Now, Where has the Heat Gone??

I identified the relevant facts, which are well known and not controversial.

"Anti-science propaganda" would more accurately describe the claim, unsupported by any evidence, that the last decade was the warmest in the last 11,300 years, and that the coldest decade in the last 11,300 years occurred less than 100 years ago.

 

Actually, that was just the obvious facts, Fudd. You post clueless nonsense that has nothing to do with reality and you parrot the lies and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign has duped you into believing.

You have no real "facts", Fudd, only denier cult myths, lies and propaganda. Like the nonsense from the Cato Institute that you just cited.

Denial of reality + cultic obsession with former Vice President Gore = denier cult wacko

 

All facts are bolded, - insults, insults,

 

It's rather funny that you can't tell the difference between personal insults directed at a forum member, which would violate the rules of this foum, and a reasonable disparaging of the clueless nonsense that some forum members post ("clueless nonsense that has nothing to do with reality"; "the nonsense from the Cato Institute"), which is a normal and 'legal' part of most debates. You can't defend the lies you and the other AGW deniers post so you try to slander me as someone using personal insults, in order to distract readers from the fact that your misinformation gets constantly debunked by the scientific facts of the matter.

 

How do you you know that I can't defend everything I post if you have never attempted to attack my statements or for that matter statemets of anybody who disagrees with you in any way not employing personal insults?

What was that lie you claim I have posted. Please quote it and attack.

 

Dont bother mentioning the Milankovitch cycle, most around here are stuck on no sunspots = cold weather. I dont think their minds are ready to deal with another scientific concept just yet

 

Why not mention Milankovitch cycle, a speculation overwhelming majorities of the scientific comminity are basing their speculations on?

 

Because you create a three body problem, and that get too complex to show direct causality

 

Please, in English

 

I do indeed attack the ignorant "statements" from the politically motivated AGW deniers, but, as I just explained and you failed to understand, attacks on the material being put forward are not the same as personal insults directed at forum members.

Actually, in your case, the drivel you post is not so much 'lies' as just idiotic, clueless nonsense based on your wholesale rejection of science. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the material you post often seems quite insane (again, referring to the material, not you). Here's some good examples.

 

It's right here, from Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance company:


When an insurance company needs to buy insurance against disaster, they buy it from a reinsurance company (like Munich Re). So the reinsurance companies pay very, very close attention to the number and rate of natural disasters. That red at the bottom is volcanoes and earthquakes. It's flat.

The stuff above it is the stuff caused by the atmosphere, which we're screwing up. The number has doubled in the past 30 years, and the trend is accelerating.

Don't say we didn't warn you.

 

We could? You mean you have actual evidence to support your position instead of bare assertions? And is it peer-reviewed?
Hallelujah! IT'S A FIRST FOR DENIERS!!!!

Okay, I'll go first with MY peer-reviewed graph, and then you can follow up with YOUR peer-reviewed graph. Ready? Here we go ...



This is from Marcott et. al. 2013, the paper referenced by choashockey. It shows global temperature from 73 proxy series going back to the beginning of the Holocene (11,300 years ago). The uptick at the end (warn the authors) may not be robust (at least from their data), but as it happens we have much better coverage of this more recent period than Marcott present. That's going to be my next graph.

After you get done presenting your peer-reviewed graph, that is.

Apparently a "first glance" is something you never gave the study. If you had, you would have known that this is proxy data, not thermometer data. Most of it comes from ocean cores. Not many cities in the ocean.

And that's your whole problem. You believe "the buzz", instead of peer-reviewed science. That's what's causing your entire flawed view of the world right there. The "buzz" about ice ages was never supported by any scientific consensus.

 

Roy Spencer is a creationist and ideologue. His views are pretty much worthless.

There's some evidence that some of the surface heat has been pushed into the deep oceans over the recent decade, which implies greater warming in the future when that extra heat returns to the surface.



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract