→COI: no. |
William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) →COI: no |
||
Line 390: | Line 390: | ||
Since it redirects to a different article, it alas has to go through rfd again. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]</sub> 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
Since it redirects to a different article, it alas has to go through rfd again. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]</sub> 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== COI == |
|||
Before you start removing stuff as you did here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=344399784&oldid=344399475], where one of the source names you "Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley."[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/], you probably need to read this [[Wikipedia:COI]]. [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa]] ([[User talk:Nsaa|talk]]) 08:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:And you, NSAA, need to read [[WP:EW]]. If you reinsert that blog again, I will ask that you be prevented from reverting on all talk pages. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 09:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:12, 17 February 2010
The Holding Pen
On hold
|
---|
A reader writes:
I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Your ArbCom userpage comment
Need to finish this off |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I haven't looked to see which arb was accused of being a "fool," but am curious how would "Stephen Bain should not be entrusted with anything more valuable than a ball of string" would be received. I'd like to know before I say that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
Ditto |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above. As a result of this case:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I'm am sorry to see that your adminship has been revoked. I believe that our circumstances are similar in a way. I too was once an admin and lost my tools mainly due to conflicts on articles related to the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I know that the vast majority of my content creation and all my FA's were done after I was desysopped...with that said I am hoping that we can still look forward to your wisdom and guidance in those areas you have so instrumental in and that you will continue to help us build as reliable a reference base as we can achieve. Best wishes to you!--MONGO 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I ask that you please accept my nomination to regain your administrative rights at RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting[3] Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
|
Fools and their foolishness
Yes, it needs finishing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding [4], you are quite welcome to raise any of your concerns or points on my talk page. I'm quite open to constructive feedback, even if it's harsh or drastically opposed to my views or actions. I even promise not to seek a block if you call me a fool. However, if you call me Mungojerrie or make me listen to "Memory", it's war! :-) (If you prefer to keep everything together, we could easily have the same discussion at User talk:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff.) Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Bozmo. I've cut my hair recently so we may not be too far opposed on that aspect (unless you now have long hair). As to expanding the page - that will come in time. I'm glad you (V) are watching but I'm afraid I've grown rather discouraged by arbcomms ability to learn, so I won't be in a hurry. That page is mostly for me, though you are free to ask questions there if you like and I'll probbaly answer. In the meantime, on the "fools" issue, User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/On_civility#Misc_arbcomm-y_stuff refers William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Current
I just found this
Oh look: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/web-iquette-for-climate-discussions/ Isn't that good? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- He used web-iquette for medical discussions as a guide. That reminds me of How Doctors Think which is a great work on how brilliant, well trained, experienced people can get things wrong every day. I wonder if there is a way to do the same thing. Ignignot (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Wondring aloud
I have to wonder if there isn't some deliberate foot dragging, given sentiments previously expressed by Arbcom and other insiders. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um. I missed the Raul stuff in August and now feel guilty about not expressing my sympathy (literally in this case :-(). Old score settling I suspect William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Raul654 -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thermal underwear
Idealized greenhouse model, or the section below
|
---|
May I ask a question? I stress that I am not trying to do any original research, but only want to improve the GW article by explaining what is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the current article really explains it very well. My question: I did some Googling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (or rather a derivative of it) seems to be fundamental. But there are two versions of it, as follows:
where alpha is albedo, S0 is a constant solar radiative flux (units W/m^2), T is temp in K, and sigma is a constant. The two sides of the equation both have units W/m^2. In the first equation e is 'emissivity' which is unitless and is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. I think of it as an 'underpants factor'. You have a black body throbbing with radiation, which will cool unless you keep it warm. So you put some underpants on it, to keep the cold out, i.e. stop it radiating so much. Hence CO2 and water vapour are like thermal underwear to keep the earth warm (if e is 100%, the temperature is about -18 deg C, for if you solve for e with current temperature, assume 15 deg C, you find e is about 60%). I am assuming e is constant whatever the temperature for exactly the same material, is that correct? In reality e will change as the material of the atmosphere changes (more CO2, or more vapour). In the second equation G is a number, units also W/m^2, which is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. If you solve for G for 15 deg C, you get about 150 W/m^2. My puzzle is whether G is also constant, if for other reasons (e.g. change in solar radiation, change in albedo) the temperature changes. Intuitively it won't be constant. Why represent it this way? Apologise if I have misunderstood, and please correct any mistakes (I am quite new to this, but it is interesting). Again, I am not trying to do any research, just finding out some facts that could be put into layman's language and hopefully into the article. I think thermal underwear is a better analogy than greenhouses, e.g. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Writing it all out is quicker than finding it, so... simplifying, the sun shines 4S units on the uniform earth (and since the area of a circle is 1/4 the area of a corresponding sphere the 4 drops out), which is a black body (forget albedo for the moment, it makes no real difference). The atmosphere is transparent to SW, and can be considered as a single layer not in conductive contact with the surface. There is no diurnal cycle, all is averaged out, all is in equilibrium. So at the sfc (with atmosphere) we have the following equation:
(the surface is black, captures all solar SW and transforms it into LW which it re-radiates) and G is the radiation from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, in the atmosphere,
(the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). As it happens G = r(T_a)^4 but we don't care about that for tihs analysis. Hence, S + G = 2G, hence S = G, hence T_1 = (2S/r)^0.25. Meanwhile, in the absence of the atmosphere, we clearly would have T_2 = (S/r)^0.25. T_1 > T_2 (by a factor of 2^0.25) and (T_1 - T_2) is the greenhouse effect. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Also, this [6] and the linked [7] also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
|
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)
More thermals
All at Idealized greenhouse model it seems
|
---|
Thanks for your explanation which I am afraid I still don't really follow. I don't see how 'the earth heats the atmosphere' and 'the atmosphere heats the earth' can both be true.
| G ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. Emits G, up and down, thermal radiation. Absorbs S+G. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S G V ^ S+G | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+G(LW). Thus emits (S+G)(LW). Thus S+G = rT^4 Clear now? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, apart from the bit about not reflecting LW (that seemed picky, unless I misunderstood it), which of my claims was wrong? I said that the net outflow from earth to atmosphere has to be upwards. And that this outflow has to be exactly equal to the outflow from the atmosphere into space. Your diagram is incomprehensible. And what about Greenhouse effect where it says "Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface, making our life on earth possible." This is entirely wrong isn't it? It gives the impression that we are safe because only part of the radiation escapes to space, but the rest is trapped behind & keeps us snug and warm. The reality is that the net outflow from the earth has to be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere into space. Otherwise the atmosphere would keep on heating up until equilibrium was restored. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [edit] The unclearness of the diagram is the omission of the causality. You have the atmosphere radiating G downwards, e.g. Yes but where does the G come from? If we were to start with turning on the sun like a switch, at that instant there would be no G from the atmosphere. In which case the first thing to hit the earth would be S. Then earth would emit (not reflect) S. With no G. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
| 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ 0 | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
| 0 ^ V Solar input. (4S ->) S | ---------------------------- Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate. ---------------------------- | | | V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S 0 V ^ G_T | ----------------------------- Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). Has warmed up somewhat, to T. Emits rT^4, call this G_T. So now the sfc has warmed up somewhat, so it is emitting G_T in the LW. Now the atmosphere isn't in balance: it is absorbing G_T but emitting nothing, since it is at 0K. So it will warm up. So it will start emitting downwards an warm further. And eventually we end up with the equilibrium solution William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Service award update
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)
Some help with links would be appreciated
I see that you're (still) neck deep in "The Dramaz!", but when you get a chance I'd appreciate it if yourself or someone you know could take a look at Eric Rignot and try to straighten out the climatology related redlinks there. Don't worry about the link to Lew Allen Director's Award, I'll take care of that myself eventually (unless someone else wants to write a little article about the award. Don't let me stop you!). Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK. By golly, but that is an awful photo! William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done a bit, others have too. You might want to pay attention to the regrettable possibility of it being a copyvio, mind William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist, I appreciate it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist, I appreciate it.
On refactoring and a higher standard of civility
- User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos.
The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces. Editing others' posts explicitly includes adding {{cot}}, {{discussion top}}, and similar templates used to close discussions; an exception is made for archiving discussions which have received no posts for at least one week. Your right to point out cases where refactoring should occur is in no wise restricted. Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is silly and a victory for the yahoo
's; unfortunately you've succumbed to the mob. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Following discussion with the other admins who commented on the original discussion, the above restriction has been clarified: removing whole comments from this page is fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Code fragments found
Just thouht you might be interested in this news item about code fragments being found. It came to my attention as it was next to this story which has a pretty decent subheading. I don't have access to more than the abstract, doubtless this will lead to interesting discussions. Perhaps a bit offtopic at the moment, but something to look forward to. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re: the water vapor, email me and you will get a PDF. (Re: Roman law - very cool.) Awickert (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere - odd, the version I heard was stratospheric *drying*. Yes, pdf please William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- From my limited understanding, the point is increase = warmer climate, subsequent drying = recent lack of warming predicted by some models, outcome possible solution to puzzle and improved modelling. All very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies to all: my subscription doesn't work until it appears in print (e.g., until it stops being a "Science Express" article). Shoot. Sorry. You'll all get it once I can access it. I will send emails to friends at other institutions and see if they can get it though. Awickert (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- From my limited understanding, the point is increase = warmer climate, subsequent drying = recent lack of warming predicted by some models, outcome possible solution to puzzle and improved modelling. All very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere - odd, the version I heard was stratospheric *drying*. Yes, pdf please William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC:
- William M. Connolley is restricted until 2010-05-03 from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period.
- William M. Connolley is required until 2010-08-03 to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism.
- 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"...admonished and warned"
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Conclusions. I would also note that the matter is somewhat stale, and overtaken by other (related) events. There is also the matter that I am generally not wanting to block content editors, since it means the greater majority of the lost editing potential stops the project from being improved. Lastly, you are already under sanction - so I have no need to put another mark on the enforcement log. I doubt whether you will take this in the good faith in which I have say this but I shall anyway; but if you concentrated more on contributing your high standard of edits to article space and spent less energy in trying to stop those you disagree with from adding to the content then you may achieve much the same balance in representation of views without running the risk of being removed from articles, topics or editing generally for lesser or greater lengths of time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- As a specimen of contrived "logic", that takes some beating. The section was trash; it has gone now, because it was trash, which demonstrates taht I was right and your "logic" is wrong. That you can't even recognise reality *after* it has occurred is telling.
- and spent less energy in trying to stop those you disagree with from adding to the content - you don't understand what seems obvious to me, so let me make it plain: a high-quality article must not only have good content, it must also *not* have rubbish in it. Is that really so hard to understand? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- While I understand that this is your talkpage, it is also my life to choose whether I should go shopping, socialise with my extended family, review other area's of the project, open tabs on other pages on the internet, and drink more alcohol than might prove wise in respect of engaging in serious discussion - of a Saturday afternoon and evening. You are not being sanctioned in this matter, so I do not see the urgency. However, I understand the content is no longer contained in the article - which might argue my point that consensus no matter how irregularly arrived at once achieved should be respected by everyone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've realised this is my talkpage. So, now you've realised that I was correct to remove the material, that a stable consensus to leave it out exists, and that a consensus to put it in never existed, your illogic becomes ever clearer. Quite what your actual point was, though, remains as obscure as ever William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since you fail to understand that you edit warred, which is against policy, you are likely to repeat that error - which may result in future sanction. I have tried to explain. I can do no more, so I shall not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, you've failed to understand that your twisted logic convinces no-one: or at least, I haven't noticed anyone else saying "oh, what a perceptive analysis, yes I agree". Menawhile, your continued lack of interest in actual valuable content remains painfully obvious - but hey, we're here to talk politely, not build an encyclopaedia, so what does content matter? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since you fail to understand that you edit warred, which is against policy, you are likely to repeat that error - which may result in future sanction. I have tried to explain. I can do no more, so I shall not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've realised this is my talkpage. So, now you've realised that I was correct to remove the material, that a stable consensus to leave it out exists, and that a consensus to put it in never existed, your illogic becomes ever clearer. Quite what your actual point was, though, remains as obscure as ever William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Glaciergate
Since it redirects to a different article, it alas has to go through rfd again. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)