Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[cynic]

Please note that I made no such commitment.
I will pull apart what you state as I see fit.
There is a difference between meaningfulling addressing valid points and showing that what you have written makes no sense.

And down goes the second of your two recent commitments!

(Has anyone noticed that some people's opinions of themselves, are eerily reminiscent, of the opinions once held of the Titanic, just prior to her fateful maiden voyage, i.e. thought to be unsinkable and then promptly sunk?)

Now I shall throw caution to the wind and resurrect those same two recently sunk commitments, and apply them in respect to yourself.

Let's see if I can break your shortlived record, and hold off for more than 16 hours!!

 

[rederob]

And down goes the second of your two recent commitments!
(Has anyone noticed that some people's opinions of themselves, are eerily reminiscent, of the opinions once held of the Titanic, just prior to her fateful maiden voyage, i.e. thought to be unsinkable and then promptly sunk?)
Now I shall throw caution to the wind and resurrect those same two recently sunk commitments, and apply them in respect to yourself.
Let's see if I can break your shortlived record, and hold off for more than 16 hours!!

You cannot or do not substantiate what you claim - same outcome.
You claim knowledge of logic but display little of it.
You cannot coherently present statistical data.
You have yet to display any understanding of climate science - despite regular postings.
You do not respond to directly to questions put to you.
You create straw men.
As kahuna has noted, there are posters that repeat "rubbish" ad nauseum, and complain when they are called out.
So it seems that global warming is as unstoppable as those who do as you do and choose to avoid understanding why.

 

[Sdajii]

Hi Sdajii, you do realize I am not promoting the agenda of GW, I am merely showing how these cult like people are pushing their agenda to vulnerable people using a psychological technique called Gaslighting. If you listen to this, start 7 minutes in for the meaty bit to begin. It is basically a nasty hypocritical style of a con.

I am simply highlighting how this GW propaganda machine works by showing some of their techniques. This is not science, this is cognitive psychology at work, although I am sure some would call it science. The science of manipulation.

Sorry, Ann. Sounds like we agree in terms of our opinion on it and I misunderstood the context in which you were presenting it.

 

[Sdajii]

These were changes over thousands of years. We are now looking at changes at decadal scales.

No, it didn't happen over thousands of years, unless you want to say that the absolute entire process always moved in an entirely smooth pattern and was at the absolute most gradual possible rates to get to those extremes in those times (which we know is not only unrealistic but impossible). It presumably didn't happen within decades, but entire cycles of going from one state to another extreme and back (like, sea levels higher than current to low enough to join major land masses and all the way back up within 1-2 thousand years, and perhaps much much faster, and it seems most likely to have been much much faster but no one was there taking measurements more than a couple hundred years ago). Now, consider the minimal (by comparison to what we tangibly know did happen) predictions the alarmists are making. How much have the sea levels risen? Absolutely bugger all. It's very difficult to explain to someone with no grasp of climate science how absurd your claims are, but actual climate scientists know it, they all agree with me (on this point, seriously, they literally all agree with it, it is tangibly known). Seriously, actually sit down with a climate scientist and discuss this topic in a rational way and you'll find that while they usually squirm about admitting it, the only way you can justify saying the current rate of change is the greatest ever is to completely (and deliberately) misrepresent the data by saying we have never been able to record it before thus it never happened before. In recorded history (ie less than 200 years) we've seen a tiny amount of change compared to what routinely happens naturally, and to say that it has never ever happened before in the history of the planet is so absurd it's just beyond ridiculous. Literally every climate scientist will agree.

At century scales please review Table 2 here.

If you actually understand how to interpret this data, it proves my point! They're deliberately misrepresenting the data here (the fact that they consistently do this is extremely telling in itself, though most people have no idea what they're looking at so they can't pick it up). Compare the amount they say the sea levels have changed in the last 200 years and compare it to the incredible amount required to get dry land all the way from Australia to PNG. As I said, those few cm most people haven't even noticed are nothing compared to what routinely goes on.

Okay, and consider this. The chart your link shows implies (let's assume that it's entirely correct, which it's not, but let's just assume it is) that the sea levels didn't change for 2,500 years until people started playing with the climate. If this is true, then typically what happens is the climate/sea level sits quietly unmoving, and then suddenly, BAM! In extremely quick events, shifts giving us these incredible sea level fluctuations, and it does this every few thousand years (we know this occurs every few thousand years, absolutely no one disputes this). Alternatively (which is actually the case), the climate is much more volatile and routinely makes short sudden but small moves far greater than the rate we're currently seeing. If you actually look at climate charts across different time periods and actually use your brain to consider the data, all sorts of mutually exclusive information become blatantly obvious, telling you that the propaganda is not true. If you want to actually do some real research, you can then get a grasp of the bigger picture. Naturally there are limitations on what we can be sure about. It quickly becomes obvious that most of the mainstream narrative claims are untrue and/or baseless speculation.

Frequency of event and rates if change of event are not the same. Moreover, even Nils Morner will tell you that significant eustatic changes in sea level can be driven by small global changes in temperature - smaller than that of the past century. His theory of redistribution of energy and mass via the ocean current system due to a feedback interchange of angular momentum explains this, but, as I said, it happens over many thousands of years.

It doesn't always happen over many thousands of years, it sometimes happens *multiple times* in time periods of *less than* many thousands of years!

So your claims are without merit and reflect basic misunderstandings of climate science.

From now on, only say this when looking in the mirror.

 

[sptrawler]

An interesting article on sea level monitoring by NASA.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2804/keeping-score-on-earths-rising-seas/
A recurring statement in the article is:
“Once we have a better fundamental understanding of what we’re observing in the (satellite) record, we can start projecting that into the future.”

Contributions of the various components – ocean mass, ice sheets, glaciers – can be accurately estimated only for the recent era of satellite measurements, including the first GRACE mission (the twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites).

“If you go back in time, the result is really less (well defined),”
And two factors that have bedeviled sea-level science, though somewhat tamed (or “constrained,” as the scientists say), remain significant unknowns even in the new paper.

The patterns governing this land-to-ocean spigot are not completely understood.

Reading the article, it becomes apparent, that the science is in its infancy and most historic data pre satellite is of dubious quality. I guess the measurements taken years ago, would have to be taken with the same barometric pressure, lunar influence etc.
No doubt it will become and exact science, but at present it sounds far from it. IMO

 

[rederob]

No, it didn't happen over thousands of years...

And you present no evidence, despite me linking to charts which show your claim is false.

How much have the sea levels risen? Absolutely bugger all.

Again, no evidence with time scales from you, despite me linked to evidence your claim is false.

...but actual climate scientists know it, they all agree with me...

You repeat this claim, and never have substantiated it. Whereas I keep showing your claim is wrong.

In recorded history (ie less than 200 years) we've seen a tiny amount of change compared to what routinely happens naturally,...

Again, you offer no evidence, despite me linking to information which shows you have no credible case.

Literally every climate scientist will agree.

I correspond with several who also are uploaders on Youtube, so I know that is a bald-faced lie.

They're deliberately misrepresenting the data here...

And yet you cannot show that is true.

It doesn't always happen over many thousands of years, it sometimes happens *multiple times* in time periods of *less than* many thousands of years!

What exactly are you talking about and where exactly is your evidence.
How many times are you going to make claims which are not supported by science, and which you consistently say are, but never offer evidence?

 

[rederob]

Reading the article, it becomes apparent, that the science is in its infancy and most historic data pre satellite is of dubious quality.
No doubt it will become an exact science, but at present it sounds far from it. IMO

Not quite the case.
The accuracy of data now available means that scientists will be able to clearly discern trends which previously had an error margin which made trend identification problematic.
Prior data was spatially constrained and fraught with other issues.

 

[sptrawler]

Not quite the case.
The accuracy of data now available means that scientists will be able to clearly discern trends which previously had an error margin which made trend identification problematic.
Prior data was spatially constrained and fraught with other issues.

I thought that was what I said, my appologies.
They did say they are still trying to understand some of the data.
From my post:
Once we have a better fundamental understanding of what we’re observing in the (satellite) record, we can start projecting that into the future.”

 

[rederob]

From my post:
Once we have a better fundamental understanding of what we’re observing in the (satellite) record, we can start projecting that into the future.”

I was being my usual pedantic self.
As a general rule less than 30 years data does not define a climate trend. The satellite record is a tad shy of that.
That said, your linked article showed that the best science is now coming to the fore, so those casting aspersions on climate data need to provide a compelling case when they claim it is being misrepresented and therefore is not reliable.

 

[Sdajii]

And you present no evidence, despite me linking to charts which show your claim is false.

I was referring to your own bleeding link!

Again, no evidence with time scales from you, despite me linked to evidence your claim is false.

It's one of the most well known and understood natural phenomena related to the bleeding topic!

You repeat this claim, and never have substantiated it. Whereas I keep showing your claim is wrong.[/quote]

Your own data proves you wrong!

Again, you offer no evidence, despite me linking to information which shows you have no credible case.

Good grief, here, I'll get some data.

The above shows sea levels over the last few hundred thousand years (only a very recent part of climate history, no one disputes this overall picture, note that the scale is in ***HUNDREDS OF FEET*** not a few cm)

Note that the pattern is not a smooth one, it is jagged with sudden movements. Keep in mind that in this time scale we can not even see trivial movements such as ones you are calling significant, because they simply wouldn't even show up.

Okay, here is a quote from the Smithsonian institute, you can see the page here: https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). As the climate warmed as part of a natural cycle, ice melted and glaciers retreated until ice sheets remained only at the poles and at the peaks of mountains. Early on, the sea rose rapidly, sometimes at rates greater than 10 feet (3 meters) per century, and then continued to grow in spurts of rapid sea level rise until about 7,000 years ago. Then, the climate stabilized and sea level rise slowed, holding largely steady for most of the last 2,000 years, based on records from corals and sediment cores. Now, however, sea level is on the rise again, rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years

Note that they make reference to the fact that the rate of change is not constant. If you're a clever cookie you'll understand that means some periods are more rapid than others. This is just what has happened over the recent times. You're quite welcome to calculate the figures and analyse them, because a lot of the data makes it very obvious that there have been many many periods where the rate was more rapid but simply not recorded, however, the Smithsonian institute acknowledges that the rate of sea level change was greater 6,000 years ago than it is now (they make the 'mistake' of admitting this when they try to make it sound extreme by saying 'it's rising faster now than it has for 6,000 years, which means 6,000 years ago it was faster, and clearly humans weren't doing anything relevant 6,000 years ago). If you're a clever cookie you will understand that even if it actually is true that the sea levels were changing at a faster rate just 6,000 years ago with no human influence, it makes sense that this probably happens something in the ball park of every 6,000 years or so. Although, the data actually makes it very obvious that it is much more extreme much more often.

Again, note that their own data describes the natural state of change to be in "spurts of rapid sea level rise" - their direct quote of what was happening thousands of years ago, during an event completely unremarkable in terms of what occurred many times over the last 100,000 years (the timescale on my chart makes a lot of this movement obscure because of *even larger and more extreme change* over that period, and if we zoom out to a scale of millions of years (which I thoroughly encourage everyone to do!) it gets even more extreme, and if you actually bother to do this it becomes clear that to say the current rate of change is unprecedented it is so absurd it's beyond words and difficult to respond to.

120,000 years ago the sea level was about 5 metres higher than today. 20,000 years ago it was about 120 ***METRES*** lower than that, with a lot of huge fluctuations in between (literally multiple times going up an down to utterly extreme amounts and at extreme rates far greater than the current rate).

Again, literally no climate scientists disagree with this. Your blind, baseless insistence to the contrary don't make it reality. The media pushes a narrative of extreme misrepresentation of climate science which is inherently biased, then it gets exaggerated and the deliberate misrepresentations get remembered as facts, and people like you then insist that they are. I continually say that even the actual climate scientists themselves do not agree with these myths, and you can see that clearly here.

I correspond with several who also are uploaders on Youtube, so I know that is a bald-faced lie.

See, this sort of comment just demonstrates the level of intelligence of people who believe this nonsense. Honestly, think about that. You could use the same argument, word for word, with equal validity, defending flat Earth theory.

And yet you cannot show that is true.
What exactly are you talking about and where exactly is your evidence.
How many times are you going to make claims which are not supported by science, and which you consistently say are, but never offer evidence?

You're hardly worth it, and actually providing evidence takes time you're really not worth, clearly addressing all these points with drawn out explanations as I have done with just one would get unworkable, but hopefully it gives you some perspective.

 

[kahuna1]

I am sorry to butt in again,

I have said my piece, made my case. Take it, leave it ... ignore it .. whatever. This baiting and trolling and presentation of non scientific coal industry or fossil fuel based lobby group gibberish is what it is.

I would humbly suggest to the others trying to speak to the ... well opposing view, remembering this THREAD is about whether the issue is UNSTOPPABLE ... not whether is exists, is a windup. TROLLING ...

Even that 100% of all coral on the great barrier reef, all 3,000 Reefs in 2019 show bleaching due to temperature change and some have extreme damage to the North, something I thought could not be refuted or even questioned, WAS.

I am open to discussion, views and even agree to disagree, but with evidence that 100% of the Northern Reefs in the great barrier reef have EXTREME damage caused by too hot water, and ONLY too hot water not runoff .... HOT WATER ... I got some mumbo jumbo back. I am not sure who is winding up the last two, but appreciate the efforts and lessons in how much I actually DO NOT KNOW about this topic and others who have contributed ,,,, I put the others on ignore some time ago, the two who were taking the mickey and with respect, humbly would suggest others do the same.

Whilst I appreciate someone else's much superior knowledge, if not all those who have mad postiive contributions, which has been shared, to refute or show how stupid or non science based the other stuff is, as I did when it occurred, after 5 times ... being wound up ... I gave UP.

By giving up, putting them on ignore and not responding saves a lot of sanity. In some issues we will never agree, this thread is about an issue we agree upon, Climate change ... and whether it is stoppable. NOT about whether it exists.

If I went onto the electric cars are the future thread and called everyone a moron for driving one, I would be pathetic.

If I went onto a thread about say Oil and called everyone driving a car or using oil a moron and produced evidence which i am sure I could find, I would be pathetic.

There is a thread called "fake news on climate change consensus", for the 1% who do not believe in the issue.

Strange but true ... look below for links. Started by none other than Ann !!

Just a suggestion of course. When I got really interested, like I suspect most I went through the whole issue, both sides, impartially and clinically and was stunned at the rubbish and where a lot of it came from.

For your sanity possibly the best course. IGNORE ...

 

[Sdajii]

I am sorry,

I have said my piece, made my case. Take it, leave it ... ignore it .. whatever. This baiting and trolling and presentation of non scientific coal industry or fossil fuel based lobby group gibberish is what it is.

I would humbly suggest to the others trying to speak to the ... well opposing view, remembering this THREAD is about whether the issue is UNSTOPPABLE ... not whether is exists, is a windup. TROLLING ...

Even that 100% of all coral on the great barrier reef, all 3,000 Reefs in 2019 show bleaching due to temperature change and some have extreme damage to the North, something I thought could not be refuted or even questioned, WAS.

I am open to discussion, views and even agree to disagree, but with evidence that 100% of the Northern Reefs in the great barrier reef have EXTREME damage caused by too hot water, and ONLY too hot water not runoff .... HOT WATER ... I got some mumbo jumbo back. I am not sure who is winding up the last two, but appreciate the efforts and lessons in how much I actually DO NOT KNOW about this topic and others who have contributed ,,,, I put the others on ignore some time ago, the two who were taking the mickey and with respect, humbly would suggest others do the same. Whilst I appreciate someone else's much superior knowledge which has been shared, to refute or show how stupid or non science based the other stuff is, as I did when it occurred, after 5 times ... I gave UP.

By giving up, putting them on ignore and not responding saves a lot of sanity. In some issues we will never agree, this thread is about an issue we agree upon, Climate change ... and whether it is stoppable. NOT about whether it exists.

If I went onto the electric cars are the future thread and called everyone a moron for driving one, I would be pathetic.

If I went onto a thread about say Oil and called everyone driving a car or using oil a moron and produced evidence which i am sure I could find, I would be pathetic.

Isn't it funny when someone says they've already said their piece, take it or leave it, and *then* continue on with a long post?

If you want to just ask the question 'Is it unstoppable?", by absolutely positively all credible accounts, the answer is a very unambiguous no. The fact that literally no climate scientist argues that the temperature, rate of change, etc etc etc, even CO2 level, is unprecedented, means that no, it clearly is not unstoppable, because it has already happened before to a more extreme extent and then gone on to the cycle of extreme ice ages, more warm periods, more ice ages, etc etc.

 

[rederob]

The above shows sea levels over the last few hundred thousand years (only a very recent part of climate history, no one disputes this overall picture, note that the scale is in ***HUNDREDS OF FEET*** not a few cm)

I have already covered sea level rise, and do not dispute significant amplitudes. However, sea level change is very slow response to climate change, and can be driven by relatively small changes to temperature over long periods. We know this is true because the 0.9 degrees Celsius rise since the late 19th century has only led to a sea level increase of about 20cm. We also know change to sea levels cannot be linear or the planet would have literally fried if sea levels rose 20metres.

Note that the pattern is not a smooth one, it is jagged with sudden movements. Keep in mind that in this time scale we can not even see trivial movements such as ones you are calling significant, because they simply wouldn't even show up.

Your sudden movements are actually very long periods of time as each millimetre represents 2 thousand years. What you have not grasped is the concept of fineness of resolution - classic fail!
You don't have to believe me so here you will find at Tables 2 & 3 that error bars for sea levels can exceed 5000 years.

Again, literally no climate scientists disagree with this.

True for sea levels, and I agree. And I have already indicated why this is the case. Polar climate forcings affecting melt and thus sea levels are very different to global climate, and nowhere have you made a link. To prove this point, in the present era, Arctic climate has changed at 4 times the rate of global climate, yet the 4° Celsius Arctic temperature change has added only centimetres to the eustatic sea level.
I suggest you read this paper, and also read the peer reviewed papers which it derives from, because sea levels are not a valid proxy for climate. What it shows is that humans have driven climate change at a pace greater than nature could have done, and also graphically explains that the "saw tooths" you charted are likely, in future, to be blunt compared to the influence of the Anthropocene era

 

[rederob]

If you want to just ask the question 'Is it unstoppable?", by absolutely positively all credible accounts, the answer is a very unambiguous no. The fact that literally no climate scientist argues that the temperature, rate of change, etc etc etc, even CO2 level, is unprecedented, means that no, it clearly is not unstoppable, because it has already happened before to a more extreme extent and then gone on to the cycle of extreme ice ages, more warm periods, more ice ages, etc etc.

This is plain and simple wrong and unscientific. Unless you are talking about events which nature has locked into at millennial time scales, the present human factor can be entirely mitigated. This has been outlined time and again by scientists - just read the many IPCC Reports.
At decadal scales, the present high GHG levels and the slow response from warmed oceans means that we cannot avoid a generation or so of ongoing warming.
What you say has happened before, and will happen again, is well known. What never happened before was a human contribution that drove climate not just beyond what nature was otherwise doing, but in the opposite direction. Were we solely at the whim of nature, then the decline of irradiance since the 1970s would have led to a cooling planet today.

 

[basilio]

At decadal scales, the present high GHG levels and the slow response from warmed oceans means that we cannot avoid a generation or so of ongoing warming.
What you say has happened before, and will happen again, is well known. What never happened before was a human contribution that drove climate not just beyond what nature was otherwise doing, but in the opposite direction. Were we solely at the whim of nature, then the decline of irradiance since the 1970s would have led to a cooling planet today.

Which is the key point about the cause and consequences of global warming today.
Sea levels are rising and the rapid breakdown of Antarctic and Arctic ice caps will result in increasing sea levels in the near future. End of story and also for our current large cities which are overwhelmingly based around coastal areas.

 

[Sdajii]

This is plain and simple wrong and unscientific. Unless you are talking about events which nature has locked into at millennial time scales, the present human factor can be entirely mitigated. This has been outlined time and again by scientists - just read the many IPCC Reports.
At decadal scales, the present high GHG levels and the slow response from warmed oceans means that we cannot avoid a generation or so of ongoing warming.
What you say has happened before, and will happen again, is well known. What never happened before was a human contribution that drove climate not just beyond what nature was otherwise doing, but in the opposite direction. Were we solely at the whim of nature, then the decline of irradiance since the 1970s would have led to a cooling planet today.

No, it is neither wrong nor unscientific. No factor in the current situation is unprecedented. This is not wrong, it's not unscientific, it's just fact which no scientist actually disputes. Yes, in some respects, in some cases, we are indeed talking about events which took a long period of time to reverse, such as massive volcanic or celestial impact events, but even then, once the cause is removed, the system comes back to the balance. Even if you buy CO2 being the main driver of climate change and humans were the only thing doing anything significant to cause climate change at this time (let's just assume you're correct), if you removed that human impact now, the system would revert to 'normal' (except that in the real world the normal, natural situation has always been a constant state of change).

To say it is irreversible means it can never return to 'normal' (we haven't left normal and no climate scientists dispute that) and that we have or are about to enter a state of positive feedback which the climate will never recover from and will permanently be in that altered state. This just simply isn't the case and without being absurd there is no way to make this argument.

 

[Ann]

Sorry, Ann. Sounds like we agree in terms of our opinion on it and I misunderstood the context in which you were presenting it.

Well I am very pleased you picked me up on it, thank you Sdajii. I will be more careful in future to clarify my stance, I don't wish to mislead or confuse people.

 

[rederob]

No factor in the current situation is unprecedented.

You cannot explain why less energy reaching the planet since the 1970s has made it warmer, can you?
You won't accept any evidence that is contrary to what you believe.
Why are you posting what amount to blatant lies after you have been presented with the science?

in some respects, in some cases, we are indeed talking about events which took a long period of time to reverse, such as massive volcanic or celestial impact events, but even then, once the cause is removed, the system comes back to the balance.

Volcanic events take a few years to dissipate, and sometimes their affects are only localised. Impact events would tend to be cataclysmic, so worrying about climate won't be concern.

To say it is irreversible means it can never return to 'normal'....

No, it means that the trend can actually be reversed - from warming to cooling - by intervention.
You really have novel ways of convincing yourself that you know things.

 

[Sdajii]

You cannot explain why less energy reaching the planet since the 1970s has made it warmer, can you?
You won't accept any evidence that is contrary to what you believe.

Notice how this is a pure strawman argument, yet again? I literally haven't said anything this is relevant to, it doesn't contradict anything I have actually said.

Why are you posting what amount to blatant lies after you have been presented with the science?

This is actually what you are doing, and I can answer the question of why: You are reading exaggerations and misrepresentations, believing them all sometimes blindly, sometimes because you don't fully understand them. Conceptually, we know that what gets into most people's heads is the inferred message, not the actual one. Like 'Senator refuses to comment on rape allegations' is literally interpreted by most people to mean he is guilty, and even after the evidence to the contrary comes out, people believe it. We see this all the time. We are constantly bombarded by similar forms of gaslighting in the context of the climate narrative. You lump people into categories of deniers and alarmists (though you would not use the term alarmist), you believe anything the alarmists say, nothing the deniers say, and assume that anyone who does not unconditionally believe the entire alarmist narrative believes none of it and believes all of the extreme denier narrative. You display that in your opening statement in the post I am quoting, berating me for believing some I do not and never have. You don't have the ability to think critically or independently, you are a sheep, you demonstrate this very clearly.

Volcanic

events take a few years to dissipate, and sometimes their affects are only localised. Impact events would tend to be cataclysmic, so worrying about climate won't be concern.

Years... not millennia, not even centuries. Correct. This kills your argument. You are desperately clutching at straws. Either way, the relevance is that they have happened, it has been more extreme, and it doesn't have a runaway effect. We have this history, it exists. This shows that the current situation is not irreversible. To even be a situation reasonable to question the reversibility of, it needs to go to unprecedented levels. It's nowhere near it.

Really? You think impact events tend to be cataclysmic? They literally happen many times every day. The vast, vast, vast majority are of such minimal impact they are of literal zero concern. The more severe they are, the less common. Thus, clearly, it is the complete reverse of what you are say, you literally couldn't be more wrong. Celestial impacts have occurred many times to varying levels of severity before. I'm not even bothering to hypothesise about future ones, I was talking about previous ones which have done extreme things to the climate, and the climate then returns to normal. The point, which you somehow missed despite it being completely obvious, which was in direct response to the explicit question, was that after it has happened (as in, the actual examples which have already occurred), the climate returns to the normal range. Honestly, I'd struggle to pretend to miss the point as much as you actually do.

No, it means that the trend can actually be reversed - from warming to cooling - by intervention.
You really have novel ways of convincing yourself that you know things.

Again, this is one of your statements you should only say when staring into a mirror, and if you do so, I hope you take the message as reason to change.

 

[rederob]

Notice how this is a pure strawman argument, yet again? I literally haven't said anything this is relevant to, it doesn't contradict anything I have actually said.

Your claim is that all prior climate events have precedents. However, there is no precedent to this, so not only do you not understand what you are claiming is wrong, you don't even know why!

You are reading exaggerations and misrepresentations,...

In other words, when you cannot explain the science, you call them "misrepresentations."
You said exactly this, "...we are indeed talking about events which took a long period of time to reverse, such as massive volcanic or celestial impact events..." and now you say it took "years." Which is your point?

You think impact events tend to be cataclysmic? They literally happen many times every day.

None that are definionally "impact events" and none that have affected climate in the last few hundred million years. These are impact events which have effected climate.

The point, which you somehow missed despite it being completely obvious, which was in direct response to the explicit question, was that after it has happened (as in, the actual examples which have already occurred), the climate returns to the normal range.

There is no such thing as a "normal range" in climate.
You really clutch at straws, make up your own definitions for contrived reality, and have no grasp of climate science.