Re your two points 1. a) Firstly I've not claimed that an ice...

  1. 10,503 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 197
    Re your two points

    1.
    a)
    Firstly I've not claimed that an ice age will definitely be averted. I've disagreed with your statement, that "there is a fairly high probability of an ice age in the next 5,000 years. "
    b.
    To support that I have quoted four (five?) scientists who have carried out studies that have led them to conclude that the next two ice ages will be averted. Which means they consider that we won't see an ice age for the next 100,000 years.
    And my understanding is that is increasingly a widespread view in the science.
    c.
    So while it is possible they are wrong it is contrary to the science to suggest that there is a high probability of entering into an ice age any time soon.
    d.
    Up to the point of the post that I am replying to you have not provided any good rationale for claiming the science is wrong. You have stated that models are always wrong. But that is just too vague a basis on which to deny those science studies. And you have said the equivalent of "but before", regarding the duration of previous interglacials. When we know those past conditions did not have the current impact of anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses and are hence not valid references for what can be expected to happen now.
    e.
    In the post that I am replying to, on what basis do you claim that even 1 degree of climate sensitivity is not sufficient warming to avert the next ice age? This unsubstantiated opinion as written. You need to provide some evidence on which to refute that science, not simply state your opinion that "xyz" level of climate sensitivity won't offset cooling.

    2.
    a.
    It is totally false to use the current rate of increase to extrapolate warming. We're increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and hence increasing the rate of warming. Nevertheless, ditto point "1e".
    b.
    The science explains that high levels of CO2 during past millenia are not relatable to current conditions because of differing levels of solar activity and other factors. You are again totally denying climate science with nothing but a statement of opinion.
    c.
    I consequently don't see any valid basis for your view that we can adapt, nor your prediction of the temperature we would need to adapt to.

    It is very hard not to conclude that you are denying the science, with no valid or substantive case for doing so.
    Last edited by mjp2: 16/07/18
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.