Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Sdajii]

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!

Far out, when called out on your strawman you just build another strawman! You know you're full of shi... er... a lack of substance when you make up blatant lies to cover for your blatant lies. Alternatively... actually, this seems more likely, you actually believe your own words. This probably is the case, because you've demonstrated an apparent sincerity in your false beliefs and a propensity for mental gymnastics which enable you to maintain them.

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?

Good grief, taking things out of context is only supposed to work when presenting them to a naive audience.

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.
There is no such thing as a "normal range" in climate.

So... if something hasn't happened for a few hundred million years... the laws of physics might have changed and no longer apply? Is that the point you're trying to make?

And... wow, do you ever stop to think? If you believe there is no 'normal range' in climate (no, I don't agree with you... I mean, if the air temperature was above the boiling point of water at the poles or -50 at the equator, I'm sure even you would agree it was outside the normal range), then... I mean... you've actually once again made a statement so ridiculous it's difficult to respond to.

You really clutch at straws, make up your own definitions for contrived reality, and have no grasp of climate science.

It's amazing how often you end your posts with statements you should only make while staring into those vacuous eyes in the mirror.

 

[kahuna1]

I have solve it ....

Its all about rocks falling into the ocean the sea rise !! A solution .... get the rocks out ?

Climate Denier Thinks Falling Rocks Cause Sea Level Rise

 

[rederob]

Far out, when called out on your strawman you just build another strawman!

A strawman would be when I create and answer a claim of my making.
Instead, you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
You sole basis was sea levels.
I explained and showed that using sea levels could not be a valid proxid, with several examples.
Most importantly, however, there is no known precedent in climate records for long term climate to warm markedly while irradiance continued to decline since the 1970s.
This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.

This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.

 

[rederob]

Fixing up bad spelling/grammar, and repeating what I said:

A strawman argument occur when I create and answer a claim of my own making.
Yet you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
Your sole basis was sea levels.
I explained, and showed with several examples, that using sea levels could not be a valid proxy.
Most importantly, however, there is no known precedent in climate records for climate to warm markedly while irradiance continued to decline, a trend in place since the 1970s.
This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.

(You later added volcanic and impact events but in your usual manner offered no substantiation of how they supported your ideas.)

 

[basilio]

Extinction Rebellion is on the march.
London to be closed down for 2 weeks starting next Monday.
Be aware if you are planning a business trip.
https://extinctionrebellion.org.uk/event/uk-rebellion-shut-down-london/

 

[Sdajii]

A strawman would be when I create and answer a claim of my making.
Instead, you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
You sole basis was sea levels.
I explained and showed that using sea levels could not be a valid proxid, with several examples.
Most importantly, however, there is no known precedent in climate records for long term climate to warm markedly while irradiance continued to decline since the 1970s.
This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.

This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.

You realise all you did there is say that there is no data to back up your claim... I mean... okay... I disagree... but okay... then why are you making it?

Well, you also, bizarrely, claimed that I was trying to say that the current situation was unprecedented... I mean... do you even brain?

You also... I mean, please think about this for a moment or two and let it sink right in... you say that climate and sea level aren't linked but fear that the sea level will rise because the climate will change... and also that the sea level changes dramatically entirely naturally regardless of climate, so because of the climate we should panic about sea level changes.

Again... do you even brain?

In case you try to strawman me or use mental gymnastics to misrepresent me yet again, no, these are not my claims, they are yours. In reality, the actual climate data shows that it did indeed correlate its changes with sea levels. We do know that the climate has changed more rapidly than it is at present, no climate scientists deny that... unless you want to say that it has never changed this rapidly *since accurate records began... decades ago - yes, it is changing more rapidly than at any point in the last century, but while we don't have any accurate records, it probably isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 1,000 years (climate scientists are divided on this point) and it definitely isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 10,000 years (the vast majority of climate scientists agree on this and the only ones who don't are a very small number of exceptionally obvious shills).

 

[Sdajii]

Fixing up bad spelling/grammar, and repeating what I said:

A strawman argument occur when I create and answer a claim of my own making.
Yet you claimed the present climatic events were unprecedented.
Your sole basis was sea levels.
I explained, and showed with several examples, that using sea levels could not be a valid proxy.
Most importantly, however, there is no known precedent in climate records for climate to warm markedly while irradiance continued to decline, a trend in place since the 1970s.
This very trend is not just beyond doubt based on all scientific data, it is confirmation of AGW as a theory.

(You later added volcanic and impact events but in your usual manner offered no substantiation of how they supported your ideas.)

Wow, even after carefully correcting yourself you repeated that I was claiming the present climatic events are unprecedented.

You seem to be slightly confused about what a strawman argument is.

Good grief, as I already stated more than once, I looked into sea levels and gave evidence and references because you were whinging about it. It was a length post because that's required to look into anything in anything even resembling moderate detail. To go into all of the points I made in significant detail would literally require writing a book.

Of course there are no records of correlation between two things prior to the 1970s when records weren't being made! There are literally billions of years of history in this planet and we have a few decades of that type of data. Do you think it's even possible that humans could cause the first ever case of this, after billions of years of climate, even including massive volcanoes, celestial impacts, major tectonic movement, etc etc, which has done all sorts of stuff including more dramatic CO2 manipulation than humans have done? You honestly think humans are that magical?

Do you even try to use your brain? Because even a gifted primary school student or an average year 12 science student could see how wrong you are on this.

 

[rederob]

You realise all you did there is say that there is no data to back up your claim... I mean... okay... I disagree... but okay... then why are you making it?

I attached links showing your claims were false. I suggest you read them.

You also... I mean, please think about this for a moment or two and let it sink right in... you say that climate and sea level aren't linked....

False, I did not say that. Again, read what I did say.

In reality, the actual climate data shows that it did indeed correlate its changes with sea levels.

What correlated? You showed sea levels rise. I showed they were not linked to temperature except at millenial/century level time frames.

We do know that the climate has changed more rapidly than it is at present, no climate scientists deny that...

No climate I know makes that claim, and all you do is repeat it.

We do know that the climate has changed more rapidly than it is at present

False, you showed no data on global climate.

Do you think it's even possible that humans could cause the first ever case of this....

That is the claim of scientists. You have offered nothing to show it is not the case.

...it probably isn't changing more rapidly than at any point in the last 1,000 years...

There is no credible evidence supporting that claim.
If your intention is to cover every event from earth formation until today, then how is that relevant?
We are discussing climate in terms of what is probable from the the time the planet became habitable.
Or so I thought.
If you want to dabble in irrelevances then this is not the thread for it.

 

[wayneL]

Extinction Rebellion is on the march.
London to be closed down for 2 weeks starting next Monday.
Be aware if you are planning a business trip.
https://extinctionrebellion.org.uk/event/uk-rebellion-shut-down-london/

May the most violent extremists win

 

[rederob]

...it becomes completely and unequivocably obvious that extreme climate change occurs naturally, without CO2 fluctuations, rapidly and frequently.

This is the claim you made.
Your defense of this is only based on sea levels changes, and you added volcanic and impact events later on. The latter two events are short-lived.
Read the thread title and see if you can get back on track.

 

[Sdajii]

This is the claim you made.

Your defense of this is only based on sea levels changes, and you added volcanic and impact events later on. The latter two events are short-lived.

Read the thread title and see if you can get back on track.

Yes, I made that claim, and yes, it's true, and yes, climate scientists all agree!

No, my basis is not just on sea level changes, as I've now had to point out multiple times, that's just one thing I was discussing. Obviously I wasn't trying to relate volcanic activity to that statement, because it's not relevant! (Volcanoes do produce CO2, and significant volcanic events produce a significant amount!)

I am not going to type enough words to fill a book, but to give you a bit of a background story as to why I've looked into this a lot, I am a biologist. The first species of animal I studied in great depth was a type of parthenogenetic grasshopper, Warramaba virgo. This species has a very interesting origin, intricately linked to climate change. It starts over 100,000 years ago, when the climate changed to a great extent. The climate became very hot, and in Australia it was very dry (incidentally, at this time when we know it was very hot, lo and behold, the sea level was about 5m higher than it is now! Fancy that!). During this time conditions in Australia, particularly the west where this species originates, were very harsh. Species became extinct due to the harsh conditions, others had their populations reduced and in many cases, fragmented to smaller areas which remained habitable. Because these species now had fragmented, isolated populations, some of them started to evolve independently, and some changed significantly, either to the point of being completely different species, being modified but still the same species, or somewhere in between. These grasshoppers evolved into what we now consider to be different species, two of them, Warramaba P169 and Warramaba P196. When the climate returned to more favourable conditions, the populations were able to recolonise areas, expand, and they met up with each other. W P169 and W P196 were able to reproduce, but their DNA was sufficiently different to cause problems to occur with the hybrids. It's a very interesting story, but the genetics would be beyond the understanding of non geneticists (feel free to ask in another thread if you're interested, I'm always happy to talk genetics!), but basically, the creation of gametes (sperm/eggs) didn't work properly. The males were effectively sterile, and the females couldn't split their DNA in half to produce eggs in the normal way (normal eggs are supposed to contain half the mother's DNA, the other half being supplied by the sperm). However, because the eggs contained the entire genome of the mother (along with some other genetic quirks which allowed development to start without fertilisation), they were able to develop. These eggs hatched into genetic clones of their mothers, which were able to continue the process. The resulting asexual population still exists today. Through analysis of their DNA we can check for mutations and work out how long ago these events happened, which match up with various other evidence for climate change, and come up with a date of around 100,000 years ago (before you go all strawman on me again, no, I'm not suggesting this is a piece of evidence for a rate of change, but it's a nice way to link up a rough estimate we can make from the genetic data with a specific climate point we know it must coincide with, and thus get a more exact time reference on the timing of the species origin and division events, etc). My interest in this species came from another species I had privately worked with and taken an interest in, or rather, a group of species. They were lizards of the genus Heteronotia which came from the same region of what is now Western Australia, they also speciated because of climate change events in a similar pattern, and two of those resulting species also created races of parthenogens (asexual, self-cloning females). When I heard about the Warramaba project and was offered the position I gleefully jumped at it. Learning about the history of my research species, directly related to climate change, gave me an interest in climate change and also a professional necessity to learn about it, especially in the context of the last 150,000 years or so (again, all climate scientists will agree, unless they're deliberately tweaking the numbers, that the climate has changed more rapidly during that time, multiple times, than the present rate. The only way they can try to credibly say otherwise is in statements like 'we have no accurate data for climate change of this rate' - like, yeah, we know it happened, there's a tonne of clear evidence, but no one was there taking readings, so I can say we "don't have accurate data records"). My work just in this particular project was further related to climate change because I was looking at the abilities of this grasshopper, and the main variable I tested was temperature, and we were specifically looking at developing a method of directly assessing living things to predict their future distribution changes according to climate change (funny that even having worked professionally on a project designed with future climate change in mind, I get called a 'climate denier' (sic)!). Now, there were certainly scientists in the department who believed the paranoia and thought that by 2019 we'd have already experienced catastrophe (I remember the predictions of the climate scientists I was working with around 15 years ago, and some of them said it would be happening within 10 years, many said that by 2025 we'd have absolute climate chaos, but of course most people don't have climate scientists as colleagues or remember specifics about what they heard because it's just vague stuff on the telly or Facebook to them. Without a doubt, climate scientists' predictions are, on average, massively exaggerated when compared to the realities we see by the time the timeframe plays out, but as always, the popular media cherry picks and misrepresents the data).

As I said, the full version would fill a book, and I'll probably be accused of getting off topic or self indulgent or whatever, but I keep getting accused of not being a scientist or not giving enough information, and hey, I'll still cop that because we have an insane, dishonest propaganda machine AKA media, and when everyone believes lies, anyone saying anything else is seen as crazy or dishonest, but there you go.

As for your repeated question about the title...

I've addressed the thread title question at least three times in this thread including over the last 48 hours. The answer is a completely clear, unambigous "no".

 

[explod]

People out there on the ground know it from experience of being amongst nature. As the Son of a farmer who followed the weather and the causes I have learned to know it too. The majority of scientists are telling us all, I don't need that but some still will not accept. You would think that the opposers would at least err on the side of the possibility for the sake of thier offspring and help in combating increased Co2

The following know as they have been amongst it and noted the acceleration:-

"
Former fire chiefs warn Australia unprepared for escalating climate threat


Major parties must recognise ‘national firefighting assets’ are needed to fight worsening natural disasters, say fire experts

Lisa Cox

Two dozen former fire and emergency chiefs from all over Australia want the next prime minister to ensure emergency services have the resources to fight natural disasters caused by climate change. Photograph: Rob Griffith/AFP/Getty Images
More than 20 former fire and emergency chiefs from multiple states and territories say Australia is unprepared for worsening natural disasters from climate change and governments are putting lives at risk.

In a statement issued before a federal election date is announced, 23 former emergency services leaders and senior personnel have called on both major parties to recognise the need for “national firefighting assets”, including large aircraft, to deal with the scale of the threat.

The signatories include: Greg Mullins, the second-longest serving fire and rescue commissioner in New South Wales and now a councillor with the Climate Council; Neil Bibby, a former chief executive of Victoria’s Country Fire Authority; Phil Koperberg, a former NSW rural fire service commissioner and former Labor MP and NSW environment minister.

The document calls on the next prime minister to meet former emergency service leaders “who will outline, unconstrained by their former employers, how climate change risks are rapidly escalating”.

The group also wants the next government to commit to an inquiry into whether Australia’s emergency services are adequately resourced to deal with increased risks from natural disasters caused by climate change.


They said some large firefighting aircraft were prohibitively expensive for states and territories and leased from the northern hemisphere, and access to them was becoming more restricted as fire seasons started to overlap.

“I started firefighting in 1971 and the bushfire seasons were extremely predictable,” Mullins said. “They’d start in Queensland and move south progressively.

“You knew when there was a bad season coming because there was an El Nino and drought. In the 90s, I stopped being able to predict it.”

Australia’s emergency resources were still equipped for “what was happening in the 1970s to the 1990s”.

“The first thing is we need whoever is in government nationally to take climate change seriously, rather than making jokes about it in parliament with lumps of coal,” he said.

“It’s just frustrating to hear the lip service being given to ‘Oh yes, we now believe in climate change and need to do something’ when every effort to do something about it is rubbished.”

Last year, in Australia alone, the NSW fire season began in early August, a heatwave led to fires in rainforest areas of Queensland in early December, and forest in Tasmania’s world heritage area caught fire in January, Australia’s hottest month on record.

For the past week the government has been running attacks on Labor’s proposal for electric vehicle targets to reduce carbon emissions.

“You look at any of your headlines over the last six months,” Bibby said. “The hottest month. The hottest summer.

“We know the problem, and the only way to get politicians to do something about these things is put their jobs on the line.”

Bibby said an additional concern was that Australia relied so heavily on volunteers during natural disasters.

As extreme weather becomes more frequent, and fire seasons longer, that would put strain on the system and volunteers helping their communities were at risk of burnout.

There needed to be a review of the methods used to tackle large fires, cyclones and floods that was backed by research from experienced people working on the ground.

“We’re doing the same old things when things are getting worse. We need to find new ways to tackle this problem,” Bibby said.

 

[rederob]

Yes, I made that claim, and yes, it's true, and yes, climate scientists all agree!

Whereas there are literally thousands of climate scientists who do not.
Several of my links included specific statements that your claims were false, but that's fine - you can believe what you like.

 

[Sdajii]

People out there on the ground know it from experience of being amongst nature. As the Son of a farmer who followed the weather and the causes I have learned to know it too. The majority of scientists are telling us all, I don't need that but some still will not accept. You would think that the opposers would at least err on the side of the possibility for the sake of thier offspring and help in combating increased Co2

The following know as they have been amongst it and noted the acceleration:-

"
Former fire chiefs warn Australia unprepared for escalating climate threat


Major parties must recognise ‘national firefighting assets’ are needed to fight worsening natural disasters, say fire experts

Lisa Cox

Two dozen former fire and emergency chiefs from all over Australia want the next prime minister to ensure emergency services have the resources to fight natural disasters caused by climate change. Photograph: Rob Griffith/AFP/Getty Images
More than 20 former fire and emergency chiefs from multiple states and territories say Australia is unprepared for worsening natural disasters from climate change and governments are putting lives at risk.

In a statement issued before a federal election date is announced, 23 former emergency services leaders and senior personnel have called on both major parties to recognise the need for “national firefighting assets”, including large aircraft, to deal with the scale of the threat.

The signatories include: Greg Mullins, the second-longest serving fire and rescue commissioner in New South Wales and now a councillor with the Climate Council; Neil Bibby, a former chief executive of Victoria’s Country Fire Authority; Phil Koperberg, a former NSW rural fire service commissioner and former Labor MP and NSW environment minister.

The document calls on the next prime minister to meet former emergency service leaders “who will outline, unconstrained by their former employers, how climate change risks are rapidly escalating”.

The group also wants the next government to commit to an inquiry into whether Australia’s emergency services are adequately resourced to deal with increased risks from natural disasters caused by climate change.


They said some large firefighting aircraft were prohibitively expensive for states and territories and leased from the northern hemisphere, and access to them was becoming more restricted as fire seasons started to overlap.

“I started firefighting in 1971 and the bushfire seasons were extremely predictable,” Mullins said. “They’d start in Queensland and move south progressively.

“You knew when there was a bad season coming because there was an El Nino and drought. In the 90s, I stopped being able to predict it.”

Australia’s emergency resources were still equipped for “what was happening in the 1970s to the 1990s”.

“The first thing is we need whoever is in government nationally to take climate change seriously, rather than making jokes about it in parliament with lumps of coal,” he said.

“It’s just frustrating to hear the lip service being given to ‘Oh yes, we now believe in climate change and need to do something’ when every effort to do something about it is rubbished.”

Last year, in Australia alone, the NSW fire season began in early August, a heatwave led to fires in rainforest areas of Queensland in early December, and forest in Tasmania’s world heritage area caught fire in January, Australia’s hottest month on record.

For the past week the government has been running attacks on Labor’s proposal for electric vehicle targets to reduce carbon emissions.

“You look at any of your headlines over the last six months,” Bibby said. “The hottest month. The hottest summer.

“We know the problem, and the only way to get politicians to do something about these things is put their jobs on the line.”

Bibby said an additional concern was that Australia relied so heavily on volunteers during natural disasters.

As extreme weather becomes more frequent, and fire seasons longer, that would put strain on the system and volunteers helping their communities were at risk of burnout.

There needed to be a review of the methods used to tackle large fires, cyclones and floods that was backed by research from experienced people working on the ground.

“We’re doing the same old things when things are getting worse. We need to find new ways to tackle this problem,” Bibby said.

You see, climate change is a real thing, but garbage like this gives the sceptics reason to doubt and ammo against the alarmists.

This is stupid nonsensical anecdotal data, based on data sets within the lifetime of living people! People presenting this sort of garbage as reason to take climate change seriously is a great example of why many people don't, and it's difficult to blame them when you look at this pathetic crap.

Firefighters are good at fighting fires. They're not climate scientists, they're not analysts, they're the guys you call for putting out fires, and maybe rescuing a kitten out of a tree.

It looks really bad when you are trying to get climate change taken seriously and you have to use firefighters' anecdotes as evidence.

The world genuinely is in trouble, human activity is a huge part of it, CO2 probably isn't a big part of it, we're missing the point, and absolute trash like this is purely counterproductive. If I wanted to actually come up with something to fuel people's desire to oppose it I'd be proud if I came up with this!

 

[Sdajii]

Whereas there are literally thousands of climate scientists who do not.
Several of my links included specific statements that your claims were false, but that's fine - you can believe what you like.

You have a talent for ignoring a whole heap of data, picking out one small piece you don't understand and ignoring all the stuff which proves you wrong, and then making an incorrect statement.

Literally no climate scientists make that claim! Some deliberately try to make the inference for media attention etc, but none actually make the claim, and if asked directly they will all openly confirm that, because it's a very tangible fact. I entirely agree with the climate scientists on this point. The mainstream narrative is what you are believing. If you read your own links carefully you'll see this is the case.

Literally every climate scientist knows that it is very common (as in, it has happened many many times before, not even just because of rare freak events, but it has happened thousands of times before). It's literally not even in dispute, and it's a completely and utterly ridiculous claim only a completely scientifically illiterate person would make. Honestly, this is like arguing with a 5 year old who swears the moon is made of cheese.

 

[explod]

You see, climate change is a real thing, but garbage like this gives the sceptics reason to doubt and ammo against the alarmists.

This is stupid nonsensical anecdotal data, based on data sets within the lifetime of living people! People presenting this sort of garbage as reason to take climate change seriously is a great example of why many people don't, and it's difficult to blame them when you look at this pathetic crap.

Firefighters are good at fighting fires. They're not climate scientists, they're not analysts, they're the guys you call for putting out fires, and maybe rescuing a kitten out of a tree.

It looks really bad when you are trying to get climate change taken seriously and you have to use firefighters' anecdotes as evidence.

The world genuinely is in trouble, human activity is a huge part of it, CO2 probably isn't a big part of it, we're missing the point, and absolute trash like this is purely counterproductive. If I wanted to actually come up with something to fuel people's desire to oppose it I'd be proud if I came up with this!

If there is any doubt at all we should for the benefit of our children and grandchildren err on the side of caution.

As a kid we never had TV or computers, we lived outside around the paddocks, we watched Dad measure the rain and it was a consistent 25 to 30 inches a year, starting in May off the trade winds till early August each year. That was the early 1950's. They are lucky to receive 10 inches a year now and that comes in unseasonal storms which has made it very difficult for cropping. Autumn used to be mild and calm and was the most enjoyable time to fly my model plane, so was a big weather watcher from that point also. Now Autumn is hot and cold all over the place, winds from all directions. We also loved collecting tadpoles to hatch at school in a jar. Frogs there were wiped out when the heat and dry increased from around 1967 and have never returned. The current farmer says that the land only carries half that to the acre as when Dad was there. Including our place there were nine farms to the small town of Hawkesdale, today there is only four.

Now this is only one little spot but the same story is related by growing numbers of people around the country, it is the scientists who put all the experiences, measurements and changes together to provide the facts. And for anyone to say 50% changes in just 60 years is not significant then they are in absolute dreamland. Natural changes have never happened at this rate before.

 

[Sdajii]

If there is any doubt at all we should for the benefit of our children and grandchildren err on the side of caution.

As a kid we never had TV or computers, we lived outside around the paddocks, we watched Dad measure the rain and it was a consistent 25 to 30 inches a year, starting in May off the trade winds till early August each year. That was the early 1950's. They are lucky to receive 10 inches a year now and that comes in unseasonal storms which has made it very difficult for cropping. Autumn used to be mild and calm and was the most enjoyable time to fly my model plane, so was a big weather watcher from that point also. Now Autumn is hot and cold all over the place, winds from all directions. We also loved collecting tadpoles to hatch at school in a jar. Frogs there were wiped out when the heat and dry increased from around 1967 and have never returned. The current farmer says that the land only carries half that to the acre as when Dad was there. Including our place there were nine farms to the small town of Hawkesdale, today there is only four.

Now this is only one little spot but the same story is related by growing numbers of people around the country, it is the scientists who put all the experiences, measurements and changes together to provide the facts. And for anyone to say 50% changes in just 60 years is not significant then they are in absolute dreamland. Natural changes have never happened at this rate before.

I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues.

Your anecdotes are scientifically meaningless on multiple levels.

 

[rederob]

Literally no climate scientists make that claim!

What are you talking about?
Your ramblings are becoming incoherent.
You make sweeping generalisations and have no idea about the present state of climate.
At generational scales the IPCC, the climate scientists who you would presumably be talking about who all agree with you, say the opposite to you.
Well, I think they do, but as you ramble so much it is hard to tell!
The IPCC regard the warming trend as reversible.
Therefore the IPCC regard global warming as stoppable.
You say the opposite.
The IPCC regard GHGs - of which CO2 is the main culprit - as a greater threat to the planet than any other factor.
You do not agree, but offer nothing else.
You probably have never read an IPCC Report, because they continue to lay out the consequences of warming to date, and the probability of future events that will become dire with inaction.
The science is regularly confirming what the IPCC then assimilates, and presents for public consumption and the consideration of governments.
Your contribution has been a focus on sea levels, which I have demonstrated cannot be regarded as a reasonable proxy for your claims.

 

[explod]

Again back to the real world:-

"
Global warming is transforming the Arctic, and the changes have rippled so widely that the entire biophysical system is shifting toward an "unprecedented state," an international team of researchers concludes in a new analysis of nearly 50 years of temperature readings and changes across the ecosystems.

Arctic forests are turning into bogs as permafrost melts beneath their roots. The icy surface that reflects the sun's radiation back into space is darkeningand sea ice cover is declining. Warmth and moisture trapped by greenhouse gases are pumping up the water cycle, swelling rivers that carry more sediment and nutrients to the sea, which can change ocean chemistry and affect the coastal marine food chain. And those are just a few of the changes.

The researchers describe how warming in the Arctic, which is heating up 2.4 times faster than the Northern Hemisphere average, is triggering a cascade of changes in everything from when plants flower to where fish and other animal populations can be found.

Together, the changes documented in the study suggest the effects on the region are more profound than previously understood

 

[rederob]

So here is how Sdajii goes about his incoherent postings:

No, it is not unprecedented. Climate scientists debate how long ago (a few hundred or a few thousand years ago) the most recent time it occurred was, not whether or not it has happened. With the possible exception of a very, very few, all agree it has happened many times.

And here is the evidence to show climate change over the past 2000 years:

So what happens when we go further back in time?
"The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events."
So if that's what the science shows, how is it that Sdajii is claiming the scientific community believe climate change occurred faster through natural variation in the past?