how stupid can denial get?

Originally posted by mjp2 ↑

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.

Expand

1a. My view is that recent interglacials have lasted from 10,000 to 30,000 years and moving forward now beyond 12,000 years of interglacial the ice age natural forcing/s is/are probably going to re-occur any time from now to 18000 years from now. It then comes down to a question - is the antropogenic CO2 forcing exceeding the natural forcing/s that cause ice ages?

OK - what is the Anthropogenic CO2 forcing (climate sensitivity)? AR5 consider it is most likely something between 1.5 to 4 degrees C (most likely but not certain) per doubling of CO2. We havent been able to rule out that climate sensitivity is < 1 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (or > 6 degrees C). On that basis we simply do not know if an ice age can be averted by current anhthropogenic CO2 emissions. I have said numerous times that it would be nice if climate sensitivity is sufficient to avert the next ice age but we just do not know if that is possible because we do not know what the climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration exactly is at this time.

1b. noted
1c. See AR5 climate sensitivity estimate range. We can say what it might do under certain assumptions but knowing the wide range of possibilities for CO2 sensitivity many other scenarios are equally as likely including a change from warming to persistent cooling due to ice age transition natural forcing exceeding CO2 forcing.

1d. Models are poor at predcting the future if they require us to assume future variable values when projecting forward - most humans tend to choose values that suit our opinion view/future income stream. If variables are not well understood (like climate sensitivity to CO2) then such a wide range of scenarios is possible that the value of the model as a predictive tool becomes dubious because all future states are predicted from less than 1 degree warming to 6+ with steady state natural forcings!

1e. Previous ice ages were around -12 degrees anomaly to current temp. If anthropogenic CO2 continues at 3PPM per annum (unlikely) it will take 130 years to do the next doubling and hydrocarbon resources will either be mostly exhausted (oil and gas) or replaced (coal) - even at the upper-most end of the likely sensitivity that is +4 degrees C anomaly in 130 years we then have 4870 years of carbon sink response to get to 5000 years. If a -12 degrees anomaly force kicks over the subsequent 5000 years then with 10,000 years of natural carbon sink activity available to reduce concentration and temperature before it does serious battle with 90,000 years of ice age......what will happen? At the bottom end of the likely CO2 sensitivity it is only +1.5 degrees C. Is that enough?