Hottest march and hottest first 3 months in history by noaa

[Old Rocks]

Now Billy Bob, if that is true, then you can present an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up what you are saying, correct? Waiting.

 

[jc456]

Now Billy Bob, if that is true, then you can present an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up what you are saying, correct? Waiting.

there you go with the good old boys club mention again. How many times must I state that peer doesn't mean anything in climate science? How many?

 

[flacaltenn]

Now Billy Bob, if that is true, then you can present an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up what you are saying, correct? Waiting.

He WILL have a problem backing up 2degC warmer.. Might have set daily/monthly RECORDS that high, but we still cannot reconstruct that accuracy..

However -- it's NEVER a problem to find massive amounts of SINGLE LOCAL proxy evidence that tell us that the MWP was AS LEAST AS HIGH as our current experience..

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:356915/FULLTEXT01.pdf

It has been suggested that late-Holocene long-term
temperature variations, such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age
(LIA), have been restricted to the circum-North Atlantic region (including Europe) and have
not occurred synchronic in time with warm and cold periods respectively in other regions
(Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Mann et al., 1999; Mann and Jones, 2003). This view has, however,
been increasingly challenged through the ever growing amount of evidence of a global (or at
least northern hemispheric) extent of the MWP and the LIA that have become available (see,
for example, Esper and Frank, 2009; Ljungqvist, 2009, 2010; Moberg et al., 2005; Wanner et
al., 2008).
A main obstacle in large-scale temperature reconstructions continues to be the limited and
unevenly distributed number of quantitative palaeotemperature records extending back a
millennium or more. The limited number of records have rendered it impossible to be very
selective in the choice of data. Palaeotemperature records used in a large-scale temperature
reconstruction should preferably be accurately dated, have a high sample resolution and
have a high correlation with the local instrumental temperature record in the calibration
period (see the discussion in Jones et al., 2009).

4. Conclusion
The presently available palaeotemperature proxy data records do not support the
assumption that late 20th century temperatures exceeded those of the MWP in most regions,
although it is clear that the temperatures of the last few decades exceed those of any multidecadal
period in the last 700–800 years. Previous conclusions (e.g., IPCC, 2007) in the
opposite direction have either been based on too few proxy records or been based on
instrumental temperatures spliced to the proxy reconstructions.

 

[IanC]

Think about an event one or two thousand years ago. A legitimate 1C spike or drop in a 50 or 100 year span would presumably be seen in the proxies but because the dating is uncertain, one proxy will show the spike at a different time than the others. This will smear out the spike over a longer period than the actual event. If you actually look at the proxies being used in these reconstructions you will see that they are all over the place both in temperature and time.

Flac has the right idea of looking at single proxies for the actual variance, averaged proxies for the best estimate of the timing.

 

[flacaltenn]

Think about an event one or two thousand years ago. A legitimate 1C spike or drop in a 50 or 100 year span would presumably be seen in the proxies but because the dating is uncertain, one proxy will show the spike at a different time than the others. This will smear out the spike over a longer period than the actual event. If you actually look at the proxies being used in these reconstructions you will see that they are all over the place both in temperature and time.

Flac has the right idea of looking at single proxies for the actual variance, averaged proxies for the best estimate of the timing.

Not even clear if individual proxies would show an ACCURATE 1 deg spike with a duration less than 50 years or so. The AMPLITUDE of the measurement is reduced by the time resolution of the samples. Even in the highest of resolution proxies. But you are also correct that they virtually disappear because of time incoherencies.

But consider this --- All those threads about the hottest month, year and all this RECORD propaganda?????

If the 20 year AVERAGE during the MWP was equal to our current average. Then the SAME AMOUNT of daily/monthly records and most of the "real or imagined" enviro effects that Warmers are whining about -- would likely have been occurring then as well.. Especially melting ice and especially dry conditions by region.

 

[Crick]

If you can average for timing, you can realign the data and average for amplitude. And if you think you're the first ones to think of that sort of thing, you're in la la land.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it's called climate and the primary cause of the changes we've seen over the last 150 years have been human GHG emissions and deforestation.

No it's called the deep ocean absorbed the excess heat, aka: Total bullshit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it's called climate and the primary cause of the changes we've seen over the last 150 years have been human GHG emissions and deforestation.

Odd that the biggest emitters of CO2 are the equatorial rain forests you claim are "deforesting" or is the O-CO2 Satellite a DENIER!! that you want to off

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OMG, we're all gonna burn!!!!!!!! It's called weather and weather changes, it's been doing for centuries

Lol, I guess you wouldn't understand that following this stuff is part of science and is important over the long term.

And no, a monthly or yearly avg of something is weather, but Climate. We're dealing with long term anomalies.

Mhm....what was the temperature for the month of March in....oh let's say 5 B.C.?

The problem with the climate change BS is records are not far enough back to really tell what happens....that and the "scientists" keep getting caught fudging data.

Because we didn't have thermometers back more then the mid 18th century. We only have proxies to give us a clue about temperature of the past. Based on those, we were cooler globally in the 5th century Bc compared to today. This was even before the roman warm period that was also cooler then today.

What other way would you have us study climate?

LOLz

Yeah

Because the AGWCult says so

LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you've chosen to continue to lie. I guess that's what one gets from a liar.

tell us again how the entire basis of AR5's "excess heat" is just 2 random word strung together

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was Roman warming due to human GHG emissions?

Yes, methane from bovine flatulence

Moron

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now Billy Bob, if that is true, then you can present an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up what you are saying, correct? Waiting.

You really are allergic to facts. Try these facts on for size.

1) Spatial resolution of all proxies will not allow spikes, like we have seen the last 30 years, to be seen in the historical record. In fact, time spans of more than about 150-500 years are the norm.

So even your precious peer reviewed papers do not have the resolution to make the claims they are making.

2) About 66% of the earths surface records are MADE UP using algorithms and have no basis in reality. they are MODELED>>> They are NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and yet your made up data is what is driving the current rise globally.

Regional stations are showing cooling and not warming on most fo the globe. All but a few areas, and those areas are consistent with a natural El Nino process, are warming due to areas of ocean heat release and ARE NOT A GLOBAL EVENT>


GoldyFraud needs to look skeptically at his own pile of crap and ask simple questions. Simply accepting what these fools tell you as gospel shows you have no scientific background. The constant appeals to authority tell me you have no critical thinking skills. You can take your worthless peer review and shove them up your arse. They are crap as any critical thinking person can see.

 

[Crick]

Crick: Frank, I'm still waiting for you to show us where I said I wanted to off any deniers. You've made a very serious charge here dude. Either back it up or withdraw it.

Me: "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers." -- Crick. That help, Crick?

No, that doesn't help. Postulating a hypothetical is not an expression of desire. My statement that you've quoted, does not say I want to off any deniers. As a whole, the only thing conveyed here is your illiteracy.

Just out of curiosity, why have neither you nor any of your denier comrades ever said one FUCKING WORD to Ms Stephanie, who's statement may be seen below suggesting I commit suicide?

"Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science.." -- Crick completely dismantles AR5's (which he apparently never read) premise that "excess heat" absorbed by the oceans is the primary culprit in climate change

You are the one who it seems has never read the IPCC's assessment reports. My statement regarding the lack of any "official scientific definition" for the term "excess heat" stands and says absolutely nothing about AR5.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick: Frank, I'm still waiting for you to show us where I said I wanted to off any deniers. You've made a very serious charge here dude. Either back it up or withdraw it.

Me: "Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers." -- Crick. That help, Crick?

No, that doesn't help. Postulating a hypothetical is not an expression of desire. My statement that you've quoted, does not say I want to off any deniers. As a whole, the only thing conveyed here is your illiteracy.

"Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science.." -- Crick completely dismantles AR5's (which he apparently never read) premise that "excess heat" absorbed by the oceans is the primary culprit in climate change

You are the one who it seems has never read the IPCC's assessment reports. My statement regarding the lack of any "official scientific definition" for the term "excess heat" stands and says absolutely nothing about AR5.

^ LOL!!!

What a fucking moron!!

LOLOL

Crick you're hysterical!!

Yes your statement says nothing about AR5 because you didn't fucking read it Dipshit!

LOLOLOL!O!Lol

This is fucking priceless!

 

[Crick]

You haven't responded to anything I've said.