Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
As a believer in science, which apparently makes me gullible, I wonder how you, IMO ridiculously, jumped, leapt, rocketed, to the conclusion that this paper in any way refutes that global warming is not real.
The author does not say it is not real. She does not say that global warming is not caused to a significant extent by humans and carbon dioxide. She does not say that the warming is not a threat to humanity. But somehow you, a physician, not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a climate scientist, think it supports your opinion that there is no human caused climate change.
That really deserves derision so here you go:
 |
Then clearly return derision is indicated (and deserved)
:
I
DID NOT state the paper refutes global warming or that global warming does not exist. It does, since the planet has been warming for the last 20,000 years, only one part of 1 cycle of glaciation and interglacial thaws that has repeated itself over a dozen times in the last 4.5 million years of our
CURRENT ICE AGE (look up the geologic definition of ice age). I agree with you about what the paper stated, simply that there is no recent
surge in warming. Do I believe human activity contributes to the current warming cycle that would OCCUR ANYWAY WITHOUT HUMANS, yes, but to what extent is unknown, and most likely minimal considering the forces involve and the climate history of the last 4.5 million years. But regardless, here's the bad news: regardless of human activity, regardless of spending trillions to "combat" global warming, we will continue to warm for about another 25-35,000 years at which point ocean levels will be 200-400 feet higher and coastal cities are doomed---just as coastal cities built in India at the height of the last glacial maximum are now offshore and underwater.
Oh, I almost forgot, return derision
Don't think you can divine what I thought about anything. What my post actually stated and implied is that there is a "cult" of global warming enthusiasts with no understanding of paleoclimatology who have fallen hook, line and sinker for the "imminent disaster" narrative, and nothing will dissuade them---Not ridiculous Gore predictions, not the concept of cyclical glaciation and warming, not even the fact that the planet is 10F cooler than 65 M years ago. They have no understanding of the immense power of the sun, Earth's orbit and variations in that orbit. They 100% believe that fossil fuels alone are responsible and can only point to 100 years of WEATHER out of the past 4.5 million years as their bell weather event. So I repeat
:1rotf:
Clear enough?????