tied for hottest June in record history---Nasa.

[Crick]

I most certainly do.

To have taken place and be invisible in this record, your fantasy spike would have to have warmed and then cooled back off - in precisely equal amounts - in less than 2-300 years. There is simply NO known mechanism that could have caused such behavior. And, to put any value into your argument at all, you would have to be suggesting that the mystery cause behind your fantasy spike is responsible for the warming we've been experiencing for the last 150 years. You have NO SUCH MECHANISM.

 

[flacaltenn]

I most certainly do.

To have taken place and be invisible in this record, your fantasy spike would have to have warmed and then cooled back off - in precisely equal amounts - in less than 2-300 years. There is simply NO known mechanism that could have caused such behavior. And, to put any value into your argument at all, you would have to be suggesting that the mystery cause behind your fantasy spike is responsible for the warming we've been experiencing for the last 150 years. You have NO SUCH MECHANISM.

Where the hell do you get that claim from.. The only thing that's certain is that the chart data is not capable of showing climate variances and events under a century or so.. This is true for ALL GLOBAL manufactured proxy studies. Not true of INDIVIDUAL proxy studies.

So the only other evidence is the MODERN temperature record and we see spikes and changes in rate that are significant to the Y axis variable of that chart on a YEARLY or DECADE span.. Are you assuming there there was NO or little variance in the annual "anomalies" back 6000 yrs ago?

You have no basis to claim there were not. The EMPIRICAL evidence says there most likely were.
The deception that the climate temperature record is that smooth and well filtered is an artifact of data processing. NOT A FACT.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- IF you could read graphs.. And you can NOT.. You'd realize that the shady light blue part of that graph represents the inherent UNCERTAINTY of the proxy results at that date. Essentially, an indication of the year to year or decade to decade variances that they TRY to coax from the limited crappy data that they have for the ENTIRE globe at those dates... Go look at some INDIVIDUAL proxies (and not just ice) and see if they dont hint at a LOT of noise on the climate data over shorter periods of time.

Also if you could read graphs.. You'd note that the variance on the proxy data goes WILDLY UP towards the beginning of the modern temperature.. An indication that if you DIDN'T deviously splice on the modern temperatures at the end of the study of treerings, icecores and snailshells, that it wouldn't even RESPOND to anything in our little 100 years or so of existence.

The splicing was put there for PROPAGANDA purposes. So skeptics like me couldn't pull it out and say SEE --- there's no warming in this study of mudbug holes in the ground.

"cept --- I would never do that... Because it would be DEVIOUS to do so..

 

[Crick]

I most certainly do.

To have taken place and be invisible in this record, your fantasy spike would have to have warmed and then cooled back off - in precisely equal amounts - in less than 2-300 years. There is simply NO known mechanism that could have caused such behavior. And, to put any value into your argument at all, you would have to be suggesting that the mystery cause behind your fantasy spike is responsible for the warming we've been experiencing for the last 150 years. You have NO SUCH MECHANISM.

Where the hell do you get that claim from.. The only thing that's certain is that the chart data is not capable of showing climate variances and events under a century or so.. This is true for ALL GLOBAL manufactured proxy studies. Not true of INDIVIDUAL proxy studies.

And thus for a temperature variance to have occurred which exceeds the current variance, it would have to be less than "a century or so" in total duration. Please identify the mechanism that could cause such a spike and that you believe is responsible for current conditions.

So the only other evidence is the MODERN temperature record and we see spikes and changes in rate that are significant to the Y axis variable of that chart on a YEARLY or DECADE span.. Are you assuming there there was NO or little variance in the annual "anomalies" back 6000 yrs ago?

You were the one who brought up the Holocene and suggested that we cannot be certain that current conditions are unprecedented there. The current spike is not done - the Earth's atmosphere is not at equilibrium and GHGs are still increasing. Therefore, the current spike cannot last less than 300 years under any conceivable (and many inconceivable) scenarios. If you want to suggest that such spikes have taken place in the past, you have to find a way to allow them to do that but not appear in the record. I repeat, you have no mechanism to do so. And for that contention to have any pertinence to this discussion, you have to be suggesting that your fantasy mechanism is responsible for the current variance.

You have no basis to claim there were not. The EMPIRICAL evidence says there most likely were.
The deception that the climate temperature record is that smooth and well filtered is an artifact of data processing. NOT A FACT.

Are you suggesting that the entire warming period of the19th 20th and 21st is noise? Natural variation? The EMPIRICAL evidence in this case is the proxy data to the left of instrumented data and instrumented data to the right. And that spike at the end was not produced by filtering or smoothing. Give me a fucking break. There is NO EVIDENCE - ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, that any temperature variation resembling current conditions in amplitude or rate of change has taken place at any time in the Holocene. All the evidence we possess, all that EMPIRICAL evidence, says it did not.

 

[mamooth]

I know a govt sponsored feeding frenzy when I see one -- because I used to be shark.

So Flac by his own admission was immoral, and thus he declares everyone else has to be immoral.

The unethical often assume everyone else is like themselves. That makes them feel better about themselves, and gives them the "But everyone else does it too!" excuse to justify more bad behavior. The concept that other people act ethically is too foreign for many deniers to grasp.

 

[flacaltenn]

I know a govt sponsored feeding frenzy when I see one -- because I used to be shark.

So Flac by his own admission was immoral, and thus he declares everyone else has to be immoral.

The unethical often assume everyone else is like themselves. That makes them feel better about themselves, and gives them the "But everyone else does it too!" excuse to justify more bad behavior. The concept that other people act ethically is too foreign for many deniers to grasp.

If thats what you took from that anecdote, you are a major fool. What I described is the way EVERY research group solicits funding. You give the sponsor the slant that the grant money is attached to. Science doesnt change, You just use a lot of MIGHTS Coulds and POSSIBLIES in the abstract and the executive summaries when describing the MOTIVATION behind the work. In the case of GW funding, then CNN or the head of the EPA is then free to IGNORE the mights coulds and possiblies and run with the sky is falling story that the sponsor desired..... The other phenomenon in GW is that some of the lead researchers then FORGOT to use the mights coulds and possiblies when speaking to the press and the public. I never did that.....

 

[Crick]

I think Mamooth pegged it right smack on the head.

 

[mamooth]

According to Flac, all the science in the world is entirely corrupt and can't be trusted at all, because almost nobody works for free. Oh wait. He's got the double standard going. Only climate science is totally corrupt for that reason. All other science is fine. Why? Just because.

Meanwhile, the June 2015 GISTemp anomaly turned out to be +0.80C. That beats the old June 1998 record by 0.03. Barring a supervolcano, 2015 will end up the new warmest year on the record, by a significant margin. Deniers, get some new talking points ready, since your old ones have failed so badly.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Based on the fact that it takes 3-4 months for the affects of any el nino to show up in the global atmospheric system as temperature...I'd say we're comparing 1997 or 2009 to be fair! What was 1997 global temperature? .42c based on the noaa and we're currently at .85c on their data set based on the first 6 months. That is .43c of a difference...Giss has 1997 at .48, while it has 2009 at .65! If this develops into the super I think it will, we will finally get a fair comparison to 1997 occurring today next year!

Global Analysis - Annual 1997 National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

.