ant,

You fabricated claims about what I'd said and haven't once tried to disavow or disprove that.

ant, I feel that you are honest in your beliefs which is why I keep trying. Its just that you aren't open to other views or conclusions. That attitude is clearly unscientific since a proper scientific approach always has to allow that the hypothesis is wrong. You don't make such allowance.

Its all very well for you to regurgitate every instance of unusual weather that comes your way but it means nothing. As you've (hopefully) learned in the last few days, temperatures in the Holocene have very often been higher than now. (No need to thank me for teaching you this truth).

So if these unusual events are caused by higher temperatures then they have occurred before when temperatures were also higher. If, for example, lobsters survived the Minoan warm period, they'll survive the current warm period. After a quarter century of these false claims of imminent extinction of species from polar bears to frogs to monarch butterflies, surely we'll come to realise that none of these extinctions will occur at anything like the temperatures predicted for this century. These creatures and ecologies have survived previous warm periods and they'll do so again. Kiribati didn't go under during the Roman warm period and won't go under this time. Droughts occurred, floods occurred but they presumably occurred in other warm phases.

So just listing unusual events is pointless. You ought to think about it and think about what things might cause you to question the hypothesis. If there is nothing then its no longer science for you but religion. I suspect that's the case.

mhaze

Comments you would not expect from Christy and Spencer:

"Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer publish global temperature trend data derived from NOAA satellite measurements. Their latest analysis finds that January, 2016 was the warmest first month of the year since satellite data began to be reported in 1978. January's global average temperature was +0.54 degrees Celsius above the 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported. The next warmest Januarys occurred in 1998 (+0.49°C) and 2010 (+0.48°C)."

From:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/hottest-january-in-satellite-temperature

I was skeptical, and so did use Google:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/

Listing unusual events supports the views what scientists are saying is happening with climate.
Unusual weather circumstances have been happening for a couple of decades. The Catalyst film I referenced discusses how the nature of fires has changed.

You have said you are a lukewarmer from memory; yet, try to constantly create as much doubt as possible which equals denier.

As usual in relation to this article, I have found references provided by deniers are not as substantive as being made out.

So I see that you are just going to pretend that these temperatures are unusual and haven't happened before during the Holocene. Just ignoring data isn't the scientific way.

Is it hotter now than any time in the last 800 years? Probably.
Is it hotter now than any time in the last 10000 years? No.
What caused those hotter temps in the past? Natural variations.
What caused the hotter temps now? A combination of natural variations and somewhat enhanced CO2 levels. In that order.
Did species and civilisation survive those higher past temp? Obviously yes.
Will they survive the current high temps? Obviously yes.

I may be a lukewarmer depending on what you mean by that.
I may be a denier depending on what you mean by that. What am I suppose to deny?

"Unusual weather circumstances have been happening for a couple of decades. " Not just the last few decades....forever. That's the nature of climate. The Thames froze in the 1600s...was that usual or unusual? Greenland was green in the 1000s...was that usual?

" the nature of fires has changed"
IS that due to warming? If yes then they must have changed before when the temps were this high. So you can call it changing...and I can call it going back to the way they were - and we're both right.

But if you are determined to ignore the science about past temps then you are condemned to misunderstand the nature of these changes.

Bugsy, your link was wrong, you are quite inept at Google. Try this one
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/climate-change/royal-society-issues-revised-statement-on-climate-change.html
The Royal Society, after a complaint from its members about its assertion of human caused climate change, issued a less dishonest statement.

mhaze

You stated ... "Is it hotter now than any time in the last 10000 years? No." "NO" being In response to my earlier comments.

Where are your citations about past temperatures, one or two papers do not prove your case.
Please provide appropriate URLs.

Comments from an Astro Physicist on misunderstanding and misusing science from my FB page.

http://www.techinsider.io/category/ndgt-explains-everything

Further articles popped up on Facebook today, with another article was about the continuing drought in California, it has only slightly eased in some areas. The expectation had been that with El Nino they would get high levels of precipitation; which had seemed likely weeks ago.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/us-drought-monitor-update-february-16-2016

WUWT is arguing about the graph of Arctic sea ice, they have inverted the graph shown in reference below; they have placed the line defined as "you are here" on top side of graph. A discredited program being used to obtain result.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-record-low-again-20044?utm_content=buffera2987&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/

The WUWT graph is a joke, temperature records and records of storms makes it completely impossible for the WUWT graph to be credible, more than two standard deviations out.

A further article about lobsters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grub-street/climate-change-is-decimat_b_9277194.html

It is not only glacial ice that is disappearing (FB):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grub-street/climate-change-is-decimat_b_9277194.html

Drought in Africa:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/not-so-rainy-season-drought-southern-africa-january-2016

Well, I for one am impressed that it only took you 5 days to dig up that particular fossil Leo. I bow to the Google master.

If by 'wrong' you mean 'more current', then I would agree with you. However, how could it be 'wrong' when you never specified which 'statement' you were referring to in the first place? The Royal Society puts out a lot of statements, you know.

My link was to one of them, one that was put out last year, what year was the one you were referring to Leo?