Luciferase,

"the rate of surface temperature increase since the industrial revolution is the sharpest it has ever been in the Halocene.

It's the trajectory that is the problem, not where we are right now."

Sorry but that's wrong. The original paper sort of made that claim, but, following criticism, Marcott was forced to 'clarify' the situation via a series of addenda. Here's what he and his colleagues said in a Q & A release:

"Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century."

In other words, the paleotemperature record isn't detailed enough to know whether there were other periods where temps rose just as fast as they did in the 20th century. Elsewhere he has said that the resolution for earlier periods was no better than 300 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Again, I'm not disputing that Marcott claimed that temps will be higher in 2100 than the rest of Holocene but that is based on educated guesses rather than demonstrable data.

My point is that, right now, all these claims that our supposed unprecedented temps are causing this or that disaster are based on a fantasy being that these temps are unprecedented.

We live in normal times climate-wise, despite the propaganda.

ant,

On 15/2/16 you said "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times" in response to my saying the opposite. You demanded that I support my claim with papers. I provided about a dozen such papers although there are many others. You however have never provided a any data to support your fantasy. You just want it to be true and for some that's enough to make it true.

Until you either provide data or accept you were wrong (with all that implies) I have nothing more to say to you on the issue.

"My point is that, right now, all these claims that our supposed unprecedented temps are causing this or that disaster are based on a fantasy being that these temps are unprecedented."

They're not geologically unprecedented, but are unprecedented for civilised history. See the difference? While there *may* have been (but I have not read the studies detailing this) short periods around today's temperatures during the last 11000 years or so, the crisis comes from the fact that we have quickly and artificially increased temperatures. My understanding of Milankovitch cycles were that they took around 800 years to cause an ice age. (Bad for civilisation). Coming out of them took about that long as well. (Good for civilisation). Cold = bad. Warm = good. But now we're moving into hot, with today being hotter than *most* of the Holocene, and tomorrow risks becoming as hot as some of the super-greenhouse Extinction Level Events.

Cold = bad.
Warm = good.
Hot = ELE.
Deal with it.

"The original paper sort of made that claim, but, following criticism, Marcott was forced to 'clarify' the situation via a series of addenda. Here's what he and his colleagues said in a Q & A release:"

mhaze, Your tone suggests you think Marcott set to to deceive. Confirmation bias?

Whatever, to hold your position you have to believe CO2 and warming are completely unrelated. Amongst other papers on this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22481357

Now, I'm convinced the conclusion of above paper to be right so I'll stick to what I said, Marcott's work supports an "unprecedented" rate of increase.

From the same site you drew quotes, see comment 23:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/#comment-325942 the required timescale for CO2 concentration to fall after an out-gas would ensure sharp spikes would appear in Marcott's analysis. But they don't.

We live in unprecedented times on a geological scale with the rate of temperature increase we are experiencing. Natural variation doesn't cut it as an explanation for that

mhaze, I went back to your comment of 16/2/2016
Here is a statement you made at the time that is wrong:

"ant tells you that "Scientists working for ExxonMobil wrote papers that supported the the scientific consensus."

They actually didn't. He made that up. Surprised?"

A number of Attorney Generals are currently investigating ExxonMobil, at present. When I wrote previously it had only been the Attorney General of New York State only.

ExxonMobil funded denier groups, and they're scientists in the 1970s were warning management that man created climate change was a matter of concern. The investigations into ExxonMobil are about mutually exclusive messages being sent to the financial market.

Inside Climate News and Union of Concerned Scientists have written about this matter.

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

Blurb introducing the series:

Quote:

"After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this multi-part history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time."

Also:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

I had provided references previously, you stated: "He made that up."

When discussing the matter previously; mhaze, you stated you would consult with somebody from WUWT in relation to comments made by Cohen a former executive of ExxonMobil!

Extreme confirmation bias on your part, mhaze. Not only confirmation bias exhibited but not being truthful in your statement " he made that up."
Your comments previously about permafrost break down have also displayed confirmation bias.

Max Green

"They're not geologically unprecedented, but are unprecedented for civilised history."

Well that's simply untrue and if you do get around to reading the studies you see why. Over the past 12000 years for approx 3000 years temperatures were warmer than now. And if you want to just look at the past 5000 years (on the basis that civilisation began around 3200 BC then that proportion remains true with extend periods of temperatures warmer than today eg the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP and the Medieval WP.

Luciferase,

So despite the actual authors saying that their paper can't make any judgements that present warming is unprecedented, YOU think their paper proves the opposite. Perhaps you know more about their data than they do? Wow.
Incidentally I don't think "Marcott set to to deceive". I rather admired the way he fronted up to the criticisms of his paper and admitted that the way it was being used by the alarmist fraternity didn't gel with the actual data. If only there were more like him

ant,
You're looking at the wrong post. I said 15/2/16 not 16/2/16. Check the post timed as 6:03 am.
As to the Exxon papers, as I've told you before there's no real point discussing it until you've read the source material and , I suspect, if you ever did so you wouldn't want to discuss it since you'd see you are wrong. Besides, the case against Exxon is falling apart and the various AG's are running for cover.

"YOU think their paper proves the opposite"

Nothing is proven in science, only supported or falsified.

That there are no spikes in the Marcott analysis supports the "unprecedented" claim because:
1) CO2 levels both correlate with and affect T, and,
2) A spike in CO2 level would show up in the time averaged data as it takes much, much longer than the temporal resolution of ~120 years for the CO2 to dissipate after a spike such as we are experiencing now. For example, it will take centuries for current CO2 level to fall to the pre-industrial level if we stopped producing it today so a future Marcott analysis would show a spike for our times.

Further, it's not just what "I" say its what experts in the field (unlike you) say.