Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I realized that like everyone else, up until now I’ve just accepted the idea of cold temperatures being a result of the solar minima as an article of faith … but I’d never actually looked at the data. And in any case, I thought, what temperature data would we have for the Maunder sunspot minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715? So … I went back to the original sources, which as always is a very interesting ride, and I learned a lot.
It turns out that this strong association of sunspot minima and temperature is a fairly recent development. Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”. In that paper, Eddy briefly discusses the question of the relationship between the Maunder sunspot minimum and the global temperature, viz:
The coincidence of Maunder’s “prolonged solar minimum” with the coldest excursion of the “Little Ice Age” has been noted by many who have looked at the possible relations between the sun and terrestrial climate (73). A lasting tree-ring anomaly which spans the same period has been cited as evidence of a concurrent drought in the American Southwest (68, 74). There is also a nearly 1 : 1 agreement in sense and time between major excursions in world temperature (as best they are known) and the earlier excursions of the envelope of solar behavior in the record of 14C, particularly when a 14C lag time is allowed for: the Sporer Minimum of the 16th century is coincident with the other severe temperature dip of the Little Ice Age, and the Grand Maximum coincides with the “medieval Climatic Optimum” of the 11th through 13th centuries (75, 76). These coincidences suggest a possible relationship between the overall envelope of the curve of solar activity and terrestrial climate in which the 11-year solar cycle may be effectively filtered out or simply unrelated to the problem. The mechanism of this solar effect on climate may be the simple one of ponderous long-term changes of small amount in the total radiative output of the sun, or solar constant. These long-term drifts in solar radiation may modulate the envelope of the solar cycle through the solar dynamo to produce the observed long-term trends in solar activity. The continuity, or phase, of the 11-year cycle would be independent of this slow, radiative change, but the amplitude could be controlled by it. According to this interpretation, the cyclic coming and going of sunspots would have little effect on the output of solar radiation, or presumably on weather, but the long-term envelope of sunspot activity carries the indelible signature of slow changes in solar radiation which surely affect our climate (77). [see paper for references]
Now, I have to confess, that all struck me as very weak, with more “suggest” and “maybe” and “could” than I prefer in my science. So I thought I’d look to see where he was getting the temperature data to support his claims. It turns out that he was basing his opinion of the temperature during the Maunder minimum on a climate index from H. H. Lamb, viz:
The Little Ice Age lasted roughly from 1430 to 1850 … if we take H. H. Lamb’s index of Paris London Winter Severity as a global indicator.
After some searching, I found the noted climatologist H. H. Lamb’s England winter severity index in his 1965 paper The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel. He doesn’t give the values for his index, but I digitized his graph. Here are Lamb’s results, showing the winter severity in England. Lower values mean more severe winters.
So let me pose you a small puzzle. Knowing that Eddy is basing his claims about a cold Maunder minimum on Lamb’s winter severity index … where in Lamb’s winter severity index would you say that we would find the Maunder and Dalton minima? …
Figure 1. H.H. Lamb’s index of winter severity in England.
As you can see, there is a reasonable variety in the severity of the winters in England. However, it is not immediately apparent just where in there we might find the Maunder and Dalton minima, although there are several clear possibilities. So to move the discussion along, let me reveal where they are:
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with the dates of the Maunder and Dalton minima added.
As we might expect, the Maunder minimum is the coldest part of the record. The Dalton minimum is also cold, but not as cold as the Maunder minimum, again as we’d expect. Both of them have warmer periods both before and after the minima, illustrating the effect of the sun on the … on the … hang on … hmmm, that doesn’t look right … let me check my figures …
…
…
…
… uh-oh
…
…
Well, imagine that. I forgot to divide by the square root of minus one, so I got the dates kinda mixed up, and I put both the Maunder and the Dalton 220 years early … here are the actual dates of the solar minima shown in Lamb’s winter severity index.
Figure 3. H.H. Lamb’s England winter severity index, 1100-1950, overlaid with the actual dates of the four solar minima ascribed to that period. Values are decadal averages 1100-1110,1110-1120, etc., and are centered on the decade.
As you can see …
• The cooling during the Wolf minimum is indistinguishable from the two immediately previous episodes of cooling, none of which get much below the overall average.
• The temperature during the Sporer minimum is warmer than the temperature before and after the minimum.
• The coldest and second coldest decades in the record were not associated with solar minima.
• The fastest cooling in the record, from the 1425 decade to the 1435 decade, also was not associated with a solar minimum.
• Contrary to what we’d expect, the Maunder minimum warmed from start to finish.
• The Dalton minimum is unremarkable in any manner other than being warmer than the decade before the start and the decade after the end of the minimum. Oh, and like the Maunder, it also warmed steadily over the period of the minimum.
Urk … that’s what Eddy based his claims on. Not impressed.
Let me digress with a bit of history. I began this solar expedition over a decade ago thinking, along with many others, that as they say, “It’s the sun, stupid!”. I, and many other people, took it as an unquestioned and unexamined “fact” that the small variations of the sun, both the 11-year cycles and the solar minima, had a discernible effect on the temperature. As a result, I spent endless hours investigating things like the barycentric movement of the sun. I went so far as to write a spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric movement for any period of history, and compared those results to the temperatures.
But the more I looked, the less I found. So I started looking at the various papers claiming that the 11-year cycle was visible in various climate datasets … still nothing. To date, I’ve written up and posted the results of my search for the 11-year cycle in global sea levels, the Central England Temperature record, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, global surface temperatures, rainfall amounts, the Armagh Observatory temperatures, the Armagh Observatory daily temperature ranges, river flows, individual tidal stations, solar wind, the 10Beryllium ice core data, and some others I’ve forgotten … nothing.
Not one of them shows any significant 11-year cycle.
And now, for the first time I’m looking at temperature effects of the solar minima … and I’m in the same boat. The more I look, the less I find.
However, we do have some actual observational evidence for the time period of the most recent of the minima, the Dalton minimum, because the Berkeley Earth temperature record goes back to 1750. And while the record is fragmentary and based on a small number of stations, it’s the best we have, and it is likely quite good for comparison of nearby decades. In any case, here are those results:
Figure 4. The Berkeley Earth land temperature anomaly data, along with the Dalton minimum.
Once again, the data absolutely doesn’t support the idea of the sun ruling the temperature. IF the sun indeed caused the variations during the Dalton minimum, it first made the temperature rise, then fall, then rise again to where it started … sorry, but that doesn’t look anything like what we’d expect. For example, if the low spot around 1815 is caused by low solar input, then why does the temperature start rising then, and rise steadily until the end of the Dalton minimum, while the solar input is not rising at all?
So once again, I can’t find evidence to support the theory. As a result, I will throw the question open to the adherents of the theory … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?
Now, a few caveats. First, I want to enlist your knowledge and wisdom in the search, so please just give me your one best shot. I’m not interested in someone dumping the results of a google search for “Maunder” on my desk. I want to know what YOU think is the very best evidence that solar minima cause global cooling.
Next, don’t bother saying “the Little Ice Age is the best evidence”. Yes, the Maunder occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA). But the Lamb index says that the temperature warmed from the start of the Maunder until the end. Neither the Maunder’s location, which was quite late in the LIA, nor the warming Lamb shows from the start to the end of the Maunder, support the idea that the sun caused the LIA cooling.
Next, please don’t fall into the trap of considering climate model results as data. The problem, as I have shown in a number of posts, is that the global temperature outputs of the modern crop of climate models are nothing but linear transforms of their inputs. And since the models include solar variations among their inputs, those solar variations will indeed appear in the model outputs. If you think that is evidence for solar forcing of temperature … well, this is not the thread for you. So no climate model results, please.
So … what do you think is the one very best piece of evidence that the solar minima actually do affect the temperature, the evidence that you’d stand behind and defend?
My regards to you all,
w.
[UPDATE] In the comments, someone said that the Central England Temperature record shows the cooling effects of the solar minima … I’m not finding it:
As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET. Just as in the Lamb winter severity data and the Berkeley Earth data, during both the Dalton and Maunder minima we see the temperature WARMING for the last part of the solar minimum. IF the cause is in fact a solar slump … then why would the earth warm up while the sun is still slumping? And in particular, in the CET the Dalton minimum ends up quite a bit warmer than it started … how on earth does this support the “solar slump” claim, that at the end of the Dalton minimum it’s warmer than at the start?
The Usual Request: I know this almost never happens, but if you disagree with something that I or someone else has said, please have the common courtesy to QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS that you disagree with. This prevents much confusion and misunderstanding.
Data: Eddy’s paper, The Maunder Minimum
Lamb’s paper, The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel
Berkeley Earth, land temperature anomalies
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:14 pm
“When your challengers comply, you insist on another one. This is as far from science as is humanly possible”
I must take issue with your comments as you and a few others are the unscientific ones, not Willis. Either you have not bothered to look at the documents you cite, or you don’t even understand his request – simply for data showing a stronger correlation between sunspot minima and periods of cooler than normal surface temperatures than does the data he has already discussed in his essay, which he justifiably considers rather weak, considering the degree of the general belief that the correlation is fact rather than mere suspicion. He also specifically warned that computer model are not what he is looking for.
I have looked at most of what has been cited and can find not a single reference that is an intelligent response to his request, Every paper cited either presents the same data as Willis did in his essay, or show only temperature effects in the stratosphere, or only changes in measured quantities other than temperature, or were computer models. The few that even mentioned surface temperature effects also mentioned that the link to SSN was controversial among scientists which seems to support the position Willis has taken here.
I see why you and others that make similar comments don’t use your real names here. If you cannot do any better than make fools of yourselves by making the sloppily researched comments as you have done here, how could anyone ever lend credence to any opinion you may express.
\
.
Konrad. says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:29 pm
The point is that UV variance between solar cycles is far greater than the minuscule 0.1% TSI variance.
You are being very imprecise here [perhaps deliberately, perhaps not]. The 0.1% TSI change is within a cycle, not between cycles. And the important number is not the percentage, but the number of watt/m2. The UV that reaches the ground [300-400 nm wavelength] varies about 0.2 watt/m2 over the solar cycle [about 15% of the total variation of TSI], so the variation of UV [in terms of actual energy] is small compared to that of TSI.
Your argument about the ‘far greater’ variation is akin to saying that Bill Gates’ total wealth is determined by the amount of loose change in his pockets.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Thanks, Ulric. Actually, the claim of what to expect is made by those that say that the cause of the dip in temperature is less energy from the sun.
IF that is the case, if it is true that the temperature rises and falls with the slight variations in the sun, then we would not expect the temperature to rise until the energy of the sun increases.
You could think of it as a stove. If you turn down the gas, the temperature of the frying pan drops.
But if the temperature rises BEFORE you turn the gas back up, that’s not what you’d expect.
Actually, as you point out, that’s not what I would expect … so what would you expect? Because that’s what the earth is doing. So … would you expect the frying pan to warm up before you turn the gas back up?
I thought not … so in answer to your question, that’s how we “know what to expect”, in the same way that we make many such evaluations—by analogy with a parallel situation.
Regards,
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Are you just being obstinate, or are you really too stupid to provide a citation for your claims?
w.
We do not have truly global temperature data for either the Maunder or the Dalton. So, there is no existing evidence other than proxies to know what the overall temp. of Earth was duing those times.
As we see these last 5 years, the East-West procession of Jet Stream has turned to (at times) very much more North-South, dragging polar air to the temperate zones and warmer air of the temperate zones to the Poles. And there’s no way to predict reliably who is in the crosshairs on any given year for what.
What meterological data do we have, then, for the Maunder and Dalton?
Perhaps Amplitude of change, where in the CET record there is evidence for or against large-scale air mass changes from year to year, as in the dragging of exceptionally cold (Polar) air some years vs balmy air masses in adjacent years, leading to larger amplitudes in the record.
And, how many years since the long minima of SC-23/24 before we saw last winter’s Polar Vortex’s wreaking havoc in selected areas (lucky them!). As if things were not complicated enough.
Don’t give up yet, Willis.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Thanks, Ulric. I used the standard definition of the Dalton minumum. While you are free to cherry-pick any interval you want to try to bolster your claims, I fear your personal definition has nothing to do with my analysis. What’s next, you gonna adjust all of the minima to fit your preconceived ideas, shift the dates of the Maunder?
Me, I just played the hand I was dealt.
w.
Here is another thing for you to consider:
Today’s memory on computers is read/written on the rising and falling edges of the clock wave (signal).
Double Data Rate or DDR.
Does the rising and falling edges of long-term climate changes work the same way on both edges of the signal? Does it reverse itself each rise and fall, like the Sun does for Sunspots?
Leif I choose to think that the relative HMF and solar activity of the period from 1840 -80 and the last half of the 20th century is more properly represented by the NGRIP and Dy-3 Be10 flux in the Berggren paper than your adjusted HLS analysis .I am however amazed at your scientific output for which many thanks for making it so easily accessible.I can’t imagine where you get the time to engage in the blogosphere.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:04 pm
Leif I choose to think that the relative HMF and solar activity of the period from 1840 -80 and the last half of the 20th century is more properly represented by the NGRIP and Dy-3 Be10 flux in the Berggren paper than your adjusted HLS analysis
There is general agreement that the HMF controls the cosmic ray flux. The HMF is now determined with good accuracy back to the 1840s. Much better than the cosmic ray modulation, so your choice reflects your agenda, not a sober scientific choice.
I can’t imagine where you get the time to engage in the blogosphere
This is easy [can do it with one hand tied behind my back as they say] as most comments have little or no scientific content.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Pamela? Seems very doubtful, given what I know of her … but as a separate issue, you’re once again spreading your slime by accusing Pamela of sexism without any citation, quote or evidence. Ah, well, cheap mudslinging seems to be your stock in trade …
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:44 pm
“You are being very imprecise here [perhaps deliberately, perhaps not]. The 0.1% TSI change is within a cycle, not between cycles. And the important number is not the percentage, but the number of watt/m2. The UV that reaches the ground [300-400 nm wavelength] varies about 0.2 watt/m2 over the solar cycle [about 15% of the total variation of TSI], so the variation of UV [in terms of actual energy] is small compared to that of TSI.”
Then allow me to clarify. Biology studies have found the strength of UV-B in some waters to 10 w/m2 at 50m depth. That’s just one UV frequency. Nasa studies have found surface incident UV to have risen as much as 20% since 1978 (flat-lining just before satellite measured tropospheric temps did). So that could be as much as 2 w/m2 variance in the layers of the ocean where energy accumulates. This is clearly comparable to the “forcing” falsely attributed to CO2.
Oh, and “over the solar cycle”? Everything I have written on this issue states “between solar cycles”. Only Willis is interested tin the 11 year thing. Most are interested in 0.8C in 150 years.
Re Willis Eschenbach on June 26, 2014 at 9:36 pm:
Willis, you got me confused there. Did you, as a person with managerial experience, mind or not mind being described as acting like a manager? Isn’t “doing triage” and handling dozens of things vying for your attention at once, managing?
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:11 pm
=============
I NEVER SAID THAT WILLIS, YOU MESSED UP THE QUOTES !!!
I EXPECT A QUICK RETRACTION !!!
YOU MIGHT EVEN WANT TO LOOK AT MY REPLY TO THE ORIGINAL COMMENT.
[Thanks, UK. Actually, the quotes were exactly as they were in Milodon’s post, which is what I was quoting. However, I can see how it could be misunderstood, so I’ve changed it to make it clear that Milodon said it, not you. Apologies for the confusion. -w.]
Mods ???????????????????????????????
Read my last comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just clean it up, I don’t care what you change.
I.E. delete whatever you want, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From milodonharlani on June 26, 2014 at 4:32 pm:
So his blog is not worthy of WUWT blogroll inclusion, which would show up on every WUWT page.
But Tony Brown gets a mention two levels down in the toolbar, for his graph at Climate Etc. With said page having “use at your own risk” graphs including several questionable examples, that are taking way too long to load on my connection, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never bothered to look at it before now.
Thus the relative importance of his Climate Reason blog is established.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:09 pm
“As even I must know”? So now you’re the expert on what’s in my mind? And pray tell, why “must” I know that?
In any case, a link to Tony’s reconstruction would be valuable. Because from what he said in his post over at Judith Curry’s, I got a very different impression.
Next, you say that his extension of the CET backward in time used a “time-tested collation of available data from all sources”. In contrast, here’s Tony’s description:
I’d be curious how “historic records (not instrument readings)” can be “time-tested” as you claim. I mean, if Joe Blogs wrote in 1621 “Boy, it’s been cold this winter” … how do you time-test that? I’m also curious about how to find the link in “Section 8 of this paper”, since the paper had only 7 sections …
I also object to his claim that he is “extending” the CET. What he is doing has nothing to do with the CET. He is creating his own proxy estimate of temperature based on anecdotes from the past, while the CET is a thermometer based record of actual observations. For him to graft one onto the other is just as bad as Michael Mann’s grafting of instrumental records onto the proxy data, for which Mann has been rightly criticized.
Not only that, but he’s using things like this:
Say what? Sounds like he’s lamenting the fall of man, and projecting it onto the planet. But regardless, how are you planning to get a temperature from that? And more to the point … the statement is from some preacher in Prussian Alps who sounds like he’s foreseeing the Second Coming. What does that have to do with temperatures in Central England??? But Tony just adds it to the mix … is this more of the “time-tested” stuff you spoke of, milodon?
Then we have this …
We know the average height in Europe in 1559 to the nearest tenth of an inch, with no error estimate? Really? What is this guy smoking? But no problem … it’s all gospel to Tony. Care to know the strange part? I looked at his link (23), it’s to this paper … but although it has some similar claims, I can’t find that claim anywhere in the referenced paper. Is this part of the “time tested” method as well? And what is the temperature that corresponds to a 0.8″ decline in height?
Instead of what he says, the actual paper he cited says this:
Since 2 cm is about 0.8 inches, that seems like the source … but he’s out by an entire century, they call it the “General Crisis of the 17th Century”, not the 16th century as he claims. And you think we should trust his proxy reconstruction when he can’t even get the century right?
He also cites this, not of course from a scientific study, but from a popular book:
Umm … how is this evidence of any kind? It’s not a contemporaneous account, it’s just some guy’s claim. That’s not evidence of anything. How does he know that the coldest period of the LIA started in 1564, and not 1563? And since he knows the onset of the cold to the nearest year, why does the “coldest period” end in the vague “1730s”?
This is his “evidence” upon which he’s building his proxy reconstruction? Claims out of a popular book on malaria?
The following extract is from ‘The Little Ice Age’ by Brian Fagan. Tony quotes this book at great length, and in his comment he seems to confuse it with a contemporaneous account:
Many OTHER references from this period? That reference is not from 1560-1600, it’s from 2001, and contains only uncited claims.
It also seems that neither Tony nor Brian Fagan have any concept of accuracy, error, or significant figures. For example, he claims that we know the “storm activity” (whatever that means) in both the first and second halves of the 1500’s so accurately that we can say there was 85% more storm activity in the second half … not 84%, not 86%, not “about 80%”, but 85%. When I see those kind of claims, far more accurate than what the data will support, I get very cautious … but not Tony. To him, it appears that anything written by Brian Fagan is taken as gospel, and converted by “time-tested” methods into degrees C.
In any case, let me close a comment from someone who read his post at Judith’s …
Nothing like mixing the “best of Mann” into a climate reconstruction to make a guy feel good …
In conclusion, milodon, I still haven’t found his “time-tested” method for converting an Alpine preacher’s rant about the sorry state of just about everything into degrees Celsius. And absent a detailed description of that method, I doubt greatly if it’s even possible. Perhaps you could point me to that detailed description to me, since you seem quite knowledgeable on the subject, and it wasn’t in the link he provided, and I don’t want to be looking at the wrong document …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:36 pm
———————————
“If it’s an SIF, a “single issue fanatic” like Konrad with his experiment, I try not to disturb them for fear they’ll start up again and waste everyone’s time.”
No Willis, that won’t work either 😉
We both know it’s multiple physics principles and multiple separate experiments. Remember the little list I gave you when you tried this on for size at Jo Nova’s? Yet here you are trying the same thing…
Does relative height of energy entry and exit effect average temperature of as gas column? (yes)
http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg
Does LWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? (no)
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Does Willis’ steel green house work? (yes)
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
Is water a “near blackbody”? (no)
http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Does the surface conductively cool and warm the atmosphere equally? (no)
http://i57.tinypic.com/24qsrrn.jpg
Is AGW even physically possible? (no)
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
Smears, snark and insults are all par for the course. But lying Willis?
What a strange thread! u.k.(us) says, “Just clean it up, I don’t care what you change. I.E. delete whatever you want,”
Huh?
And the rest of it is also… unusual. For example, tonyb has commented and posted articles here for years. People don’t know that?
After more than 800 comments, I suppose folks might stray a bit. But this is about sunspots and the Maunder/Dalton minima. That should be the topic, no?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:29 pm
Apologies for the lack of clarity, as you point out, I was agreeing with you.
w.
From dbstealey on June 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm:
So people can search for them, what’s the tag(s) for his articles?
u.k.(us) says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:29 pm
Thanks, UK. Actually, the quotes were exactly as they were in Milodon’s post, which is what I was quoting. So I didn’t mess up anything.
Not only that, but milodon quoted you in exactly the same style that you’ve quoted me, by just noting the name and the location of what is being referred to, without quoting any actual words from that person.
As a result, your post has exactly the same problem that milodon’s had, it makes it looks like I said the words in capitals when I didn’t say them …
However, I can certainly see how it could be misunderstood, so I’ve changed my comment to make it clear that Milodon said it, not you.
Apologies for the confusion.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:36 pm
milodon, this is why I pay little attention to you. I just followed your link. It goes to a powerpoint presentation by some guy named Chris Nankervis entitled “Water Vapour & Cloud from Satellite and the Earth’s Radiation Balance” … not an auspicious start.
In any case, I looked at pages two and three as requested, and neither one of them mention a single study, much less a study about the 11-year cycle. Not one study in sight. So I searched it for “Meehl”. Nothing. There’s fifteen minutes wasted that I’ll never get back. Like a damn fool, I listened to you and gave you another chance, and you sent me on a wild goose chase … well, that won’t happen again.
And you wonder why I tend to ignore your bogus claims?
I gave you the same opportunity as anyone else, to publicly prove me wrong by pointing me to your best evidence, the evidence that will show the existence of the 11-year cycle. You keep claiming that it’s terribly bad of me to give people the opportunity to freely select their best evidence and then step up to the plate and show I’m wrong . You think that offering people the chance to validate their position and prove me wrong is some kind of awful practice, and that instead I should waste the rest of my life going through every garbage paper ever written on the subject. How is that wrong? Who else but me is crazy enough to offer their opponents their opportunity to take their best shot at me and show I’m wrong?
Me, I say it’s not a terrible practice, it’s a way to cut through the BS. If people can’t provide me with good evidence for what they say they believe, then they shouldn’t believe it. It’s your chance to squash me like a bug … and you somehow think that’s terrible.
I’m the one taking the chances here, milodon, you could come up with the solid evidence and blow me out of the water … and instead, you give me the One Chilean Tree, and some random Powerpoint presentation that has nothing at all to do with the 11-year cycle.
Bizarre … but I’ll guarantee, you won’t fool me into another snipe hunt. I’ve now given you two bites at the apple, and that’s all you’ll ever get from me on this subject. I’m not going snipe hunting again.
w.
dbstealey says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm
Thanks, db. I can’t tell you how little attention I pay to aliases. I’m interested in the content, not the speaker. But that’s not the main reason.
I am an omnivorous reader, both of my own threads and those of others. There’s no way I could keep all of those hundreds and hundreds of anonymous commenters with names like b@by1974 sorted out.
So if someone stands out, I may or may not remember their alias. But the basic random anonymous internet popup? I make no attempt at all to remember them. I don’t waste a millisecond in trying to figure out if jimmyS is the same person as climatereally.
On the other hand, people with names, I do work at remembering them. I figure that’s why they sign their work. So folks that comment here like Steven Mosher and Joel Shore and Pamela Gray and Robert Brown and Steve McIntyre, them I remember.
But people without names, just an infinity of aliases? I make no attempt to remember them. I figure that’s why they don’t sign their work. And since they’re not proud enough of it to sign with their own name, why should I waste time associating their ideas with an alias that they could change tomorrow?
Look, db, please be clear that I’m NOT saying that anonymity is wrong. Some people have very valid reasons for not wanting to take a public stand—job, family, military, stalkers, age, public position, vulnerability, those are all very valid reasons for posting anonymously.
But when you choose to do that, you lose some things. For example, you lose ownership of your own ideas. My hypothesis that emergent phenomena regulate the earth’s temperature is an example. My name is associated with it.
More to the point, however, is that if you post anonymously you can evade accountability and responsibility … and as a result, you lose credibility. If you post anonymously you can walk away from your words, change your alias to AryanAngel, and never have to take responsibility for a single word you’ve said.
I can’t do that. I can’t walk away from my words. Nor can Steve Mosher or Joel Shore or Anthony Watts. Like me, they’ve got skin in the game that no anonymous poster has or can have.
And call me crazy, but from bitter experience I trust a man who has skin in the game a whole lot more than I trust a man on the sidelines with absolutely nothing at risk … in my world, anonymity costs you credibility.
Which is my way around to answering your question, “tonyb has commented and posted articles here for years. People don’t know that?” by telling you that no, I truly had no name recognition for the name “tonyb”. Zero.
For the name “climatereason”, I did recognize the name, but only as someone who had commented. Period. Oh, not quite. One time when I saw “climatereason” I thought it said “climatreason” and I thought “cool name”, and then read it again the right way. And in neither case did I have either any clue nor any interest in the fact that they were aliases of Tony Brown.
Ugly, I know, but there it is. All I can do is tell it like it is.
My best to you, dbstealy, and to every one out there, named or not …
w.
Funny … I look around the site, and I find a comment from “tonyb2” … you see why I don’t bother?
w.