Methuselah

Well, I, for one, am most certainly not looking forward to wind and sleety rain, next week!

So, supposing there was an asteroid impact sometime next week, who (if any) would you expect to survive? Because, my guess would be that the best chance would be handed to those least capable of fending for themselves - a very different type of genetic bottleneck to the one our species is thought to have previously survived...And, do you really believe that the spectre of politics wouldn't cloud people's ideas, on how to proceed, following such a global catastrophe? Because I, for one, have no doubt at all that it would: IMO, we'd be in a real-life Mad Max movie!

Political, moi?

I take it Watts is still struggling with his Trophim Lysenko text!

I've never discussed 'catastrophic warming' in my life!

But, how can we discuss the 'impacts' of something that might not (evens?) even happen

Good answer...But, wouldn't a race of chinless wonders emerge from the catacombs a few years' later?

If only I got extra points for guessing the median!

Sod it! Some tosseur has gone and erected an arc-light exactly where the Sun sets!

It could like many things in Nature, Mike; the combination of a lot of factors, many of which (individually anyway) go unnoticed; for example, Solar radiation apart, wouldn't urban smogs have caused a dip in recorded temperatures?

So long as it's not another Kahoutek!

Will you please refrain from making daft, pointless and off-topic posts? The thread is busy enough as it is...

So what's all the stuff about Solar Cycles and sunspots all about, then? They either are (as I believe them to be) central to the entire Climate Change enterprise, or they are not; but you cannot have it both ways...Surely, one doesn't need to cite a 'paper' to see that. Corbyn et al have been going-on about it for years... If the Sun's output was to reduce, the planet would cool until a new thermodynamic equilibrium was reached...Wouldn't it?

But then, if a well-documented (and widely-accepted by the 'It's the Sun what done it' brigade) decrease in Solar energy (Maunder minimum) didn't cause a global cool-down, how can the more recent (though contestable) higher Solar flux be put forward as an alternative excuse for the last half-century's warming? Och well, another one bites the dust!

Is there any evidence that it wasn't? There have been many equatorial 'refugia' that were untouched by the last major glaciation? Just because some localities are affected more than others, doesn't imply that events are not global...Isn't Antarctica bucking the present-day warming trend?

Before we see anything remotely similar to the LIA, a measurable degree of global cooling will need to occur. As yet, we've seen none at all.

That could be simply down to those who shout the loudest: It's cooling! It's warming! - or whatever - not knowing what a 'discontinuity' even is?

Except that the 'established' natural forcings clearly point toward cooling?

That's the point...the loons at WUWT were all up-in-arms, in denial, about something no-one's even said. Talk about being too quick to complain.

Isn't 'little further warming...' still warming?

Or directly from one of wotshername's incredible exploding breasts?

We'll hold you to that, Fred!

But weren't those storms also extraordinary, Keith?

Of course not, Ian...Anthony Watts would claim that the icebergs were all made out of polystyrene!

Isn't everything that relates to the future 'speculation', to some extent, Mike?