mhaze, do you have a phantom post at 15.02.2016 timed at 6:03 am?

Please resend it, it is not recorded on the list of posts attributed to you!

In relation to ExxonMobil, it is a bit of a dogs breakfast created by the Republican Tea Party.
As you would realise Republics do well from donations from fossil fuel company companies.
The Republican Tea Party takes a particularly stupid view to man created climate change saying it's a hoax.
I have seen papers where ExxonMobil have provided donations to denier groups.
I fully understand why you wish to divert away from ExxonMobil.

Water bombs:

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/four-deadly-floods-taking-place-right-this-second/70911

Luciferase,

I wonder if you get the circular thinking you have here.

*the only thing that could cause a spike is CO2
* since there was no CO2 spike there was no temperature spike even though there was nothing in the data about CO2

No chance apparently that the rises in temperature were caused by things other than CO2. A little like a devoted Christian saying there is no chance apparently that the world was created by things other than the deity.

And how do we know there was no CO2 spike? We don't but if you really want it to be so, then it is. Science?

Who are these experts who agree say there was a spike? The only expert that matters in this is the guys who put together and analysed the data and they said there was no way to know if there was a spike.

The bottom line is what we know is that the current temperatures are not at all unusual as compared to the past. What we don't know is whether the changes usually occur over a period of 170yrs or more or less.

ant,

" do you have a phantom post at 15.02.2016 timed at 6:03 am?"

We were talking about YOUR post of that time and date. Sheesh.

mhaze

My post of the 15/2 had been about a former climate skeptic Physicist Richard Muller, closely investigating climate science and found it to be accurate.

Also, Paleoclimatologists have shown how temperatures on Earth had been extremely high after major volcanic action millions of years ago during different epochs. These volcanic actions led to mass extinctions. Also, I stated that temperature was lower in past historical times, than now.

Temperature over the last couple of years have been higher than when Narcott had his paper published.

Also, wrote about the 11 year ARM study which no critic has been able to decimate. The ARM study took data on pretty well a daily basis, so theres a lot of data.
Taking ARM into account you might like to consider forcing in the atmosphere which NOAA has been capturing for decades. The forcing for all greenhouse gases for 2015 was 2.974 watts per square meter. The table at the bottom of the article shows the table.

Remember that the source of CO2 can be identified by identifying isotopes.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

You didn't pick up on my comments about ExxonMobil.

"No chance apparently that the rises in temperature were caused by things other than CO2"

If there is a spike missed by low temporal resolution it can only be because it was short-lived. You have no proposal for the mechanism for such a short-lived global event, yet you insist it did or can happen as a a part of natural variation!

You can't have it both ways.

Mhaze cracks me up.

His argument is the intellectual equivalent of "Look, bright shiny thing over there." As long as we don't focus on the CONCLUSIONS of Marcott's report, and as long as we don't focus on the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of climate science, and as long as we don't respect the PEER REVIEW CONCLUSIONS of the IPCC, but narrowly focus on his 'bright shiny thing' over there, we're all good. Yeah. Right mate. Riiiiight. ;-)

Once again:

“Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack, regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

Luciferase,

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. So in the end you want to call wishful-thinking as though its data. I don't say that there definitely were rises similar to that of 1970-2000 since its impossible to know that as a fact. But given that we do know that other similar rises eg 1910 - 1940 have occurred without the help of CO2 it seems that your wishful-thinking data is suspect.

Max Green,

This all started because you were outraged that someone would say something as silly as temperatures in the past being higher than now. I used Marcott to assuage your ignorant outrage. I could have used any of a number of similar studies but I rather like Marcott. But there are two parts to Marcott13 - the actual data as concerns the past, and the predictions as concerns the future(calling that second part the conclusion misunderstands the paper which is easy when you don't read it). Those predictions are based on models that are increasingly suspect but are predictions, not data. I prefer data.