"The data tell us that current temperatures are by no means unusual. Since that doesn't suit you decide that the recent rise is unusual even though there is nothing in the data that supports such a notion."

Again you conflate temperature with its rate of rise. Whatever.

Your 1910-1940 gambit. While that has been covered well in a range of studies, the period falls within the last ~150 years for which the rate of increase, overall, has been unprecedented. This period also includes the supposed "hiatus" of which "skeptics" like to pick over.

I've entered into a whack-a-mole exercise for which I haven't more energy. Others can to go through the motions. The science is settled.

You prefer the 'bright shiny thing over there', otherwise known as today's temperatures which - if you actually did respect data - are actually quite alarming thank you very much! They're way above where they should be, given the state of the Milankovitch cycles. Read the IPCC papers. They account for all the forcings, and we are way above normal, even by Marcott's standards!

You don't prefer data, but soundbytes, and cut and paste Marcott out of context to your denialist ends. You're all outraged that I would remind people of Marcott's conclusions, and actually divert their gaze away from your 'bright shiny thing' over there. I suggest growing up and learning to respect the peer-review process?

Quick, where's that bright shiny thing?

"For a second consecutive year the globe experienced its hottest year on record, beating the 2014 record by more than 0.1 degrees. From May 2015 onwards, each month set a temperature record for that particular month, a pattern that has yet to end.

The record-breaking temperature anomaly in 2015 (around 1 degree higher, on average, than what would be expected in a world without humans) was in large part due to human-caused climate change. A small fraction of the heat was because of a major El Niño event, which developed midway through 2015 and ran into this year."
https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-climate-2015-global-warming-and-el-nino-sent-records-tumbling-63511

Luciferase and Max, mhaze likes to try and run us down blind allies in the hope of creating doubt. Discussions on Narcott being an example; climate science does not hinge on whether Narcott is right or wrong; it does hinge on physics and chemistry though. But, with the Narcott study he doesn't present anything convincing. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published on a yearly basis from a number of disciplines which display a consilience in relation to climate change. mhaze, is not able to provide completely up to date references in what is happening around the globe as very little is provided by skeptical climate scientists in peer reviewed journals.

An example, 3 August 2016:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-first-map-of-thawed-areas-under-greenland-ice-sheet

The scientists used 4 different methodologies to arrive at their conclusions. My bet is that mhaze is not up to the challenge of trying to create doubt in relation to this study. He would need to provide data, not just words.
In such a case, the usual denier technique is to attack the Agency, or authors rather than the study itself.

Apparently the current temperatures are unusual not because they are unusual but because the rise is unusual even though the evidence for that is more in the hopes of our resident masterminds than in the data.
Nonetheless this rapid rise explains the melting of the permafrost and the relative decline in arctic sea ice, apparently. These melts are, apparently, unusual in the Holocene because, as we all know ice melts during periods of rapid temperature rises but not during periods of sustained higher temperatures!!

Now, apparently, a year or three of higher temperatures trumps 1000s of years of higher temperatures because, shut up.

Does anyone remember when 2014 was the hottest year ever, until NASA was forced to admit that they were only 38% sure of that claim due to inherent uncertainty in the data. But, since this is the sort of thing we'd prefer not to know, its probably outrageous to mention it.

You need to provide citations, mhaze.

Just producing verbiage is meaningless.

You cannot meet the challenge provided in the here and now proposed in my last post in relation to Greenland..