I think what he is trying to say is that it is warming up faster that earlier evidence shows, and that the reasons are different from previous warming periods.
If the sea level rises as much as it has in past warm periods, 8 feet or so, our big coastal cities are in big trouble. The last time there were not many big coastal cities, and if the warming was slower, there was more time to move without major economic and societal disruption. In the next ten years I plan to sell my beach property and encourage my son to move out of Miami. Also have bought some land in the hills to build a retirement home.
Agreed, that's what he was trying to say. Both of which are opinions, not fact.
The original poster was pointing out that it's warming now, and it's warmed in the past. He replied, "probably not", changing the topic and misleading the orginal poster. From fact, "It's warming again", to opinion, "i think this time is different".
I plan to sell my beach property and encourage my son to move out of Miami.
During the leadup to y2k, the news was full of "experts" claiming all the computers in the world were going to crash, the "grid would go down", no power, missles will launch themselves, you wouldn't be able to get money, etc.
At the time, I worked for CSC and was working on y2k updates for major financial institutions. There was not one whit of truth to any of it. Of the 50,000+ people at our company, the real 'experts', you couldn't find one single person who agreed with the press' "experts". Yet "the story" went on.
Of course then they all turned out to be wrong. And now the same folks are on to the next "crisis".
I've looked in-depth into the evidence. They appear to be very wrong. Cogitator and I have had long, drawn out discussions on the details. As I looked into the details, it became clear they're speculating wildly. And talking in this kind of double-speak.
But hey, I could be wrong. Altho with silicone breast implants, Katrina coverage, Iraq war coverage, etc . . . "the story" that the mainstream press pushes is, in my opinion, always to be assumed to be off-base.
But hey, eventually they have to get *one* thing right, so we'll see.
Basically. There have been periods during the glacial/interglacial transitions when there were very fast, very large changes (notably at the termination of the Younger Dryas). But the current rate of change within a stable interglacial appears highly unusual (bordering on unprecedented, as far as can be ascertained from data with insufficient temporal resolution to be sure), and the main forcing, increasing atmospheric CO2 during a warm interglacial phase, is indeed different than seen in the ice core record.
Note for further information on a different subject: The surprising legacy of Y2K