Just a quick note to point out that the HadCRUT4 data are now fully available for download. Feel free to discuss (or point to) any analyses you’d like to see done in the comments, and perhaps we’ll update this post with the more interesting ones.
Climate science from climate scientists...
Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect, Sawyer (1972), apparently projected 0.2C per decade. Sawyer worked for the Met Office. Nice to see they’re rather consistent.
H/T Leo Hickman.
# 13, Kevin McKinney, 17 Apr, 10:03 AM
But only when the snow is knee deep or more?
dhogaza,
You may have a point that the enhanced CO2 addition of recent times may make a huge difference. Breaking the long term into 30-year time intervals starting in 1880, yields temperature changes of -0.21, +0.46, -0.05, +0.51, and -.13 C/decade (althought the last interval has only 12 years of data). Alternatively, we could divide the temperature record into four equally spaced intervals based on CO2 rise. The resulting time periods would be 1880-1956, 1956-1980, 1980-6/1997, and 6/1997-2012; with each time period representing a 7.8% increase in atmospheric CO2. The temperature changes over these four periods are as follows: +0.05, +0.03, +0.09, -0.04 C/decade, with each succeeding range have a larger uncertainty, due to the shrinking time interval.
There are many nuances in the temperature record, and there are many more explanations as to there causes.
BTW, the Tamino thread is heavily one-sided, as he refused to allow me to respond.
#52–“But only when the snow is knee deep or more?”
Wasn’t it always, back then?
Kevin,
We were younger back then, so the snow always seemed deeper.
>> when the snow is knee deep or more?
> Wasn’t it always, back then?
Our knees were closer to the ground, back then.
Changing baselines, you know.
> Tamino … he refused to allow me to respond.
The Gish Gallop of uncited claims didn’t fly over there.
Here, they tolerate such.
Dan H:
Well deserved, IMO, thick-skulled stubborn denialism coupled with an unwillingness to learn is rather boring.
Dan H. Am I reading this right? First you claimed to have done “considerable work” in climate science. In response to Hank asking for evidence to back this up, you link to a single graph on Paul Clark’s site with cherry-picked data. Once called out on that, you spin it to mean you are warning people about cherry-picking? What “considerable work” have you actually done? I take that phrase to mean either “work worthy of consideration” or “a substantially large amount of work”. I don’t see how you link qualifies as either. If making a single graph with 4 time series in it at WoodForTrees.org counts, then I and many others have done much more than “considerable work”, yet I would really characterize it as “some investigation.”
KR @39, the reason you see many people having a “knee-jerk” reaction to Dan H’s posts is because he claims stuff like this. He posts in an authoritative voice, yet you completely misunderstands the subject he is discussing. We only need to look back 2 months ago for a glaring example, to when he tried to use the PDSI to make a point about droughts. As soon as it’s pointed out that he flipped the sign and read the graph backwards, he drops that and acts like it is not a worthy source of information, the source he provided to back up his claims. he is not interested in understanding the real world, he is interested in backing up his talking points.
Dan H has ruined his credibility as someone open to an honest discussion, and has proven his inability or unwillingness to do the actual work required to gain an understanding of the subject matter he discusses.
Unsettled Scientist – My initial response was based strictly upon Dan H.’s first comment on this thread, which I thought might be read as a reasonable response. Given the context of his following posts, let alone the discussion on Tamino directly upon some of his assertions, I certainly understand the reactions he’s received.
However – whether or not I agree with what a particular person has written or opined, I think it’s still appropriate to read something new from that person in that context. My expectations might be quite high or quite low based upon experience – but even in the worst case, a stopped clock is right twice a day…
Sorry, I have a typo in my previous post, it should read “… yet *HE* completely misunderstands the subject he is discussing … ” not you where I have fixed it to he. Silly pronouns. I just wanted make sure KR didn’t think I was saying KR completely misunderstands the subject matter, just that Dan H. has a history of presenting data that completely negates his assertions while not even realizing it. So we have to be careful if we try to ascribe some rational deeply thought out analysis to his posts.
Dan H,
Ahh didums, Tamino won’t feed you. Still there’s always RC. What a happy healthy and well fed troll you are.
I normally lurk, dealing with people like you bores me. But I’ve noticed you and can heartily second Unsettled Scientist in #57.
Let us not belabour this Dan H. situation. He comes with a pet theory.
CO2 he says has been rising pretty much exponentially. The theoretical relationship between CO2 levels and resultant forcing from CO2 is logarithmic. So the resultant temperature rise from such forcing could be argued to be linear.
Here lies Dan H’s fascination with % rises of CO2 & coincidental rises in global temperatures which he attempts to construe as linearish. Add in a simple wobble and, hey presto, all this bother about the global climate being some sort of complex system that is beyond the wit of mere mortals to comprehend, it simply evaporates to nothing under the clinical analysis provided by none other that Dan H.
Who cares about 1850-2010 HadCRUT4 when the sums have been done for 1880-2012? Stuff doesn’t matter when you’ve got a handle on the real truth.
And if there are many other reasons for shifting global temperatures which would make a nonsense of such theorising, how can they be relevant in such moments of ephemeral self delusion?
> right twice a day
Right = any of three answers:
00:00; 12:00; 24:00.
Nowadays I think they say “even a VCR player is right twice a day”
KR,
You may be the first person that I have encountered here with an open mind. After our original argument, Tamino has simply decided to belittle my analyses, and encourage his cronies to do the same. Hardly open minded. Too many people are too quick to shout down anything that challenges their closely held beliefs. I welcome your input.
apparently of one leaves comments at the end of the “comments (pop-up)” section, the comments go directly to the bore hole. The button at the end says “say it!” rather than the “submit comment” at the end of the regular comment section.
t marvell – It doesn’t matter which form you use to submit comments, when you have 3 nearly identical comments in a row down the hole, it says something about content.
‘tedium was’ intones CAPTCHA from the “comments pop-up”
> apparently
You can’t rely on appearances.
“HADCRUT4 too!”
Also in the Moyhu plotter.
Dan H.,
Tamino did not belittle your analyses. He shredded them. He obliterated them. He showed them for what they were–absurd cherrypicks and misinterpretations or gullible swallowing of whatever tripe you read on denialist websites. It was beautiful.
Now you’re saying, “It’s just a flesh wound!” That makes my day.
Re #68
Currently the Moyhu plotter is best viewed here.
Okay, I’m not a scientist but a concerned citizen with a “cut to the chase” question…
What’s the prognosis for say the next 50 years? Does anybody see any chance at all that the global population is going to wake up to reality any time soon? I would like a serious honest reality based opinion on what we’re in for in say the next 10 to 20 years. I don’t see any political progress being made. I hear a lot of scientific discussions and debate over data but NOTHING is happening that’s going to slow down or reverse Climate Change. Gavin???? Any ideas about what we’re in for or maybe how soon? Are we making any progress at all?
Dan H:
You sound just like one of those inventors of a perpetual motion machine after being smacked down by a physicist. “Belittled my analysis”. “Hardly open minded”.
You’re *wrong*. A statistician pointing that out isn’t close-mindedness.
A question from someone who does not know much about global warming.
Of the extra energy that stays on earth due to greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, what % stays in the “air”, what % goes into the oceans and where else does it accumulate (with % if possible)?
[Response: Something like 90% goes into the ocean (because the heat capacity of water is so large). – gavin]
Dan H. wrote: “After our original argument, Tamino has simply decided to belittle my analyses, and encourage his cronies to do the same.”
That’s a despicable lie, Dan H.
Tamino didn’t “belittle” your so-called “analyses”.
In fact, Tamino demonstrated beyond question that your so-called “analyses” are dishonest rubbish.
Why the moderators tolerate your blatantly dishonest, clumsily deceptive trolling has always been a mystery to me.
And it’s even more of a mystery as to why they would tolerate this creepy, sneering little attack on Tamino.
Pretty much EVERY DISCUSSION THREAD on this site lately has been dominated by Dan H’s deliberately, blatantly, sneeringly dishonest trolling. And there’s nothing remotely interesting about his trolling — nothing new, or challenging about it. Just the same, tired old dishonesty and cherry-picked graphs, over and over and over again. Just the same tiresome old garbage that deniers have been copying-and-pasting for years.
And now Dan H apparently feels free to escalate his boorish behavior into personal attacks aimed at Tamino.
Why do the moderators allow this one individual’s trolling to dominate the discussions on this site?
Dan H. – KR, You may be the first person that I have encountered here with an open mind.
It’s important to keep an open mind – but not one open at both ends, as stuff tends to fall out.
Having gone and read your posts here and on the Tamino thread, I must say I am, well, unimpressed by your arguments or methods.
I will continue to attempt to give new discussions proper consideration. But, being only human, and having finite time, I may give yours more careful, more dubious scrutiny – based on previous history.
73 — As I mentioned to Hank Roberts, there are “2” Dan H.s — the moderators seem to see a value in permitting a small portion of his BS to appear outside of the Bore Hole, perhaps to illustrate the evolution of denialism.
As despicable as he appears to be, there’s a value to seeing his evolving arguments, if only to better combat them.
#73–Well, Dan H does get around, all right.
But to the extent that he does ‘dominate’ threads, it’s because of lengthy and/or heated responses, particularly when carried out by multiple commenters.
Certainly I’ve responded to Dan more than once, so I could be part of the problem. FWIW, my current thought is “Respond if the point seems worth rebutting, but keep it short and matter of fact.”
There’s just one proven remedy for trolling which is available to commenters (as opposed to moderators): DNFTT.
> DNFTT
Also DNTTT, don’t train the troll
I’ve replied to Dan H. when I couldn’t ignore him any longer, and I admit a low threshold.
What sets me off is his rapidly improving mimicry, using the same phrases he sees the scientists use here.
He’s learning to put his stuff in a more effectively deceptive wrapper.
He treats this as debate, trying to be taken as scientist by sounding like one, using ploys out of the Troll FAQ — as he tried with KR above.
We’ve been helping him improve his game.
> “HADCRUT4 too!”
> Also in the Moyhu plotter.
Thank you Nick Stokes
#77–“We’ve been helping him improve his game.”
Probably; nothing improves one’s game like practice.
But then, a bunch of skeptics have similarly helped me improve mine…
Thank you for the data; I have updated my spreadsheet, though I will also keep HadCRUT3. Oh, and someone should tell McIntyre so that he can file dozens of FOIA demands for the data, since it’s yet another opportunity for him to harass scientists, and then complain about the new data being kept secret…..
Kevin McKinney @ 79, hear, hear.
> 79, 81
Kevin’s not pretending; he knows what he’s explaining and gets it right. That’s the difference.
DNTTT, I like it. Over the years his ilk have increased their literacy and tone, which is not good. The truth is such a gossamer thing, easily trounced by multiple lies, especially clever lies believed by people who don’t even know they’ve bought garbage disguised as gold.
Science is a discipline and takes a lot of hard work and intelligence. Belittling scientists is a fool’s game played by far too many.
*DNTTT = do not train the troll
@Dan H. (#64):
Ha ha ha ha… ha (ROTFLMAO was just not good enough to express my open-jawed reaction to your ludicrously naive appraisal of the veteran RC readers’ reaction to yet more Dan H. attempts at obfuscation).
In my estimation, Walter Pearce has summed the situation up astutely: most of the Dan H. posts go the way of the Bore Hole ever since Eric (?) declared that intention. But some of them appear here as a useful illustration of the evolution of what deniers construe as ‘evidence’.
To those tempted to further feed or train trolls, please keep the old Navaho adage in mind:
You can’t wake someone up who is pretending to be asleep.
It looks as if a highly regarded blog scientist has already taken this “new analysis” and blown it out of the water.
[Response:That just made my day. My week in fact–Jim]
Shoot, I just posted a link to DD on the other thread…
denialDepot is just the best. Dr Inferno has been away too long.