Hi Mhaze,
I said:"But climate science can and does burrow down into higher definition of the decadal scale."

It's true - especially since they invented these things called temperature stations and instruments.

I mean, I COULD just blindly brain-fart my way into the intellectual oblivion that is dumbarse Mhaze's denial of science - cherrypicking only what I WANT to be true.

Or I could just read the modern definition from a more respectable organisation than "Some Dunning-Kruger's bloke I met on the internet."

What is that definition - you ask? (I'm being ironical here - you never ask about anything you didn't make up inside that thick skull of yours.)

"More formally, climate is the long-term average of temperature, precipitation, and other weather variables at a given location. Every 30 years, climate scientists calculate new averages. The normal high and low temperatures reported on your local weather forecast come from these 30-year averages. Although climate describes conditions in the atmosphere (hot/cold, wet/dry), these conditions are influenced by the ocean, land, sun, and atmospheric chemistry. NOAA monitors these factors to understand and predict changes to local or global climate."

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-data-monitoring

I mean - I'm not a mathematical genius or anything - but last time I checked 30 years had 5 times the resolution of your 150 year claim. So take your magical words and shove them where the sun doesn't shine you Dunning Kruger's weirdo? Or are you just a troll?

Or is it more sinister - do you actually think you have influence here over the dumbasses that can't TELL how dumb you are or guess what you're doing?

Mate - turn off the computer - go out into the world - and make some real friends. You'll feel a lot better.

Also, your demands for 1750 etc are invalid - I've shown you the definition above

Now let me get this straight.

You think that it can be shown that temperatures rising in the last 150 years are unprecedented by comparing the last 150 years to the last 150 years. I think even you can work out the illogicality of that.

But finally we agree. I agree that the temperature rises in the last 150 years are unprecedented as compared to the temperatures rises of the last 150 years. OTOH the temperatures rises of the last 150 years are really very similar to the temperature rises of the last 150 years.

You say the rises are unprecedented. Compared to what?

What a bozo!

Hi Mhaze,
Your Dunning-Kruger's is so bad you wrote off modern climate science because you can't read a simple "key" in a study. You thought an explanation of that study's SCALE was a condemnation of all other SCALES! (Great Caesar's Ghost that's dumb!)

Now you're flapping your gums about 150 years again. D'uh! Yeah - I should REALLY listen to old uncle dumbass instead of NASA! (Slaps hand to forehead.)

You know - the guys that put man on the moon. (But hey - who knows what brand of tinfoil hat you wear on THAT subject - I don't know and I don't care!)

150 years? They can study a lot of that with the instrument record - pre-that there are proxies.

NASA:-

"The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

...Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century.2 Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age."

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"You thought an explanation of that study's SCALE was a condemnation of all other SCALES! "

I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect that makes two of us.

I'll ask again....You say the rises in temperatures are unprecedented. Compared to what?

Mhaze: Don't worry - your general lack of comprehension is apparent to all!

"You thought an explanation of that study's SCALE was a condemnation of all other SCALES! "

D'uh! If you are sincerely asking that you're (sadly) really dumb or you are a troll seeking negative attention. Because negative attention is better than no attention - right?

What have we been discussing this whole time? Aren't YOU the one who raised Marcott and then ripped his time period series out of context to try and condemn all modern climate science? Aren't YOU the one who tried to argue that because Marcott used a 150 year statistical method with his proxies, ALL modern climate science was suspect because units tighter than 150 years are not possible? (Or something - I have no idea what's really going on in your brain.)

What scale? What key? What legend? Why the climate study unit of time! EG: A billion year study might break it down into million year blocks,
study into Precession might break it down into 150 year blocks, and a study on modern climate science might break it down into decade long blocks with 30 year revisions. Each is valid in their own way.

"I'll ask again....You say the rises in temperatures are unprecedented. Compared to what?"

I'll answer again. Read NASA! Compared to all findings in paleo-climate!

Oh dear Max...

You're the one who started talking about 150 years. You raised it and now claim it was my idea! What a bozo!

Marcott confirmed that the paleo records he used weren't detailed enough to break it down into 100 year periods for the recent past and 200-300 year periods for the early parts of the Holocene. Do I really need to provide the exact quotes again?

And of course, Marcott isn't the only study to confirm that the paleo record isn't detailed enough to show temperature changes in time scales of less than a coupla hundred years.

What is even worse, is that more research is showing that the paleo records are even less detailed than previously thought with unexpected contamination of the record due to environmental factors making detailed temperature approximation even more problematic.

"Compared to all findings in paleo-climate!"
So you are now claiming that ALL findings of paleo-climate is detailed enough to discern temperatures on scales of less than 150 years. Good.
Show me some examples of this from the Holocene.