re: #40 djughurknot

I just don’t get it. People try to invoke Occam’s razor, saying that the science is too convoluted to be a plausible explanation. They say that it is too complex to grasp fully. After spending a few months learning about natural earth processes and how the atmosphere is related to the Atlantic ocean conveyor, it seemed absurdly simple. Couple it with the observable effects of ozone and CO2 and sunlight, and it’s hard for me to square the observations with anything else. Much simpler than “teh sky gods will save us so it doesn’t matter”!!1!

I can’t believe we’re trying to force a spin on observable, detectable phenomena. As though it carries some moral value. Ick.

my 2 cents.

The key to the debate is not whether the last century or so has been warming — that is beyond question — it’s whether the recent warming is unique. If it isn’t, then global warming is not an urgent problem.

We know that the north Atlantic area was warmer when the Vikings colonized Greenland, but was the whole world? Different proxies yield different results. For example, if you just study the location of the tree-line, the world was warmer 1000 years ago. The Wilson, Hendy & Reynolds stalagmite study show that New Zealand was warmer 1000 years ago. There are dozens of studies showing the same trends.

But dozens of other studies do not agree.

This is the real debate.