid to teach rather than blog), he is also a poster boy for corruption and misappropriation of funds — and a damning indictment of the tenure system.”

    http://archive.mises.org/7570/better-stay-in-bali-boys-its-cold-up-here/

    He’s actually a physics professor rated one of the worst in the country in physics.

  212. Mind you one of the worst.
    In the country.
    With the most physics professors
    With the most PROFESSORS

    in the country, he’s rated one of the
    VERY

    WORST.

  213. There is only one way to be rated as ‘incompetent’ as a teacher.
    That is to be so just plain EVIL not even people who wish they could take up for you,

    are willing to claim you know what you’re talking about.

  214. @eli rabett or can i now call you Joshua…. Ouch thats gotta hurt
    perhaps instead of spend a large amount of your time on the internet gatekeeping or trolling for the Warmists, you should concentrate on your job.
    Teaching is a seriuos job you should be a role model for your students…not a turn off.
    Just another turn and collect your paycheck eh no wonder you fit in with the Team so well ,with comments like those from your students i’d start looking for a new tenure or better still a new job,sleeping well are we Bunnykins..

  215. Professional Experience: ”

    Co-Director, ASEE/NASA Goddard Summer Faculty Research Program, 11/94 – 11/04
    Associate Director DC Space Grant Consortium
    3/95 –
    Director, DC Space Grant Consortium,
    3/91 – 2/95

    From Wikipedia’s page on Howard University, oh look:
    N.ever
    A
    S.traight
    A.nswer

    CLIMATE RESEARCH at prestigious Howard University, built right in.

    And look there’s Joshua B Halpern hand in glove as the best friend of ignoratti fake physics in which the application of heat to gas in the atmosphere no longer produces perceptible motion if it is carbon sin heat.

    He’s suppposed to be a teacher of chemistry, what he actually is, is a grant whore and general purpose federal grants for climate research
    SPECIALIST.

  216. ” NASA University Research Center (BCCSO)

    The Beltsville Center for Climate System Observation (BCCSO) is a NASA University Research Center located at the Beltsville, Maryland campus of Howard University. BCCSO consists of a multidisciplinary group of Howard faculty in partnership with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Earth Sciences Division, other academic institutions, and government. This group is led by three Principal Investigators, Everette Joseph, also the director of BCCSO, Demetrius Venable and Belay Demoz. BCCSO trains science and academic leaders to understand atmospheric processes through atmospheric observing systems and analytical methods.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_University#Notable_alumni

  217. Scroll upward on the wikipedia page if you have any doubt it’s there.

    Here’s the page for the NASA CLIMATE RESEARCH facility there at 2nd worst university in the nation Howard:

    The principled and sober atmosphere as climate researchers gaze upward wondering if the magic gas is going to unleash magic infrared light and set their heads on fire. One has apparently hyperinflated a large condom and is attempting to shield him/herself from Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation.

    MBR (Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation) can be proven according to Halpern by pointing a thermometer at the sky.

  218. It will be really eye opening to go through your BCCSO pages and check who is telling you the world is going to end. Oh look ! Climate Modelers !

    “Segayle conducted this work as part of a team of NASA, NOAA and Howard experts in mesoscale modeling, boundary layer meteorology, and raman lidar. Dr. Walford is currently continuing related work at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) as a NASA Postdoctoral Fellow.”

    http://bccso.org/education/graduate-program

  219. So we can all see clearly Joshua B Halpern is nothing more than a know-nothing who thinks Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation is proved pointing a thermometer at the sky. Who – TEN BUCKS BETCHA – was told test for MBR (Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation) that way by one of these guys:

    http://bccso.org/about/investigators

    They’re investigating whether civilization needs to be shut down.

  220. Great news for mankind: Scientist Series

    “At the Howard University NASA University Research Center Beltsville Center for Climate System Observation, we facilitate a guest scientist lecture series with high schools in Prince George’s County, MD and the District of Columbia and enlist scientists from NASA/GSFC Earth Science Division and faculty and graduate students from HUPAS to give lectures in schools within these systems. ”

    http://bccso.org/outreach/scientist-series

    Well at least we know the guys at Howard University are checking everything closely before they tell us we’re going to all stop using machines and fire, and stick to chasing down animals, killing them with sharp (or not so sharp) sticks, and devouring them raw.

    Because Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation from the sky

    is going to set everyone on fire at night if we don’t.

    No seriously NASA has the guys at Howard checking their math. . .

    and models…

    and their big balloons.

    Oh those aren’t giant condoms full of helium? Radiosondes? What do the Radiosondes play, old Snoop Lion aka Snoop Dawg?

    One of his songs went, “I got my mind on my money, and my money on my mind..”

    I guess the Snoopstitute of Checknowledgy know what they’re doing with their presidential-level educationalismisticnesses: enquiring minds like the president of Nigeria, a distinguished alumnus of Howard, want to know (if Snoop dawg is still touring, if there are any checks to be had, and if there are any of those extra large balloons he can have for his own gubmunt signts project. They bought a thermometer and they’re going to tie it to one of those balloons and watch it rise, with binoculars. They don’t have quite a full fledged space program but they do take readings of downwelling MBR (Magical Bakkerds Radiation) and it proves Magical Gas really CAN hide magical Bakkerd’s Radiation if you don’t know how to check for it.

  221. But over there at Howard University they’ve got Joshua Halpern waving the IR thermometer.

    The guy on the telescope reads it because the thermometer is so far away when Halpern holds it up on tippie toe for those higher altitude readings you can’t take from earth.

    I wonder if Halpern should ask one of his NASA advisors if heat on gas is really still motion, or if that has been changed because lower income inner city students don’t really understand science all that well?

    Maybe he could tell Halpern whether or not the Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation is uh… HIDIN frum his TELESCOPE, TOO!
    Now that’s Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation which is why they NAMED it, Magical Bakkerd’s Radiation after NASA researcher Dr. M. Bakkerd.

    A lot of that stuff was discovered between Dr. Bakkerd and Dr. Mann, Mann of course doing the sophisticated math that makes a bore hole a treemomitur.

    That’s why it’s all NAMED: Magic Bore Holes, Magical Treemomiturs, Magical Mannian Math, etc..

  222. “The crucial question has always been: what is climate sensitivity?

    How much warming do we get for a doubling of greenhouse gases?”

    That’s two questions, I’ll add another:

    When the claimed “Greenhouse Effect of 33°C warming from minus 18°C to 15°C by greenhouse gases” is an illusion?

    The concept has been created by tweaking real physics, by sleights of hand. You’re arguing about the stitching on the Emperor’s New Clothes, which you cannot see.

    Wakey, wakey.

    “..when the Water Cycle is put back into the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, then the “33°C warming from -18°C by greenhouse gases” is seen to be an illusion.

    Without any of our atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen the temperature would be minus18°C.

    AGWSF lies that this is the temperature “with nitrogen and oxygen in place”, and only without its greenhouse gases ..

    Our full atmosphere of real greenhouse gases, which are not ideal gases but have volume, weight, attraction and subject to gravity, act as a blanket weighing down a ton per square foot around the Earth keeping the heat from the Sun’s warming of the Earth from escaping too quickly before the Sun again heats the surface. Compare with the Moon.

    Taking the Water Cycle out of this the temperature would be 67°C, think deserts.

    In other words, the Earth’s atmosphere of practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen alone, without water, would be 52°C hotter – so much hotter, these are the real gases actually acting like a heavy blanket around the Earth..

    The Water Cycle cools the Earth down to 15°C from the 67°C it would be without water.

    By clever sleight of hand AGWSF has created a direct warming from the minus18°C to 15°C without any connecting logical process, from beginning with the science fraud that the -18°C doesn’t include absence of our great heavy real gas blanket of nitrogen and oxygen and by removing entirely the Water Cycle.

    Real physics is logical in its connections with internal coherence..

    The “Greenhouse Effect of 33°C warming by greenhouse gases” is an illusion, a magic trick.

  223. All these AGW deniers are shitstains on humanity, including Matt Ridley. The one possibly good thing about GW is that it will rid the planet of them.

  224. @ianam
    WOW!!!CO2 is able to distinquish between skeptics and Sheep.wonderful thing this CO2
    brings life and warmth? and is now sentient!!!
    which is a lot more than you.

  225. “Our full atmosphere of real greenhouse gases, which are not ideal gases but have volume, weight, attraction and subject to gravity, act as a blanket weighing down a ton per square foot around the Earth keeping the heat from the Sun’s warming of the Earth from escaping too quickly before the Sun again heats the surface. Compare with the Moon. ”

    Wow, Myrrh has put phlogiston on the scale. Cad that Count Rumford was, even he could figure out that heat and mass were not very well connected.

  226. Sorry to join the party so late, but regarding Lewis’ “analysis” of climate sensitivity, I’d like to make a few comments.

    First off, I’m surprised how much attention Lewis gets for posting a back-of-the-envelope calculation on a blog post, versus the attention that peer-reviewed papers get that obtain largely the same result.
    I would expect that, if Lewis really thinks that his estimate of 1.6 C climate sensitivity is relevant, that he would at least write a decent scientific paper on that and get it reviewed and published.

    Especially since Lewis does not actually calculate the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity factor that is commonly referred to by the IPCC and paleo-climate analyses, but instead the on-going “effective” climate sensitivity as Gregory et al 2002 already pointed out.

    Apart from this difference in definition of what Lewis is actually trying to calculate versus what the IPCC CSE definition stands for, I think his number of 1.6 C/doubling-of-CO2, if accepted by the climate “skeptic” community, would be a significant achievement. After all, it is more than a factor 3 higher than previous “skeptic” assessments of climate sensitivity such as by Lindzen and Monckton.

    Do “skeptics” disagreeing with IPCC assessments really accept Lewis’ results ?

    If so, then maybe Lewis unpublished back-of-the-envelope calculations can be the start of a real dialogue between “alarmists” and self-proclaimed “skeptics”.
    If not, and “skeptics” go back to long-debunked arguments of climate sensitivity below 1 C/doubling, then why would any scientist even want to look at Lewis’ unpublished back-of-the-envelope calculations ?

  227. Pingback: Climatemonitor» Blog Archive » Vieni avanti cretino!

  228. Your style is really unique compared to other people I have read stuff
    from. I appreciate you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I’ll just book mark this page.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>