# User talk:William M. Connolley

 Fancy a scull? Bridge-to-bridge: 12:23; 12:28; headcourse 13:25. To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. Proverb: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. Thought for the day: paulgraham.com/discover There's no light the foolish can see better by [1] I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once. My I'm Number 10

## ERA40 Juli 1979, omega at 500 hPa

Dear Dr. Connolley,

with interest I have studied this figure.

Omega-500-july-era40-1979.png

I wonder why there is such a strong down-draft over the eastern Mediterranean. Is it a special feature of the large Indian monsoon anticyclone and if so why is it downwelling right there? Thank you in advance for any help on this. Kind regards, Hella Riede 18:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.67.218.50 (talk)

## Blast from the past

Not to creep you out, but I was looking through old RfAs and I found this, from your second, and succesful, RfA. To the question of: How do you see Wikipedia in 2010 ?

OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see wikipedia continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user sovereignty are not worth solving at this stage. William M. Connolley 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Thought you'd be amused. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes. "Prediction is hard, especially of the future" as they say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha. So they say. I'm really good at the past prediction part though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

## Service award update

 Hello, William M. Connolley! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I hate it when these things change :-( Oh well, I'll see if the new one looks any prettier than the old :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

## Dynamic topography

To William and his talk page stalkers:

Would you (ambiguously singular or plural) like to expand the portion of "Dynamic topography" that is about the oceans?

I am planning on doing some expansion of the solid-Earth-geophysics portion of that article (which currently covers both the dynamically-supported ocean elevations and topography due to motion of material in the mantle), but I think it would be a disservice to continue to ignore the ocean part. Ideally, we would have two separate standalone articles.

Awickert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How analogous are they? I never got through reading Gill, so maybe now is my chance :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know anything about it in the oceans; in the Earth it is due to motion in the mantle that creates normal tractions on interfaces such as the surface, the upper/lower mantle discontinuity, the core-mantle boundary, etc. Since it is supposed to be about the motion of seawater, I can imagine how the physics could be identical, but I can't say for sure and about to head out the door: off to see a friend perform in Guettarda's favorite musical, Awickert (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Careful. That is pretty clear evidence of a Cabal, or possibly a Cadre William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Cadre, I think. In our obligatory red shirts. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking about "Gang of N." It has a nice math/science ring to it, and evokes the Gang of Four. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
While "Gang of N" has a certain ring to it (the definitions are so amorphous, no one can agree how many there are), I think "Gang of i" might be more appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I was totally baffled by "Guettarda's favourite musical"...until I remembered that conversation. It was especially puzzling since I've never seen it, have no idea what it's actually about, and don't even know what comes after the second "Oklahoma!" Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a good one - you should see it. Back to the topic: if it turns out that the underlying physics are the same, but just expressed in different media, I bet we could leave it at one article. If they are fundamentally different, then let's split. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

[5]

## Exoplanets and the Intermediate General Circulation Model

Steven Vogt talks about a scientist who modeled the atmospheric circulation of a tidally locked exoplanet like Gliese 581 g in its habitable zone.[24] I'm not sure which paper Vogt is referring to here. Would you be able to add a discussion about this to the Gliese 581 g article? No hurry on this. It's in the video if you get a chance to watch it (Event begins sometime around 29:27). Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They have really irritating video... can't they just put it on youtube :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting how I asked you this question right as it became an issue. An editor just added that the tidally locked sides would be "blazing hot in the light side to freezing cold in the dark side", however I removed this because Vogt seems to refer to the climate models several times that contradict this statement. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
And now, I've restored it after finding the source. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've evaded the issue for the moment but put a comment about something else on the talk page. Thanks. Meanwhile, if you look at the PR puff [http://news.ucsc.edu/2010/09/planet.html - notice in the pic the sun is orange/red, as presumably it should be, but mysteriously the light reflected off the clouds has become white William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I finally found the guy and his work. His name is James Kasting. Have you heard of him?Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope. But I have found and now read Joshi et al. 1997 which looks to be the main source for the atmospheres stuff. Its quite interesting. I'll summarise it here, prior to dumping it somewhere: put it in User:William M. Connolley/Atmospheric general circulation on tidally locked planets <snipped to sub page>

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. But isn't deposition of CO2 exothermic and thus would release heat into the atmosphere on the cold side so it would get warmer? — Coren (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, obviously the GHE would be reduced by the loss and that would overwhelm the small amount of heat gained from deposition. — Coren (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the heat released is small, and is soon lost. Its vaguely similar to the way that waste heat from fossil fuel combustion is far less important than the CO2 released William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gurk: I've just noticed that Vogt et al. say M stars emit a large amount of their radiation in the infrared. As a result, since the greenhouse effect works by absorbing infrared radiation, the surface temperatures would be higher than predicted by such simple calculations. [25] This is very badly broken. Oops William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

## Feedback requested

Sorry to hear you are currently blocked, but could I get your professional opinion on this discussion? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looking. At first sight the edits are entirely reasonable. It seems plausible that L is R. T. Pierrehumbert - it is probably worth asking him to confirm that he asserts that (he just about has, but not quite explicitly). In which case I think the COI claims aren't very helpful: it isn't as if he is promoting some pet theory, and he would be a very valuable contributor to have editing wiki so best to be nice to him. Again, at first sight, the major difference between this and previous work appears to be using an ocean rather than a land-only planet; I don't know which is more likely. L suggests on talk that really this stuff isn't about Gleis but is common to all tidally locked planets; I started some wurbling in that direction at User:William M. Connolley/Atmospheric general circulation on tidally locked planets but then got distracted William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

## Information is hard to erase

[26] Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW as the the person who had the largest number of entries on your deleted page, I have created a page containing the log of page diffs here. I have an impaired memory and it is helpful for me to have these kind of aide memoires. If you wish to extend that list of diff logs to include any other contributions listed by author without disparaging edit summaries or commentary you are entirely free to do so. But you are also free to ignore it or ask me to delete it. For my part of the favour please do and try harder; I can assure you, you have barely scratched the surface of my stupidity. --BozMo talk 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. BozMo, I'm baffled: you've just willfully recreated a deleted page. How do you justify doing that? Since admins have no special rights (other than their tools) it is no more lgal for you to have that page than for me. Which implies that either you have sinned, or that I am free to copy it back into my user space William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
For what its worth I think context is everything. The arguments about the deletion of the page turned considerably around the PAs in the edit history and inference from how the entries came about. I did not recreate and move the page (or could have followed the convention of returning the page content to its owner) but thoughtfully created a page which preserves some of the content. On top of which for my part of the favour (the diffs on edits of mine) I am interested in whether the community is really going to declare me to be attacking myself. If my list gets deleted my next attempt would be to create a page with "things people say" as a title and include only my own diffs. To be honest it is a sad day for Wikipedia when an opinion on a diff is construed as a PA. The whole point is that you are allowed to dislike an edit, but not dislike the editor. --BozMo talk 12:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah well. If your page survives deletion and/or you aren't bothered by time-wasters for a day or two, then I'll just re-create my page starting from yours William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

## PES

You and your talk page watchers are invited to look at User:Atmoz/photoemission spectroscopy and see if there is anything worth merging into Photoemission spectroscopy. I'll likely get around to it eventually, but the folk that go around nominating userpages for MfDs will likely find if before then. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Already watching it :-). You're more likely to get some use out of one of the watchers than me, though William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

## Jagged 85 stuff

I missed the whole business with this, seems I was lucky. From what I gather from Tkuvho accusations being hurled toward me, he was abusing references? Anyways I thought you could take a look at Differential (infinitesimal) in its history section, Jagged 85 added some stuff that looks questionable to me and I thought you might know for sure at a glance. Thenub314 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jagged85 stuff rumbles on; there is no need for you to miss it all (though I'd run screaming if I were you). I'll look at D(i) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, instantly recognisable. I could dig out the long tedious discussion we had over that, if you really want to see it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

|}

## WP:Scientific point of view

I've started to rewrite this, made an essay out of it and changed the argument. I argue that NPOV requires one to stick to SPOV on science articles, so sticking to SPOV on such articles is mandatory. If you have time, you can help expand it and perhaps it can later be proposed as a new policy. Count Iblis (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

## Circumcision

At the moment, i am one of at least 8 editors who have complained about the current state of the circumcision article which was recently changed to sound much more pro-circumcision. There are a group of established editors who look like they are tag-teaming (Jakew, Jayjg, User:Avraham and User:Jmh649) supporting this pro-circumcision stance. Jakew, Avi and Jayjg have been edit-warring on this article with their pro-circumcision stance since at least 2007/2008. Do you have any opinions on this matter? Do you think an RfC or arbitration is appropriate? Thanks for reading. Pass a Method talk 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would give up, you might as well persuade Conservapedia to take a balanced view on Global Warming. One editor in particular has owned that article for about six years and is a long term persistent pro-circumcision lobbyist, with occasional support. Even if you manage to get any kind of balance on the article, which would be impressive, you will find it erode into being pro cutting again over time. The resident editors will put far more time and effort into findly sources which support them etc than you will ever manage to, they are expert in Wikilaw too. You will encounter similar problems on other "optional surgery" kind of topics including cosmetic plastic surgery. Try to get a Germaine Greer perspective into Breast implant if you feel like a challenge. If you take it to the wider community the very strong USA bias toward pointless surgical intervention (financial incentive and knowledge converge) means you can never get consensus because there are always a few "looks ok to me" fruitcakes on the boards. Take it off your watchlist and concentrate on parts of Wikipedia where the improvement from effort is higher. (Circumcision is unusual in that generally the pro-surgery bias comes from practitioners with obvious financial incentives; with circumcisions the motivation of the resident team is less financial). --BozMo talk 15:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The lobby seems to advocate a bit more agressive pro-circumcision wording over the past month. Probably has something to do with the California vote to ban circumcision this year. Pass a Method talk 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Just pretend to yourself it is not part of Wikipedia but is a highly selection pro Circumcision lobby page. Then you won't lose sleep. --BozMo talk 05:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

## Query

Not meaning to offend, but... are you nuts? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I, naturally, agree with SBHB. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I was meaning to say: Boris, thanks for your comment. But do please amplify it, as to the substance. Nathan you too. As for madness: at least I don't run in your state :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you enjoy dressing up in antlers and going for a walk in the woods during deer hunting season? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
We don't do that stuff in the Fens. Otter hunting, perhaps. Or mink? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

## Barnstar of diligence

 The Barnstar of Diligence You are awarded this Barnstar for diligent protection of the rules of Wikipedia. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

## Clarifications

I'm sorry if I'm unclear--I'm not referring to arbitration cases but instances--but at this point it's all semantics. You aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions, and so I don't support letting you off the leash you forged. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, won't do. You said "confirmation by WMC of the validity of all the complaints from previous cases". "cases" clearly means arbitration cases - it can't mean anything else. If you now wish to switch your wording to "instances" then you'll have to say what you mean by that. I've asked you which "cases" you mean, and I think you've evaded the issue. It looks to me like you simply made an error, but you're not prepared to correct yourself - hardly an inspiring example, indeed rather ironic, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(ps: for anyone else wondering, the other half of this conversation is [27]. Perhaps I need to bold the "if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there" in my edit notice William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions - you are an impatient sort. I haven't answered you yet - I'm still trying to work out what you're talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The actual diffs showing alleged problematic behavior by William are mostly similar to this incident today. ArbCom was in denial about the underlying problem, they totally ignored the fact that the probation system that was implemented before the ArbCom case started was a total failure (indeed, if it had worked, there wouldn't have been an ArbCom case).

ArbCom managed to devote a whole paragraph on the most irrelevant incident you can think of, William inserting comments on postings on his talk page, see here. None of the other issues gets so much coverage. Since it was eventually decided that William was allowed to do this, this was a non-issue anyway, but it is of course a totally irrelevant issue as far as editing in the CC area is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought William was crazy for wanting to be unbanned, and told him so. In the unlikely event his appeal is granted he'll have flocks of admins, partisans, and partisan admins circling to look for the tiniest misstep. (Cooler heads than mine agree on at least this point.) Someone will haul him before AE for not saying "please" is an edit summary or similar nonsense and he'll get blocked, which will justify Arbcom's locking him back up and throwing away the key. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
But to the point: do either of you know what DWF actually means by his talk of cases? Or, perhaps, what exactly is his confusion? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's do some mindreading. He wasn't an Arbitrator during the original case. Then let's look again at the final decision and see what someone who spends 20 seconds to read the findings about you would note. He would note the headlines, the links, because they have a blue color standing out from the main text, and phrases indicating bad behavior. The first headline is "William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped", the links refer to previous cases and the ominous words in the text that he would have noted in relation to these cases are "misused admin tools", "admonished", "restricted".
The headline of the next section is "William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic", the text of the section doesn't contain much notable facts (the links are all numbers). So that section would make a lesser impact. And the last section about BLP edits probably won't make much of an impact at all. The headline "William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons" isn't a negative statement, the text doesn't contain any links at all, and no alarming words like "disruptive" etc., phrases like "not..... appropriately neutral", don't sound very alarming.
Clearly, of all these things that one would note in 20 seconds, the first section about previous cases stands out. Count Iblis (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
DWF, as he explained, almost certainly meant "instances" when he said "cases." Please WP:AGF.
case 1 n.1. An instance of something; an occurrence; an example: a case of mistaken identity.
It is reasonable that you, also in good faith, had the arbitration cases foremost in mind, and therefore interpreted his use of "case" in the legal instead of common sense. Instead of arguing about this, why don't you just accept his explanation? The fact that you are making a mountain of this molehill does not bode well for your re-entry into editing on controversial pages. Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
William won't be allowed to edit BLP pages, so he'll be kept away from anything that is controversial about the CC area here on Wikipedia. The Wiki policies are a good enough barrier to keep the real world public controversy about the science of global warming out of the science articles, in case of the BLP articles this is not the case. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally optimistic, and Boris generally pessimistic, and up to now he has won hands down. But we'll see William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

## NLP

Would you be prepared to have another look at the NLP article? Encyclotadd still doesn't get the principle of OR and is now in breech of 3rr. I could just make a 3rr report, but I am (for the umpteenth time) being accused of a COI and Offtoriorob has jumped in as well (any area of wikipedia where I am involved in any controversy he arrives). With Chuckfreyconsultant permanently banned after taking umbrage over NLP issues I think this needs a neutral perspective. --Snowded TALK 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid the edit war there, oh dear William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

### Polar see-saw

Here's something that probably should be deleted. or maybe turned into a redirect to Antarctic Cooling Controversy. I haven't been around enough lately to remember how to do it. Apologies for just dumping this on you, but know you get it taken care of. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a valid article; it shouldn't be merged into ACC. I've hacked it a bit and removed some of the nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

## Dispute resolution survey

 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello William M. Connolley. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

## Economics of global warming

I've recently glanced at a few sections of Economics of global warming and frankly, I'm appalled. If it was my choice, I'd opt for blowing it up and starting from scratch, but it isn't my call. That leaves clean-up as an option, but frankly, I'd find cleanup of the Augean stables easier.

Any interest in pitching in?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I'd avoided having that on my watchlist. Certainly the intro reads very oddly. I've only skimmed the rest; I'm going to be busy for a week or so, but after that I'm happy to look more or help in any rework William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, there's no rush, and I have some real-life issues that will keep me occupied a fair bit. I don't think warming issues per se are the main problems. I intend to concentrate on some of the finance issues such as the jumbled discussion of risk, and the odd insertion of portfolio theory. However, when it comes to the poor handling of the Kaya identity, I trust you are more familiar than I with the proper presentation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

## Notability for websites

So whilst I was celebrating one of our websites winning the BBC One World "New Media Award" http://oneworldmedia.org.uk/awards/winners (sponsored by Google, and presented by Jon Snow, no less) I was wondering it this was enough to make it notable and hence worth its own article on Wikipedia. I am hopelessly conflicted (since I did the concept design) but perhaps you or a watcher might take have a quick think? Despite the award I guess verifiable content for the article if you exclude http://www.our-africa.org/about-this-site might be tricky to come by (there is quite a bit of material published as a Plone case study somewhere I think. --BozMo talk 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats for the award! Great work, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
My congratulations, too. But I have been, and will be, busy in the real world William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

## Treasure on Wikipedia

Not seen this from the history of Caius before "He insisted that the college admit no scholar who “is deformed, dumb, blind, lame, maimed, mutilated, a Welshman, or suffering from any grave or contagious illness, or an invalid, that is sick in a serious measure”. Just going through my contact list for some Welsh people to send it to. --BozMo talk 12:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That might be why they're fast William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Presumably contagion and Welsh are the only prohibitions which are still legally possible (and Welsh would be illegal too if it were a nationality). --BozMo talk 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

## Uptick in violent crime

Are you aware that a small increase in violent crime in the U.S. is being attributed to climate change leading to an early spring and to increased methamphetamine production due to the destruction of outdoor marijuana crops as a result of drought? According to a recent news story, "56 percent of the United States was in drought conditions as of May 8, almost twice the area compared to last year at this time, according to data from the U.S. Drought Monitor."[28] Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the violent crime bit, though the Fight Entropy blog has some useful stuff, e.g. http://www.fight-entropy.com/2012/04/temperature-and-generally-antisocial.html and the more important stuff about climate and conflict, http://www.fight-entropy.com/2012/03/carefully-interpreting-climate-conflict_30.html
I don't find the stuff from Lester Brown in your link convincing, though. "Our entire agricultural system is geared to the stable climate conditions we've enjoyed for the last few thousand years. And that's changing," is dubious - there have been some large changes over those 2kyr. And the land-grab stuff is similarly dodgy William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. What do you make of the current drought conditions in the United States and Mexico? Are they unusual? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay replying. As you might be able to guess, this is because I don't have a good answer to give. They are clearly unusual in the context of the recent few decades past, but quite possibly not in the context of the longer term. More interesting still is whether they will continue. I have no answer to that, either William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hot off the press. Is it time to start worrying about the clathrate gun hypothesis? Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I see your link and raise you http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/03/17/arctic-methane-emergency-group/ ;-) But as for warmth: well, its June here, and cold, and its been raining for weeks. By which I mean, for every "its warm" story you'll find another "its cold" story. So that isn't the way to do it: the way to do it is to look at global temperatures over the longer term, or sea ice, or whatever. And not worry too much that it is unexciting William M. Connolley (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, the weather in North America for the last year or so has been very strange. BTW, in case you missed this, enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't "cold and rainy" the traditional weather of Britain? If you insist on an island, but don't like the weather, move to Crete! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it. You might like this :-). Weather: well, there are limits. And its Mays next week, so it had better get better William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Check out Curiousity's Seven Minutes of Terror if you haven't already seen it. Great stuff. Too bad NASA wasn't making these types of videos ten years ago. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

## Indian mathematics

Hello, I am a user very active in the Good Article nominating system. I often look and scout for articles that could pass as GAs. I was sifting through WikiProject Mathematics, and found this article. You seem to be the editor who has has the most recent edits done, and I was wondering, do think the article is ready to go under a GA review. If so, Great! If not, what could be done to improve it. I am really exuberant when an article I nominate becomes a GA, and would like for this one to. Please, help this article become a GA. Thanks mate! Oakley77 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think all I've done there is tone things down a bit. But there is far more to be done. It looks to me to have problems, semi-nationalistic ones, in over-promoting the role of IM and failing to set it in its correct place. For example that Fields of Indian mathematics section appears to assert that they invented formal grammar. Or it did, until I just removed it. In short, I wouldn't trust it at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

## Porn

(Change of subject) Did you clear that picture up there with Larry Sanger? Apparently he has teamed up with Fox News to protect us... --Guy Macon (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I discussed this on a blog a little while ago, http://ocham.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn.html. I don't think I convinced anyone over there. Oh... you're referring to my edit-notice pic, aren't you? I thought you mean my current facebook pic... hold on... William M. Connolley (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I Didn't know about the blog. I was just setting up for some good-natured teasing about you allegedly looking underage in that photo. (Note to talk page stalkers: you have to click on the edit button to see the picture I am talking about). Nice comments on that blog, BTW. Alas, you can't use reason to change a person's mind when they didn't use reason to arrive at their position in the first place. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
For most people, nudity and swear words have their place and time. I was at a party once, and we were all having a great time, when out of the blue, some guy comes up to a group of us, takes his "member" out of his pants, and starts swinging it around, showing it to everybody. Now, nobody wanted to see that. However, if he had taken off his clothes and jumped in the pool, nobody would have even noticed (and in fact a very beautiful, well-endowed young lady did just that, and hardly an eye turned). So, I think the main objection that is reasonable, is context and distance. For example, if your child is doing a book report on Cleaveland, you probably don't want them have to read about a Cleaveland steamer (or try to explain it to them). For me, this can be fixed by correcting poor search terms and redirects, and I think the Sanger & Wikipedia is Porn crowd do have a point when they say it is easy to access the "wrong" material during a search. But, the answer isn't censorship, it's about finding new and better ways to optimize the search and retrieval process and to direct users to the content they are actually searching for instead. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the pic I was talking about is this. I decided not to upload it to wiki :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Really? (smile) I don't see a 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice... (Note to the humor impaired: STILL not being serious...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of User:JournalScholar

Er, not that you created the attack..... I'll go leave a personal note on the user's talk page... sorry to bother you. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Ta. I asked DS to look into the issues around this but he didn't care. Someone should William M. Connolley (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

## Edit warring.

There's an interesting article in PLOS One about edit-warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... it's been cited in WP:CONSENSUS since March, thanks to a certain cynical bastard... :P MastCell Talk 04:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That was the quote that "debates [edit-wars] rarely conclude on the basis of merit...." My initial impression of the article is that it missed some of the softer aspects of how things work out. But nice charts, and some interesting observations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I read it - well, skimmed it - and I'll blog it (thanks). But I didn't find it that instructive, really. Perhaps too abstract William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

## Silence of the deniers

Tillman-man-man-man...long echo. [29] Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's only weather, and NOAA can't even assure growers that there is an end to the drought in sight so obviously their models are no use. Bit worrying that it is starting to "leave hungry countries in the Middle East and elsewhere scrambling" – chocks away, bandits at 12 o'clock etc.? Fortunately Tom Vilsack, the US agriculture secretary, is considering a rain prayer or rain dance. . . . dave souza, talk 06:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Temperatures on land were the warmest ever recorded" in the U.S. for 2012. But not according to Ron Johnson, Republican United States Senator from Wisconsin:

A global warming skeptic, Johnson said extreme weather phenomena were better explained by sunspots than an overload of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as many scientists believe. "I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change," Johnson said. "It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination." Johnson, in an interview last month, described believers in manmade causes of climate change as "crazy" and the theory as "lunacy." "It's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time," he said.[30]

Today, "the drought in southern Wisconsin was upgraded Thursday morning to extreme from severe, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor."[31] Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I do like the "its far more likely to be something, anything, other that CO2 because that would be inconvenient..." William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't the media have a responsibility to point out that Johnson's claims are not rooted in reality? Reporter Steve Schultze of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered the story as if Johnson's POV had some kind of credibility because he's a politician. But is there any reputable climate scientist who says extreme weather is better explained by sunspots? No, there isn't. So why does the reporter let the claim stand without any investigation, and act as if there isn't good evidence one way or the other? Exactly what kind of journalists are colleges turning out these days? Simply letting an authority repeat debunked nonsense without any type of challenge or correction is not journalism. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
On journalism, from a set that starts here. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I never thought I would ever say this, but thank goodness for ABC News. I will make an effort to patronize their advertisers. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Patronize them? That reminds me of the episode of Cheers where Sam had bar napkins made up that said: "Thank you for patronizing me".

Also, here's how things will actually play out, at least in the U.S.: climate change → more frequent and severe droughts → food prices skyrocket → consumers have less disposable income → people demand that we loosen regulations on oil companies so gas gets cheaper → gas does not get any cheaper but carbon emissions increase → return to beginning of this sentence. MastCell Talk 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling prophecy MastCell? 99.112.212.204 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope, facts: "June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe."[32] Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Treat with caution: Appell notes an error already pointed out by Tamino. Well, many of us aren't statisticians, especially me. . dave souza, talk 09:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That particular error turns out to be statistically interesting, but not important to the arguement William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh. That's what I get for citing Rolling Stone. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone does decent, if slightly sycophantic, celebrity sit-down pieces, but their scientific coverage generally appears to be fact-checked by Jenny McCarthy. Cite at your own risk. :P MastCell Talk 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A matter of presentation: JnG raises a similar caution about presentation of another statistic, and more recently has expressed cautious optimism for the coming months, as least for Tx. Perhaps rather hotter for most. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that was me getting the two cases confused. So the one Tamino was talking about was the 1/3^13 one, for which ignoring auto-correlation turns out not to matter too much, because its small anyway (because the spatial region is just the US). The one V mentions - the 327 one - is talking about global temperature, where the autocorrelation is much higher, so 1/2^327 is badly wrong as a calculation. But I suspect the same underlying answer applies - that when you do take account of autocorrelation, the chances of it happening remains very low. But it would be good to get these things correct.
Mind you, this is all a great nonsense and only for public consumption: the reason we know its warmer is because of the temperature record. Looks at extremes isn't a good way to observe warming William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone comment on this news item about the record melting of Greenland and what this means? Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The Graun quotes the NASA press release: "This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?", while noting that Lora Koenig, another Goddard glaciologist, told Nasa similar rapid melting occurs about every 150 years. But she warned there were wide-ranging potential implications from this year's thaw. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
JB's blog is interesting. See-also the most recent. I was a bit dubious about the every-150-years thing; would be nice to see the data William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
In comments to this GPWayne suggests Alley, R.B., and S. Anandakrishnan. 1995. Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: implications for Holocene summer temperatures in central Greenland. Annals of Glaciology 21:64-70, but access restricted to IGS members. . . dave souza, talk 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That can't be the right answer; its 1994 which is antique and its "only" proceedings, although it is a bit reviewed. Ah, but what about http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/alley1.html ? that looks more useful, and also rather blows the "every 150 years" nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
<ec> I bow to your expertise. Rather a shame, I was hoping this ice melt wasn't as bad as it looks. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: the Graun's chatter now includes WildGlaciologist 26 July 2012 4:04PM proposing that the "150 years" is an overall average of the intervals in Alley and Anandakrishnan, obscuring the melt events being more frequent during the holocene optimum and the interval increasing to 250 years during the last 4,000 years (BP). Bit silly to put the nonsense in a press release if that's all it's based on. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already been asked about "all the ice in Greenland melting" (!!), and can only wonder how soon this palpable untruth is cited as evidence of "warmer" deceitfulness. The warm, brownish colors on the NASA image certainly suggests bare rock, and the new media don't seem to be dispelling the notion that all of the ice sheet is gone. Lest any passers-by get confused, we should point out the "Greenland-melt" is only of the surface of the Greenland ice sheet. The bulk of the ice sheet is still there. Else we would be seeing several meters of sea-level rise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My reading was that it was pink for warm, meaning surface melting and a change in albedo. Bad enough, haven't yet seen any claims it was deep melt. . dave souza, talk 17:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

## Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

Hi, William. There is some ambiguity and potential error at Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years regarding some of the "Mann et al." references. As some of your fingerprints were found in the neighborhood I wonder you might check those references and see that the material is being cited correctly. I can do the detailed work if you'll just check that the right articles are being cited. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. I'm glad someone takes reference cleanup seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
We're supposed to be serious here? Drat. Anyway, am in the throes of tweaking Hockey stick controversy#List of reconstructions in date sequence and hav started changing some inline cites to harvnb using that list. Where will it end? . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I am almost hate to ask (yikes), but: would you like any help on that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes please! Caution, there are still bits to be written and the lead needs revised. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, nice William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice to get help? I'll say. . dave souza, talk 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

You commented on a dispute over the Younger Dryas, so perhaps you could give your view on one over the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. The lede states that it has been discredited, but a June 2012 paper supports it, so I changed the lede to a neutral tone. This has been reversed as POV synthesis and original research. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look. SR is over enthusiastic for my tastes, but then again Bk's tone doesn't help either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

## The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

## Arctic Death Spiral?

Having just been at Noglacier National Park, I now see the new arctic sea ice reports [33][34] (and, of course, Forbes' highly qualified experts with a "fair and balanced" counterpoint). Didn't you have some bets running with sea ice alarmists? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yees. You can have [35] just recently. The exciting sea ice bet is [36]; that links to the less exciting ones (that I've probably lost :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you come to where I am, or if I come to Cambridge, I'll buy you a pint (or closest equivalent) of your choice to soften the blow. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I've no objection to beer at all. Come to sunny Cambridge, its lovely. Ish William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Denominating the bet in USD was a good move. In 2016 \$10,000 might not be much more than a beer... --BozMo talk 12:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

## Bees and wasps

This year has been an extraordinary year in that there were no wasps. Normally all the apple and plum trees in the garden are swarming with them. We also have no hornets but seem to have loads of bees (one of our chimneys has a long standing nest). So is it a good or bad year for honey? --BozMo talk 08:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you been looking up Rossami's contribs too ;-? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
More seriously: I don't think I've ever seen a hornet in this country; I've certainly seen a few wasps this summer, but few. As for the honeybees: it was a reasonable spring but all I've talked to have had a poor summer. I didn't take any autumn honey off, since there was little more than would get the girls through the winter William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi WMC, Quick request for advice: what should one do about personal attacks like this? Thanks, JBL (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to begin by pointing out the chap that it *is* a PA, and asking for it to be struck out. Who knows, he might listen. Failing that you have the whole panoply of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution available, but one possibility is just to ignore him - that kind of nonsense just makes him look bad, not you William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --JBL (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

## Cumulus cloud

I've been working on trying to get cumulus cloud to good article status, but the global climatic interaction section seems a bit sparse, largely because I cannot find much research on the interaction between cumulus clouds and climate change. (Well, at least what I've got is better than what used to be there—nothing!) Do you know of any such research? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a decent article to try to improve, I'll try to help William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

## Sandy

Working on restoring it. The page is just moving really really really slow for me. Casprings (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have no clue why that was removed in my edit. I didn't touch that. Casprings (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was slow for me too. I see you've succeeded, then its been removed and restored. Stormy times ahead... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

## New article

Hi WMC, I just stumbled across a new article, Volcanic impacts on ocean, by a new contributor. Looks like it could do with a bit of a check by an expert eye. Could you give it a look? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. 11:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Its someone's school project, isn't it? Its not too bad, though it needs touching up, and probably moving to "Volcanic impacts on climate", and linking from Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols#Effect_on_climate William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Statement

Is anyone else decent standing? Other than Count Iblis, though I could wish he'd stood as himself. Kww? RegentsPark? User:Timotheus Canens I think I'm pretty keen on.

William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/ACE2012. In the end, I had to oppose Count Iblis: Wikipedia:If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The ArbCom Reform Party will nominate better candidates for next year's elections. The problem this time was that it was difficult to get this whole Party started due to limited time. Also, RFCs are apparently not allowed to notify people that you got a new project, so we failed to get a lot more editors involved. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

## Article on sea ice

Hi! You have taken out illustrations from the article on sea ice. Is it because they were too big? They can be reduced in size - I find them very helpful for understanding what sea ice is about. As for the table, the source was indicated - why is this not allowed? I am a new contributor, and am open to criticism (but I would like to understand) --Lusilier (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture was certainly far too big. The table I'm dubious about - I think just copying it out is effectively a WP:COPYVIO - but also some of the entries were rather pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. If it's ok with you, I will put it back in smaller size (and will do the same to some of my other contributions). It took me a while to draw that diagram - it is based on extensive reading, notably of the sources in the reference section, and my own experience - I make a living working with sea ice (though I don't know if this should matter in a wiki). As for the table, of course if it is a copyright violation, it has to be removed. --Lusilier (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

## BP structure suggestion

Hi William, I have recently put forward a suggestion for a new structure for the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections of the BP article. This is something I had originally proposed in December, when it was overshadowed by discussion of the article's introduction. Beagel, Petrarchan and Martin Hogbin have commented so far, however none have made the changes I suggest. (Currently Beagel and Petrarchan are busy on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill page.) As you have been involved with discussions on the BP article previously, I would like to hear your thoughts on the structure I propose and see if you would be willing to put this into place. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Seems to be general agreement, with a bit of renaming. Are you suggesting just shuffling round the existing text into that header structure? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

## Don't you hate it

Don't you hate it when you cannot do maths problems set for your children? Ok, so it was an extension problem and she couldn't do it either. They need a parents cheat site.

Prove that for all positive reals a; b; c; d,

$a^4b + b^4c + c^4d + d^4a \ge abcd(a + b + c + d)$

--BozMo talk 11:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and if it helps it says "using the fact that the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal than the geometric mean". One for Stephan perhaps... --BozMo talk 11:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a quick reply pointing out how easy this was. Fortunately I didn't post it. My wife can't do it either, and she's better than me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Would it have anything to do with factors taken to the fourth power always exceeding the same factors taken to the second power? Or is this problem so far above me I am only flaunting my ignorance? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty with that observation is that x4 > x2 is true for reals only if |x| > 1 and so is false for 0 < x < 1, yet the problem uses positive reals. EdChem (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hrmp. I don't to calculus, I write programs apply logical calculi ;-). Maybe I'll give it a think - I've already managed to arrange 4 irregular polygons into a square and an equilateral triangle today, and to put a triangular foam pyramid into a square plexiglass box. The local mall has a math toy exhibition... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts: the AM-GM-HM inequality states that, for all positive integers n, and provided that x1, x2, ..., xn are all positive reals, the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to the geometric mean, which is in turn greater than or equal to the harmonic mean, with equality ocurring when x1 = x2 = ... = xn. In algebraic terms, this means that:

$\frac{x_1 + x_2 + \cdots + x_n}{n} \geq \sqrt[n]{x_1 \cdot x_2 \cdots x_n} \geq \frac{n}{\frac{1}{x_1} + \frac{1}{x_2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{x_n}}$

It immediately follows that the n = 4 case for positive reals a, b, c, and d is:

$a + b + c + d \geq 4 \sqrt[4]{a b c d}$       (1)

The n = 4 AM-GM result can be proven by first expanding $(\sqrt{x_1} - \sqrt{x_2})^2 \geq 0$ to establish that $\frac{x_1 + x_2}{2} \geq \sqrt{x_1 x_2}$ and then, by taking $x_1 = \frac{a + b}{2}$ and $x_2 = \frac{c + d}{2}$, obtaining:

$\frac{\frac{a + b}{2} + \frac{c + d}{2}}{2} \geq \sqrt{(\frac{a + b}{2}) \cdot (\frac{c + d}{2})}$ and noting that $\frac{a + b}{2} \geq \sqrt{a b}$ and $\frac{c + d}{2} \geq \sqrt{c d}$
$\frac{a + b + c + d}{4} \geq \sqrt{\sqrt{a b} \cdot \sqrt{c d}} \geq \sqrt[4]{a b c d}$, establishing (1) as expected.

Now, taking the n = 4 case but defining x1 = a4b, x2 = b4c, x3 = c4d, and x4 = d4a, we find:

$\frac{a^4 b + b^4 c + c^4 d + d^4 a}{4} \geq \sqrt[4]{a^4 b \cdot b^4 c \cdot c^4 d \cdot d^4 a}$
$a^4 b + b^4 c + c^4 d + d^4 a \geq 4 \sqrt[4]{a^5 b^5 c^5 d^5} = 4abcd \sqrt[4]{abcd}$       (2)

I had planned to put (1) into (2) to obtain the required expression abcd(a + b + c + d) but the inequality goes the wrong way, so I'm stuck as all I've established is that both sides of the original inequality are greater than or equal to $4abcd \sqrt[4]{abcd}$ but maybe this will be helpful for someone. EdChem (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not a research problem it is extension homework set for a thirteen year old which therefore can be done with basic algebra. I have given up but am waiting for the teacher to go through it with her. I assume the problem must have come from somewhere (possibly a past BMO2 paper if that means anything) but I could not find it and searching for equations online seems a tad tricky. For what its worth I think I have seen a three variable version of this with cubes but I cannot remember how to do that either. I even tried checking it was actually true for a scatter of variables, but it does seem to be true. --BozMo talk 08:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
You all probably tried this. No idea if it works or not...
(a+b+c+d)/4 >= (abcd)^(1/4) (given)
(a+b+c+d)^4 >= abcd
multinomial theorem + algebra + pray -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Step 2? . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Something like that. The praying is because I'm too lazy to expand the polynomial to see if it works. But I like it better this way, because I get the satisfaction of thinking I'm right without the bother of doing anything that could show I'm wrong. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Got the answer home now. Four lines long but basically unguessable in my view; it relies on an AM-GM looking not much like the equation and its three cyclic permutations all being added up to give the equation shown. Probably not worth posting here unless someone is fretting over it? --BozMo talk 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
After trying this for a while, I used Google to find a document discussing this and other inequalities. That this worked may be partly coincidence, as Google highlighted the wrong part of the document. The solution given fits BozMo's description. I probably wouldn't have gotten the solution in any reasonable time. They do give a sort of method for finding the starting AM-GM, but with typos. Cardamon (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was pretty sure the teacher hadn't made the problem up... could you email me the link if WMC doesn't wanted it posted yet? --BozMo talk 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Sent. Cardamon (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Give us a little longer William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a reasonable hint I can think of which would probably save me from writing out lines of TeX if you like. --BozMo talk 13:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you put the answer / further hints on your talk page? Then anyone who still wants to get round to looking at this (me) won't have to see the spolier William M. Connolley (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Have done exactly that. --BozMo talk 20:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

## Okay, educate me if you have the time. I'm missing something

Where am I going wrong (I'll bullet my observations, decisions)? I read Chapter 6 of AR5 WG1 technical chapter (pre-release) and

• there is broad discussion of atmospheric GHG, Well-mixed GHG's, etc, etc.
• and the sources of those gases
• They come from a a few principle anthropogenic causes such as fossil fuel burning, cement factories and land use change.
• They appear to provide the source for RCP pathways for CMIP5 models that are used with various drawn and quartering of maps to represent different topology, etc..

• which is the physical underpinnings where the model is run and analyzed.
• chapter 8 concludes anthropogenic WMGHG are the primary cause of warming and the net forcing is positive.
• it concludes that ocean acidification will continue due to these GHGs
• land use change as a human activity is as likely as not to contribute to net positive forcing (i.e. the trees in the peat experiment).
• albedo measurements are much higher confidence since AR4.
• there is low historical confidence that land use change contributed to a net positive forcing.
• there is low confidence that land use changes will contribute to a net positive forcing in the future (and was slightly negative in the past decade)

I get that land use change added CO2, and on the whole that will contribute to things like carbon uptake of the ocean, ocean acidification, climate response time, etc. But I can't find where the connection of land use change is made to temperature (i.e. "global warming" in the opening statement of Global warming. GHG emission is pretty straightforward. Albedo is pretty straightforward. They have a dodgy "it's complicate hydrological interaction, so don't ask" part. And overall low confidence to all of it but somewhere centered around zero as it relates to a forcing.

What am I missing if I may ask? --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're missing. Land use change contributes to GW indirectly, because it contributes GHG's that lead to warming. But the *direct* effect is less clear (I haven't looked myself, but if you say "is as likely as not" that will do for now).
So when the GW article says "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation" that fits perfectly; and I can't see why you're objecting. That statement *doesn't* say "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and direct radiative effects from land use changes such as deforestation". You seem to be reading in the part I've bolded, but it isn't there William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"is as likely as not" is from the AR5 chapter 8 - and they clumsily say a few different ways because the science a bit inconclusive. My reading is/was that, yes, CO2 is the radiative forcing that dominates global warming (with some up and comers like methane). That's a physical phenomena well established. Fossil fuel burning, cement production and land use change are human activities, though. If I test the human activity against the hypothesis that it causes global warming (increase in global mean surface temperature, Bayesian if you will), I get from the AR5 literature:
• fossil fuel burning activity -> very likely contributes to warming, passes criteria
• cement production -> very likely contributes to warming, passes criteria
• land use change -> as likely as not to contribute to warming due to competing physical effects, fails criteria as its independent of warming

From they way I read it, had land use change not occurred, the temperature increase would be approximately the same and the activity link to global warming is missing. Certainly the link to GHG's is there and the other effects, but not "Global warming." With or without land use change, the net radiative forcing is still positive and still about the same. So my objection is stating how the activity of land use change relates to global warming, not CO2. Certainly it is accurate to say land use change adds CO2 to the atmosphere, the ocean effects, long term trends, etc. But "global warming" doesn't seem to pass the hypothesis - since if land use hadn't changed, the IPCC says the temperature through net forcings would be relatively unchanged. This seems to be what Chapter 8 in the technical side is saying. Total radiative forcings are positive to support GW, but land use change isn't an anthropogenic cause of that change. This is what they are proposing [37] starting in 8.3.5. I don't get the impression they are talking only about albedo, but rather the albedo numbers have firmed out so the net radiative forcing of GHGs and albedo is now 0 (confidence increase from AR4.) Here's what I thought were the relevant paragraphs that combine RF and WMGHGs. I bolded the statement that I thought disassociates the human land use change from global warming (not just albedo or WMGHG concentration but taken as a whole).

Am I making sense? Am I missing something else where testing the activity of land use change to the change in temperature is not the proper test?

Deforestation has a direct impact on the atmospheric CO2 concentration, and therefore contributes to the WMGHG RF as quantified in Section 8.3.2. Conversely, afforestation is a climate mitigation strategy to limit the CO2 concentration increase. Several authors have compared the radiative impact of deforestation/afforestation that results from the albedo change with the greenhouse effect of CO2 released/sequestered. Pongratz et al. (2010) shows that the historic land use change has had a warming impact (i.e., greenhouse effect dominates) at the global scale and over most regions with the exception of Europe and India. Bala et al. (2007) results show latitudinal contrast where the greenhouse effect dominates for low latitude deforestation while the combined effect of albedo and evapotranspiration impact does at high-latitude. These results are also supported by Bathiany et al. (2010). Similarly, Lohila et al. (2010) shows that the afforestation of boreal peatlands results in a balanced RF between the albedo and greenhouse effect. Overall, because of the opposite impacts, the potential of afforestation to mitigate climate change is limited (Arora and Montenegro, 2011) while it may have undesired impacts on the atmospheric circulation, shifting precipitation patterns (Swann et al., 2012).

8.3.5.6 Conclusions

There is still a rather wide range of estimates of the albedo change due to anthropogenic land use change, and its RF. Although most published studies provide an estimate close to –0.2 W m–2, there is convincing evidence that it may be somewhat weaker as the albedo difference between natural and anthropogenic land cover may have been overestimated. In addition, non-radiative impact of land use have a similar magnitude, and may be of opposite sign, as the albedo effect (though these are not part of RF). A comparison of the impact of land use change according to seven climate models showed a wide range of results (Pitman et al., 2009), partly due to difference in the implementation of land cover change, but mostly due to different assumptions on ecosystem albedo, plant phenology and evapotranspiration. There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m –2 , but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo — is about as likely as not.

--DHeyward (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you're trying to say. In that case, there are a couple of answers: (a) this is somewhat difficult to interpret language from an unpublished report that explicitly says "Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute". So, you can't use it as a source for anything (of course, if you have the energy you could chase up all the refs that it backs that up with, and you can use those); (b) so on the whole I'd say we could make sure we agree on the issue (which I'd say was "land use produces a +ve RF from CO2, and a negative RF from albedo, and these ~balance, perhaps") in anticipation of the text becoming citable (though of course it may change); (c) if we then return to the text in the lede we find it still true, even if we admitted the draft text, because "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation" says (1) "IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions" (which is true); and (2) these CO2 emissions are "from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation" (which is also true). You could possibly complain that this truth isn't quite what you might expect it to be saying. I'd say that the relatively subtle (and at this point uncertain) distinction that land use changes also have a probably negative RF is too subtle and not important enough for the lede William M. Connolley (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Plus, assuming for the sake of argument that land use albedo changes has indeed canceled land use GHG changes, we have to add so far. There is no reason to think there's a fixed ratio there. And for that matter, burning fossil fuels has a negative forcing component too, in terms of sulfates and if I remember correctly high atmospheric particulates. To expand on a prior remark, I'm all for striving for FA quality treatment of the components of net forcing at Attribution of recent climate change and adding something more in the body of the article. The lead sentence being quibbled over is about the largest contributor to positive forcing - GHG - and land use contributes. If you're still not convinced, t will take heavy hitting secondary sources to overcome IPCC's nutshell bubble on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@WMC, yes it makes sense though I find it ironic that the SPM cites the source that must not be named. It would not make it easier to add the individual sources when the full report is weeks away. For land use changes, it seems "when" and "where" are relevant but the article doesn't make that demarcation. Currently land use change seems to be an order of magnitude less than the top two CO2 drivers. It's also a declining component in both raw tonnage and percentage (at least what I read in atmospherics area) for all 4 RCPs. Land use change goes back quite a ways though and inertia/load on ocean and flora/fauna reuptake might be interesting. I'd also think deforestation as a single element of land use change might need clarification or even replacements depending on rice paddies and such. Or just removed if it's really a single fraction an order of magnitude lower. --DHeyward (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@NAEG, I'm not sure what you mean by "FA quality treatment of the components of net forcing" but presumably you think they ought not be treated in the article about global warming? Forcings are derived as part of the modeling process. Much simplified, integrating over time and area of all the forcings yields a temperature. Usually, global warming is expressed in terms as anthropogenic activities. In that sense, we would have net sums of the forcing of the activity and measure it against the hypothesis that it causes warming. The sulfates from fossil fuel burning would be part of the net forcing derived from the activity of burning fossil fuels. Those sulfates would be treated much differently than volcanic sulfates. The argument I presented is that each activity is tested against the hypothesis that it causes warming, not each chemical. Breaking it down by chemical component is rather difficult argument to make because it's the net sum of the activity. "Global warming is caused by GHGs emitted by activityX , activityY, and activityZ." It stands to reason that each activity, separately, as a sum of it's own forcings, pass the statistical test for global warming.
It's probably more obvious why we should state it that way if, instead of global warming, we use mitigation for illustration, (I am making up this scenario absurdium using sulfur as cooling forcing) "Global warming is mitigated by sulfur emitted by volcanic eruption and by burning high sulfur content diesel fuel and coal" would be an inference that is not supported and I suspect objectionable even if sulfur is a mitigating chemical and diesel/coal is a primary source of atmospheric sulfur (connecting the dots like the lead sentence does). We would want to test each of the activities for mitigation before asserting a component they produce is mitigating. Breaking it into two sentences. "Global warming is mitigated by sulfates" and "Sulfates are emitted by volcanic eruption and by burning high sulfur content diesel fuel and coal" might both be true as separate statements as well, but again it's problematic to imply that sulfur from diesel fuel and coal would be stated as mitigation if the activity was net warming. It's the same logic/criteria for asserting an activity for causing global warming as it is for global warming mitigation. The story is net effect of human activity and that shouldn't be lost in roles of individual chemicals and the net effects. Therefore statements that start with testable hypothesis (i.e. causes of global warming, mitigation) and then list activities need to make sure the activities meet the testable criteria, not just one of the components. I don't think this is inconsistent with the sources. --DHeyward (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

## State of Fear undo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen

"From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City" hence he is "former" head of that instute. So your reversal is baseless. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&oldid=591689958&diff=prev --Spec (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Missed the comment, clarified that that this was his position "at the time". --Spec (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

## Opinion on very recent sunspot/stratosphere/trade winds/la nina/pause??

Have you looked at any of this recent stuff? As far as I can tell, the bleeding edge "trade winds" and the "extended La Ninja since 1998" traces back to stratospheric warming caused by low sunspots as it interacts with stratospheric ozone. Xie managed to put numbers on it with SST's I think but it's a few years old as non-numerical theories. From what I recall, low sunspot cycles correlated to large trade winds and La Nina. This seems like a lot of handwaving (especially as solar variance larger than a single representative cycle is not modeled as a relevant variance and a 1st order ħν energy doesn't appear convincing). A specific frequency/cycle dependent reaction with ozone maybe? Anyway, my interpretation is that it's a largely a message reaction to the "hiatus/pause" rather than a rigorous conclusive proof. Are you keeping up with any of this stuff? (BTW, CMIP5 was conceived as a decadal sensitive model, though the difference over CMIP3 is beyond my learning. Is the "nah" edit summary the QED term for Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut's null hypothesis "In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. But, in reality, there is." :) ) --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think at the moment I'd go for "there isn't really any pause". See for example http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/cowtan-way/. England et al. don't quite agree with me (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html) but pfft, what do they know? I'm not sure where you get the stratospheric connection; cn I think William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Stratosphere temp -> La Nina [38] states "During a La Niña event, the troposphere cools down while the lower stratosphere warms over the tropics." I think I read a paper by Stefan Brönnimann that made a cleaner reference but can't find it at the moment. Here's the Solomon et al [39] piece on stratospheric water vapor. Dessler et al [40] makes the connection of troposphere temp to water vapor in stratosphere. There is also the stratosphere temp over time being inverted to surface temperature except when volcanic sulfate releases warmed the stratosphere. Then there is this Lon Hood presentation [41] (page 13,20) which makes another connection to stratosphere and a "La Nina" like condition that is observed near solar maximum (there's other papers too). Are they just converging on the same observable from different topical areas or is it me? I'll find better ones as there are more recent ones that seem all connected. --DHeyward (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And trade winds during la nina are unusually strong. We're just passed a solar max or in a really long one so strong trade winds shouldn't be surprising if the Hood et al papers are correct. I'm inclined to agree that the climate has not stopped or paused in warming. I'm all for understanding mechanism but some of these recent papers that get press (and pushed) appear only to be rebuttal papers for sceptics. They get blown way out of proportion to their contribution to knowledge and if they don't hold up over time, they are used as fodder. --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for the Tamino link. I saw that column added to "Warmest years by dataset" but that source only commented that it was a better way to interpolate sparsely monitored arctic areas but didn't explain how. I'm not particularly fond of defending the models with a simple linear regression +/- 2 sigma. While accurate, it's not complete. It would be nice if the ensemble hindcasting results could generate data with a correlating mean and variance if it's accurate over that time scale (which is advertised that it is). If it was Monte Carlo we could compare the two populations (simulated vs. measured) to see if they are the same population but I don't think the ensemble is set up to generate a population that could be compared. As I understand it, the problem is internal variability is constant over all time scales while other sources of variance increase over time so over the short time span it's more sensitive to internal variability. --DHeyward (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaner version (this tongue-in-cheek rigor, BTW).
1. Solar cycle 24 is currently around it's maximum sunspot number. SC24 is a drawn out max typical of low sunspot count years. Solar maximum occurs around when magnetic field of the sun is weakest, collapsing and reversing. TSI is largest at solar max. See also Solar cycle#Short-wavelength radiation.
2. Stratospheric ozone is largely created from the short-wavelength radiation which is largest at solar max.
3. Ozone and NOx creation/loss and transport affect global circulation patterns [42]
4. Solar max and la nina-like conditions correlate well. [43][44]
5. la nina conditions generate very strong trade winds [45]
6. Strong trade winds are responsible for the "pause" [46][47]Tollefson in Nature commenting on Xie and other pause papers
QED: Sunspots are the cause of "the pause." Feel free to change it into cockney rhyming slang. To test it, we will need a scale, some wood and a duck. --DHeyward (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I haven't looked at all the details. Unravelling the mechanism of ENSO is interesting. But its also hard work, and I don't have to do that stuff any more. I think you'd be surprised how uninterested most climate-types are in the "pause" stuff; the action there is mostly in the political domain. In a couple of years time, once its clearly not there, people will forget the issue was even discussed. In much the same way that almost no-one nowadays remembers the puzzle there used to be because UAH showed cooling William M. Connolley (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

## Your unfounded accusations towards me have been reported.

Accusing people of nationalism without any proof is violation of the Wikipedia law. Here is the discussion about yourself: [48] - Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

## Notability citations in List of scientists opposed etc.

I stuck that notability information in because a number of people have said the topic was not notable. As per WP:LISTN stand alone lists require notability. By WP:NRV notability requires verifiability. And per WP:PROVEIT verifiability must be backed by a citation if challenged. I don't think saying the notability is somewhere in some archives of the talk page really cuts it. It is because of stuff like Morano produced that the list is in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is true William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Not a very convincing argument. There is a section on the talk page "Proposal for notability info to lede?" about this where you could expand on that. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

## POV??

This is more POV

1970 to 2014

than this?

1970-2012

It's the same data. Even mainstream has gone "hiatus" (to your chagrin, I know, but it is what it is). The escalator graph, while entertaining, kind of makes it appear that the mainstream is supporting the skeptics. I created the running average to show what the same dataset looks like using the smoothing that appears on the Global Warming page. It's identical in scale, time period and reference as Skeptical Science just with 5 year average to show what everyone is talking about. I did make the colors get warmer. :) --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Even mainstream has gone "hiatus" - no William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
?? Mainstream is already calling it a hiatus (IPCC, Mann Xie, Englan, et al). Difference is skeptics say it will continue, mainsteam says it won't. But you haven't answered my question. Why is the 5 year moving average plot of the same data provided by skeptical science "POV?" --DHeyward (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant your reasons for changing it were William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I can put in a different edit summary. The escalator graph just doesn't have anything to do with pauses that scientists are talking about, but is highliting an incorrect view attributed to skeptics. I didn't like the escalator graph being used to describe what Xie, Mann, England and IPCC are talking about. People on the talk page are saying the escalator graph shows other "pauses" which is the exact opposite of what it's showing. They also seem confused what a 5-year running average is. --DHeyward (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)