Censorious charlatan curtails climate chat

Posted: June 24, 2014 by tallbloke in alarmism, Big Brother, Blog, flames, humour, Idiots, Incompetence, Natural Variation, propaganda, Psychobabble, solar system dynamics

‘Anders’, the proprietor of popular warmist blog ‘and then there’s physics’ issued me with a challenge when I commented on his post about the ‘little ice age recovery‘.



“Try doing some actual physics” he said. So I responded:




This didn’t play so well with Anders, who then started blustering that I was denying something. I tried again:



Having his mono-radiative religion challenged in this way was too much for poor Anders, who then decided he didn’t want a conversation about ‘actual physics’ after all. Instead, he reached in the pocket of his clown trousers and pulled his censors scissors out:


Clearly, the best way to be sure the one true trace gas is responsible for all the warming of the Earth is to simply delete all the other forcings. Never mind that for the sake of harmony I’d mentioned “The warming effect of the atmospheric composition” in the very first sentence of my reply. No, best just censor and delete the inconvenient facts ‘denying’ words of the heretic, lest other blog readers be corrupted by the heresy.

And then there’s no physics to get in the way of  his climate ‘science’ any more.

  1. ‘Anders’ banned me from his blog, to which I contributed comments for close to a year, for laughing at his post where he tried to ‘prove’ that heating a toy model ocean would not release enough dissolved CO2 to produce substantial rises in atmospheric concentration of the gas.

    Treating you like shit because you are a climate skeptic – that’s a game these people have been playing for years.

  2. markstoval says:

    “Treating you like shit because you are a climate skeptic – that’s a game these people have been playing for years.”

    I disagree to some extent. I think they are believers in a religion more than scientists. Hence, when Rog presented any facts that tend to disprove said religion it was more than the poor asshat could take. Sure, the true believers get a kick out of mistreating skeptical people but it is protecting their entire belief system that is at the heart of using censorship rather than open debate. They are not about science at all.

  3. Kristian says:

    Yup, had the exact same experience. An echo chamber to protect …

  4. Kristian says:

    markstoval says, June 24, 2014 at 9:37 pm:

    “I think they are believers in a religion more than scientists. Hence, when Rog presented any facts that tend to disprove said religion it was more than the poor asshat could take.”


  5. Kristian says:

    “Dissonance is felt when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one’s belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.”

  6. Andrew Williams says:

    Talk to the hand because… May be a more appropriate moderators comment

  7. Rog what you say makes perfect sense.

  8. kuhnkat says:

    and you weren’t even being insulting…

    Oh wait, having it clearly shown what an ignorant buffoon you are on your own blog is kinda tough to accept. 8>)

  9. Bart says:

    Excellent responses, Roger. I am so looking forward to the next decade or two of cooling. One can only imagine the excuses they are going to try coming up with as nature turns against them with a vengeance. They’re already spinning so madly, they’re becoming dizzy.

  10. NikFromNYC says:

    It’s like telling a Food Pyramid framing doctor or whole heart association that no, dietary cholesterol intake is not the main driver of arterial plaque formation, but the nature of carbohydrate intake is at play much more so. To this day the Mann of his day Ancel Keys attracts medicine men with his single bullet theory of heart disease, all the while athletes, models and celebrities have adopted “heart attack on a plate” paleo diets as a slimming nutritional strategy.

    The question of sudden future cooling is merely one of when, as ice cores indicate:

    Anders’ freak out comes with the territory of his creepy old blog name of “Wotts Up With That,” yet another orbiter blog that acts to isolate Gorebots into intellectual kvetching bubbles immune to the real moderating feedback they would have to stomach on their namesake blog. These are cultists who derive their energy from skeptics as being such bad people that it offers themselves imagined halos for opposing skepticism, an ego massaged outlook that is indeed threatened by nuance such that gurus like Anders tightly control the memes inside the bubble. I remember John Cook’s spastic hysteria via a moderator when I casually linked to a climate data plotting page on Appinsys.com that’s on the WUWT blogroll. He inserted a paragraph warning readers that I had linked to a known disinformation site, bizarrely:

    [DB] Nice Gish Gallop. This thread is on ‘Are glaciers growing or retreating?’; please stay on-topic to ensure your comments do not get deleted.

    For the casual reader, appinsys is well-known to be a site of active disinformation on matters related to climate and climate change. The other graphics that Nik provides to further his narrative are of unknown provenance and should be regarded as questionable.

    A reliance on primary sources is best.”

    Plots derived from official data archives were thus ruled out.

  11. Looks like Anders is denying that the Earth spins. 😉

    Earth’s atmosphere is largely made up of gases that do not lose heat except by conduction/convection. The “best chance” for them to lose heat at altitude is by collisions with gas molecules that could.

    Tangential consideration:

    In the kinetic theory of temperature, it’s molecular velocity that counts; all other things being equal. In our measurement of temperature, we don’t measure the velocities, we measure the time-average energy (lost) of total collisions with a thermometer. So the frequency of collisions is significant which depends on the density of molecules present; measureable by pressure.

    If kinetic theory holds, the “adiabatic” temperature gradient with altitude could be explained as an artifact of increasing pressure resulting from the weight of air above the altitude. There doesn’t have to be falling to compress and to produce a higher temperature.

    “Temperature” itself isn’t something other than a number on a scale that tells us how “readily” and in which direction, heat flows. In that respect, it’s similar to voltage or pressure. By itself, temperature doesn’t tell you how much heat there is; voltage alone doesn’t tell you how much electrical energy and by itself; pressure doesn’t tell you the mass of the substance.

  12. Sleepalot says:

    I am not a scientist.

    Tallbloke wrote “I’ve found six other reasons why the Earth’s surface is warmer than the Moon’s.”

    I object to folks making comparisons between the Moon’s ground temperature and the Earth’s near-surface air temperature – they’re different things (rock and air have very different heat capacities): it’s the basis of that dodgy255K claim and hence the “greenhouse effect”.

    To my (simple) mind, if you want to find the effect of having an atmosphere, you should compare the Moon’s ground temperature to the Earth’s ground temperature. (I appreciate the difficulty of doing that – 70% of the Earth’s “ground” is covered in oceans, and I object to combining near- surface water temperatures with ground temperatures because they, too, are different things.)

    Tmax Moon, ground: 385K
    Tmax Earth, ground: 367K

    Death Valley http://www.nps.gov/deva/naturescience/weather-and-climate.htm

    Clearly having an atmosphere reduces Earth’s maximum ground temperature (not a warming effect).

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tides are interesting, but the wind is the big ocean-atmosphere mixer — and the sun drives it with equator-pole temperature gradients.

    I would love it if a bunch of climate blogs banned everyone who denies that the sun drives Earth’s climate. Exploration efficiency would jump way up. We’d solve the puzzles orders of magnitude faster.

    Currently the Talkshop is the top solar-climate blog.

    JoNova is showing interest in sun-climate relations, but people there are wasting so much time rebutting the anti-sun police tolerated there from wuwt that they’ll burn out and never get much exploration done — they’re squandering their energy on arguments, leaving insufficient time to solve problems. Solving problems demands peace, harmony, & patient focus, not sledge-hammers to crush the skulls of people who dare say it’s the sun. Joanne’s crew would get more work done if they bounced the 2 wuwt agents disrupting focus. It’s a matter of getting priorities straight.

    Who the heck needs yet another intractable climate debate? It does nothing. It just wastes time, accomplishing zero. Get the distraction agents out of the picture and productivity will go up. Actual productivity has to be the higher priority, like it is here at the top solar-climate blog.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Sleepalot: Good points. That’s why I was careful to talk about ‘Earth’s solid and liquid surfaces’.

    I wonder what temperature the ground in Death Valley would reach if the Earth had a fortnight long day like the Moon has.

    Nik: Yes. 🙂

  15. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Paul. I don’t often bother to engage with the likes of ‘Anders’, because as you say, little is achieved. I was just interested to see his reaction to some ‘basic physics’ challenging his preconceptions. We’ll get back to working on the climate puzzle soon enough.

  16. omnologos says:

    I stay away from where fools congregate. Anders’ blog is the abyss of incompetence, thought policing, mental health problems staring back at us.

  17. stewgreen says:

    Deception and Alarmists
    Just like SkepticalScience “And Then There’s Physics” is an ambush website pretending to be about science & rationality ..as you see as soon as you get down to the nitty gritty that challenges their dogma .. they resort to tactics like censoring discussion or banning participants.

  18. “…but it is protecting their entire belief system that is at the heart of using censorship ”

    Really, you think so?

  19. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
    I’m reminded of my little one years back hiding behind a curtain. Great logic to get out of trouble!
    I’m also wondering if Rog was unaware of warmist blog rules:
    1st RULE: You do not talk about NON CO2 FORCINGS
    2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about NON CO2 FORCINGS


  20. Tides are interesting, but the wind is the big ocean-atmosphere mixer — and the sun drives it with equator-pole temperature gradients.

    Exactly end of story.

  21. Tides are questionable at best.

  22. Konrad. says:

    Take heart, If they can’t debate physics without resorting to censorship that is a clear indication you are right and they are wrong. It is also a clear indication they know it too 😉

  23. gallopingcamel says:

    Omnologos and stewgreen made me chuckle.

    If the facts were on the side of the likes SkepticalScience “And Then There’s Physics” they would not need to censor dissident thought. Their fate is to be echo chambers for believers in pseudo-science; what a dull lot!

    To illustrate, the discussion of “Effective Emission Height” on this site attracted over 900 comments while the same topic on “And Then There’s Physics” attracted only 230.

  24. Sleepalot says:

    Tallbloke said “I wonder what temperature the ground in Death Valley would reach if the Earth had a fortnight long day like the Moon has.”

    Well, I’d argue that the thermosphere and the blue sky are two sources of loss of incoming solar
    reaching the ground, so Earth’s ground Tmax could never equal the Moon’s ground Tmax.

    I’m fascinated by this graph:

    … which _I think_ shows that air temperature and ground temperature are independent of each other, and both are dependent on incoming solar – but I could easily be wrong.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    June 25, 2014 at 6:07 am
    Tides are interesting, but the wind is the big ocean-atmosphere mixer — and the sun drives it with equator-pole temperature gradients.

    Paul: yes. I made the point about wind to another commenter, that’s when Anders got snitty with me.

    tallbloke says:
    June 24, 2014 at 8:28 am
    The rate of evaporation (which removes latent heat and cools the surface as water vapour rises) is set by the rate of incident solar energy and by the atmosphere’s mass, which determines the surface pressure, not by fractional changes in its composition.

    Minnet’s ‘skin theory’ never made it through peer review. Even if it was correct it would have only operated under dead calm conditions, which almost never pertain in the real world. Even low speed breezes break up the ‘skin’ and rapidly increase the evaporation rate which utterly overpowers any feeble effect from increased co2. Wind is therefore proximate climate controller, since water vapour is the dominant radiative gas.

    Buoyant convection creates surface breezes and takes columns of water vapour rapidly skywards to the cloud tops, high above any notional ‘effective emission height’, where it radiates freely to space as it condenses. The planet’s dominant ‘greenhouse gas’ is an effective refrigerant; removing heat from the surface and conveying it to space.

    This is ‘basic physics’.

  26. tallbloke the factors you list are not deciding factors or even significant. If they were, then Earth’s surface temperatures would be warmer than Venus.

    A theory of planetary temperatures must be consistent across all stellar bodies – not just the earth and the moon. But, for instance, Venus has no oceans, its rotation is longer than it’s year, and its gravity is less than that of earth.

    Pretty much an oh-fer.

    It’s this type of ‘analysis’ you provide that causes others to view it as word salad.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Hi Kevin. What do you believe the extent of the atmospheric greenhouse to be, in terms of how much warmer it makes the earth’s surface than that of the moon?

  28. tallbloke – my ‘belief’ is irrelevant to the additional factors which you listed. They are an insufficient (and in many cases irrelevant) basis to determine planetary temperatures.

  29. tallbloke says:

    Kevin, the way we do it here is that claims are backed with reason, argument and evidence.

    For example, you claim that Venus has no ocean, but in fact it has something analogous to an ocean so far as thermodynamic considerations are concerned. Co2 under 93 atmospheres of pressure behaves as a ‘supercritical fluid’. Under that pressure and temperature, the gas has a surprisingly high heat capacity, as well as being an effective insulator. No wonder the surface is hot.

    “The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% carbon dioxide and 3.5% nitrogen. The surface pressure is 9.3 MPa (93 bar) and the surface temperature is 735 K, above the critical points of both major constituents and making the surface atmosphere a supercritical fluid.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_fluid

    See also:
    Bolmatov, D.; Brazhkin, V. V.; Trachenko, K. (2013). “Thermodynamic behaviour of supercritical matter”. Nature Communications 4. arXiv:1303.3153v3. doi:10.1038/ncomms3331.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB, I missed your second reply here and added notes on wind mixing in one of the solar-climate threads. I assembled an animation:

    ocean MLD = Mixed Layer Depth = function of insolation-driven equator-pole spatial gradients:

    The problem the “and then there’s physics” types in the climate discussion have is that their “physical” narratives are in denial of what’s observed. That undermines trust and erects ever-hardening walls. Is it ignorance or deception? Could be either or both. Doesn’t really matter: It’s dark agency either way.

  31. Paul Vaughan says:


    de Boyer Montegut, C.; Madec, G.; Fischer, A.S.; Lazar, A.; & Iudicone, D. (2004). Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: An examination of profile data and a profile-based climatology. Journal Of Geophysical Research 109, C12003.

    Click to access 2004_deBoyerMontegut_et_al_JGR.pdf

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    John S. | January 22, 2014 at 9:15 pm | wrote:
    There’s a fundamental reason why putative energy-in/energy-out imbalances in vertical rates of heat transfer within the ocean cannot lead to “heat sequestering” at great depths over climatic time scales. It lies in the primary dependence of water mass density upon temperature! This accounts for the persistence of thermal stratification observed everywhere, except in the wind-mixed layer above the thermocline and in shallow marginal seas. Only changes in insolation can affect this global feature.

  33. Tallbloke – “Kevin, the way we do it here is that claims are backed with reason, argument and evidence.”

    Is it? I haven’t seen a scientific reference to back up any of the additional factors you listed as directly affecting planetary temperatures to any extent.

    No one doubts that CO2 exists in a supercritical state on Venus. But supercriticality does not effect the radiative transfer properties insofar as it is still essentially transparent to incoming shortwave and acts as a GHG to outgoing longwave from the surface. Thus, supercriticality does not make it an analogue for earth’s oceans.

    Gravity on earth is greater than Venus.
    Venus does not have an ocean.
    A day on Venus is longer than its year (243 to 225 earth days).

    Each of these statements of fact contradict at least one of your reasons why the earth is warmer than the moon if applied between earth and Venus.

    To be charitable I would almost grant you the first two of your statements – but the ocean terminology is simply wrong. On earth the oceans are warmed to great extent by incoming shortwave. Venus has no analogue. I.e., if the atmosphere on Venus was supercritical N2, O2, or Argon would you be making the same claim? No. So we see it is the composition of the supercritical fluid – not the fact of supercriticality – that makes the difference.

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    There’s insolation…
    …and then there’s insolation.

    Suggests LNC = Lunar Nodal Cycle signal is due to insolation:

    Vecchio, A.; Capparelli, V.; & Carbone, V. (2010). The complex dynamics of the seasonal component of USA’s surface temperature. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10, 9657-9665.

    Click to access acp-10-9657-2010.pdf

    At the Talkshop we carefully pursue the truth, leaving no stone unturned.

    At other climate blogs:
    Canned narratives are served (…and thought-policed).

  35. tallbloke says:

    Kevin, supercritical N2 and Argon would still have a similar heat capacity, and although insolation at the surface is low, the Venusian supercritical gas ‘ocean’ will be, as I said, an effective insulator, diminishing the core-surface temperature gradient. I am not trying to say this ‘ocean’ is like Earth’s global ocean, I am interested in considering properties and effects it has. As Paul says, we leave no stone unturned. I’ve put up a new post for further discussion.

    Paul, interesting paper, thanks.

  36. Chaeremon says:

    Paul Vaughan: weak global phase shift of the seasonal cycle of surface temperatures of 1.74 days
    towards earlier seasons over 110 yr; good find, thanks.

  37. Paul Vaughan says:

    Chaeremon, if you dig even just a little bit into the literature on the subject, you’ll find that a straight-line model fails diagnostics.

    I left some links and quotes (including quotes about serious mainstream model failures) over here.

    I’ll add a few more links of historical interest here, now:

    Mann, M.; & Park, J. (1996). Greenhouse warming and changes in the seasonal cycle of temperature: model versus observations. Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1111-1114.

    Click to access MannPark1996GRL.pdf

    Thomson, D.J. (1995). The seasons, global temperature, and precession. Science 268, 59-68. doi:10.1126/science.268.5207.59.

    Click to access 228341-2886492.pdf

    With more careful attention to
    (a) SAM,
    (b) Sidorenkov’s section 8.7, &
    (c) the works of Jean Dickey,
    the error in the latter paper can be corrected.

  38. Gail Combs says:

    Sleepalot says:

    ….I’m fascinated by this graph:

    Yes thank you very much for posting that on WUWT oh so many years ago along with the desert vs tropical rain forest temperatures.

  39. tallbloke – I can only assume then that you do not have any references for your claims and that you are unwilling to admit that the respective gravities, rotations, and temperatures of earth/moon/venus make your claims obviously wrong.

    I’ve also just discovered an old RealClimate post on Venus. Having read through the post and most of the comments I found this inline response:

    “By the way, the supercriticality of CO2 on Venus is taken into account in the nonideal equation of state used for computing things like the adiabatic temperature profile; nonideal gas effects are very important on Venus. I wonder whether it’s an accident that the surface pressure on Venus is not too far above the critical point pressure. Is there some physical or chemical process that keeps the atmosphere from being too far supercritical? Given that surface pressure is fixed by the mass of the atmosphere, any such limiting mechanism would have to involve processes in the planetary formation stage that determined Venus’ carbon inventory, or would have to involve CO2 interchange between the atmosphere and the crust and interior of the planet. –raypierre “

  40. Paul Vaughan says:


    = map animation:
    surface temperature
    seasonal cycle amplitude / phase (slowly alternating maps)

    Dwyer+ (2012) (linked from here)

    Regarding the Southern Ocean white spot: We’ve discussed that here before (Harry van Loon’s work on the semi-annual oscillation).

    Spatial insolation gradients (not just insolation) change with the solar cycle (remember it’s zero at the poles in winter). The Milankovitch framework needs expansion. I suggest everyone read Stine & Huybers (2012) (linked from here) for background that will facilitate discussion moving forward.


  41. tallbloke says:

    “There’s a fundamental reason why putative energy-in/energy-out imbalances in vertical rates of heat transfer within the ocean cannot lead to “heat sequestering” at great depths over climatic time scales. It lies in the primary dependence of water mass density upon temperature! “

    And salinity.

  42. tallbloke says:

    Kevin: I can only assume then that you do not have any references for your claims and that you are unwilling to admit that…

    I’m always amused by newly arrived people who set themselves up as prosecuting counsel and put me in the dock. What is it with radiative greenhouse enthusiasts that makes them think they have the God-given right to show up at someone’s place and behave so rudely? Do fuck off Kevin. It’s not like your preferred hypothesis is able to hindcast Earth’s temperature history for a 1000 years like ours can, (or forecast it), so get over yourself.

    I told Anders I would reference some papers in a series of posts taking each of the six points in turn, and that’s what I’ll do. In my own time.

  43. Chaeremon says:

    Paul Vaughan: thanks again for the references, it is surprising that anomalistic and equinoctial precession has such an imminent impact measurable for 1 century (versus: successive millennia).

    But [sorry]: the CO2 matra in these papers is beyond my interest, I’m independent researcher and well and truly independent of academic dogma.

  44. Chaeremon says:

    @tallbloke: what I see is that Kevin says “you have no references and therefore they are false”. Please help me with this linguistic barrier. The way I see it from here is that he’s doing homework for his course on How To Contradict Oneself in Less than 21 Easy Lessons?

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    Chaeremon (June 29, 2014 at 10:19 am) wrote:
    “But [sorry]: the CO2 matra in these papers is beyond my interest […]”

    I think the interesting thing historically is to see them admitting outright that their CO2 models give the exact opposite phase response from what’s observed.

    The Stine & Huybers (2012) paper identifies NAM, NPI, & ENSO as factors in the observed phase response.

    So they’re almost done. Now they just need to notice the other natural mode of mass distribution: SAM.

    I wonder what Trenberth thinks of all this. (/sarc) (He was lead author of the 2005 classic mass distribution VEOF paper.)

    It will be interesting to observe how long it takes before someone corrects Thomson (1995). That could be very controversial (but there’s a good chance most climate arena observers won’t fathom the issue at all, so it might get ignored by all but a rare few blessed with lucid awareness).


  46. Kevin O'Neill says:

    Tallbloke – *you* were the one that chastised me on how you do it here.

    I simply made the observation that you have not. It’s a “Do as I say, not as I do” site apparently.

    Typically we read the relevant literature *before* making claims – rather than trying to find something to substantiate them afterwards.

    [Reply] I have read plenty of the literature on the subjects, and written a bit of it too. When and how I choose to present it is my business.

    BTW, the story of how Hansen even studied the Venusian atmosphere is quite entertaining. You might wish to read Spencer Weart’s interview.

  47. Kevin O'Neill says:

    [Mod note] In-line replies to this comment are by TB

    Chaeremon – if rotational speed (earth vs moon) is such a significant factor in temperature difference, then why is Venus warmer than earth despite Venus’ day being longer than it’s year? Why didn’t you point this out?

    [Reply] Because Venus has high speed winds of up to 500kmh redistributing energy to the night side. Besides, I haven’t argued that rotational speed is a big factor, just that it’s a factor. Atmospheric rotational velocity has to be considered as well as the axial rate of solid planetary spin.

    Venus does not have an ocean. Did anyone here bother to mention that?

    [Reply] That’s what we discussed. The Venus supercritical fluid ‘ocean’ is effective at distributing heat polewards, reducing holder’s inequality. That is a big factor, as you admitted.

    Earth and Venus have nearly the same gravity – again if this is such a significant factor why is Venus warmer? The answer isn’t in relative size – it’s having a gravity large enough to maintain an atmosphere. Again, I note silence from the peanut gallery.

    [Reply] Last time I checked, Earth was around 1.4 times further away from the Sun than Venus is. I know you co2 afficionados like to ignore the Sun, but this is a relevant factor wouldn’t you say? And the key issue isn’t the strength of the gravity, but the surface pressure (and therefore atmospheric density) the gravity maintains by acting on the mass of the atmosphere. Venus has nearly two orders of magnitude more atmospheric mass than the Earth does.

    I.e., what I see is that no one here bothered to make any mention of the *obvious* errors. And rather than recognize that these were obvious errors you have circled the wagons because I’m not one of your regulars.

    [Reply] On the contrary, we’ve run many threads over several years to hone the arguments and weed out the errors. But instead of taking your time to read some of them and approach criticism with due reference to previous discussions, you came wading in here with snarky comments.

    Tribal behaviour is expected. No problem. I’ll leave your little circle-jerk alone from now on.

    [Reply] Bye then.

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (June 29, 2014 at 8:21 am) wrote:
    “And salinity.”

    And salinity’s coupled to (1) temperature & (2) wind — implying coupling to (1) insolation & (2) spatial insolation gradients (respectively).

    I’ve seen the wind come in and mow down the rotten ice in salt water a good many times firsthand. And away goes the vertical stratification, salinity included. The vertical salinity stratification also gets ripped to shreds by wind in other contexts — e.g. coastal meltwater cycles. All coupled — and only 1 thing driving = sun.

    solar-climate exploration update:
    fresh new results — illustrations probably forthcoming within the week… (to be shared at The Talkshop…)


  49. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Paul. Look forward to it.