The curious case of mis 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

sculptor

Valued Senior Member
The curious case of marine isotope stage (mis) 7
ois-plot.png

seemingly cooler than the holocene(mis 1) which is cooler than mis 5, 9 and 11
and yet
as/re coastal studies in Brazil, had a mean sea level (msl) 10 meters higher than current.
(bearing in mind that the holocene highstand 5-7ka was 2-3 and possible 5 meters above current.)

So, what are we to make of this mis 7 data?
 
Last edited:
The curious case of marine isotope stage (mis) 7
ois-plot.png

seemingly cooler than the holocene(mis 1) which is cooler than mis 5, 9 and 11
and yet
as/re coastal studies in Brazil, had a mean sea level (msl) 10 meters higher than current.
(bearing in mind that the holocene highstand 5-7ka was 2-3 and possible 5 meters above current.)

So, what are we to make of this mis 7 data?

Nothing, without more information about it.

Have you a reference or a link, ideally not from a climate change denial crank site?
 
Nothing, without more information about it.

Have you a reference or a link, ideally not from a climate change denial crank site?
dear ex:
Could you provide a link to your favorite " climate change denial crank site"?
I do not know of any, nor have I visited any, and, I think that anyone who would deny climate change, or thinks that they can control climate change is a complete and total nut-job.
that being said:
for the mis 7 highstand please read
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652014000401573
or
https://www.academia.edu/14614642/T...lain_of_the_state_of_Rio_Grande_do_Sul_Brazil
 
dear ex:
Could you provide a link to your favorite " climate change denial crank site"?
I do not know of any, nor have I visited any, and, I think that anyone who would deny climate change, or thinks that they can control climate change is a complete and total nut-job.
that being said:
for the mis 7 highstand please read
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652014000401573
or
https://www.academia.edu/14614642/T...lain_of_the_state_of_Rio_Grande_do_Sul_Brazil
No I don't have one, but there will be plenty, I have no doubt. By analogy with the methods used by creationists, I would expect these sites to pick on obscure research papers which seem to show anomalous results, which they can try to blow up into major findings, casting the whole of the related science into doubt. :D

These seem to be 2 versions of the same paper. I cannot seem to find your graph in either version. Where did you get your graph from, assuming you did not draw it yourself?

P.S. Pending the arrival of this information, 2 things to think about:
1) the sea level rise measured in the paper may not be a true value, as they themselves mention it is possible tectonic processes may have been involved,

2) As I understand it, 18O concentration in seawater does not have to correlate 100% with prevailing temperature. It reflects the degree of glaciation, but this could be also affected by other influences, such as the rates of rise and fall of temperature, patterns of ocean currents and I don't know what else. Perhaps when you provide the source of your graph, this may become clearer.
 
Last edited:
No I don't have one, but there will be plenty, I have no doubt. By analogy with the methods used by creationists, I would expect these sites to pick on obscure research papers which seem to show anomalous results, which they can try to blow up into major findings, casting the whole of the related science into doubt. :D

These seem to be 2 versions of the same paper. I cannot seem to find your graph in either version. Where did you get your graph from, assuming you did not draw it yourself?

P.S. Pending the arrival of this information, 2 things to think about:
1) the sea level rise measured in the paper may not be a true value, as they themselves mention it is possible tectonic processes may have been involved,

2) As I understand it, 18O concentration in seawater does not have to correlate 100% with prevailing temperature. It reflects the degree of glaciation, but this could be also affected by other influences, such as the rates of rise and fall of temperature, patterns of ocean currents and I don't know what else. Perhaps when you provide the source of your graph, this may become clearer.

Yeh, that chart was not from the article linked
It seems that I had that one from looking into the various stages of mis 5-----posted because it showed mis 7
here's another from https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ice_age_temperature.png
ice_age_temperature.png

this one shows mis 7 warmer than the other, but still cooler than mis 1,5,9, and 11
of course the temperatures are derived from proxies so are open to some interpretation.

and another:
meltdown_part1_fig3.jpg

the curiosity stems from the seeming disparity of temp and sea level
ergo the query
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotope_stage

Marine isotope stages (MIS), marine oxygen-isotope stages, or oxygen isotope stages (OIS), are alternating warm and cool periods in the Earth's paleoclimate, deduced from oxygen isotope data reflecting changes in temperature derived from data from deep sea core samples. Working backwards from the present, which is MIS 1 in the scale, stages with even numbers have high levels of oxygen-18 and represent cold glacial periods, while the odd-numbered stages are troughs in the oxygen-18 figures, representing warm interglacial intervals. The data are derived from pollen and foraminifera (plankton) remains in drilled marine sediment cores, sapropels, and other data that reflect historic climate; these are called proxies.

1024px-Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg.png
 
wow
Has it only been 15 years since Lorraine Lisiecki and Maureen Raymo published the LR04 stack?....(seems longer)
The final vindication for Cesare Emiliani ..............standing on the shoulders of giants who are standing on shoulders of giants who are standing on shoulders of giants ...etc...

Thanks for the pix-----shows that mis 7 (second double peek from right)was cooler
which leads me back to the above cited by Lopes et. al.
Were their conclusions accurate?
Was the double peak of mis 7 indicative of a longer than normal interglacial?
Was the double peak what allowed for the + 10 meter highstand?

.................................
One little problem with proxies from ocean coring is that they are seemingly worthless in knowing the actual temperature variations of any given location
eg:
Fosheim Dome on Ellesmere Island. This site includes terrestrial deposits dated to ~1.1 Ma, which enclose fossil beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages, suggesting temperatures 8° to 14°C above modern values-----S. A. Elias, J. V. Matthews Jr., Can. J. Earth Sci. 39, 911 (2002).

while the lr04 indicates a temperature variation of less than 1 degreeC

(sigh)
 
Yeh, that chart was not from the article linked
It seems that I had that one from looking into the various stages of mis 5-----posted because it showed mis 7
here's another from https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ice_age_temperature.png
ice_age_temperature.png

this one shows mis 7 warmer than the other, but still cooler than mis 1,5,9, and 11
of course the temperatures are derived from proxies so are open to some interpretation.

and another:
meltdown_part1_fig3.jpg

the curiosity stems from the seeming disparity of temp and sea level
ergo the query

Bingo! Here is the relevant Wiki article on your "source": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?

So it is precisely what I thought it might be: a climate change denial crank site, doing just what the creationist sites do, as I described.

I think I have better things to do than jump through hoops to explain the significance or otherwise of what this guy has dug up.

And I have also exposed you as a liar, I rather think. This is a climate change denial site, a stance that you describe as "nutjob", so crank. Yet you read the material on that site and then post out-of-context extracts here, without supporting links, while denying that you have visited any.
 
Last edited:
Bingo! Here is the relevant Wiki article on your "source": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?

So it is precisely what I thought it might be: a climate change denial crank site, doing just what the creationist sites do, as I described.

I think I have better things to do than jump through hoops to explain the significance or otherwise of what this guy has dug up.

And I have also exposed you as a liar, I rather think. This is a climate change denial site, a stance that you describe as "nutjob", so crank. Yet you read the material on that site and then post out-of-context extracts here, without supporting links, while denying that you have visited any.

It may have escaped your notice...
BUT
The chart posted (#6) by RainboeSingularity shows roughly the same thing
Anthony Watts did not make this up, nor pull it out of his ass..............
Perhaps, you are not unbiased? .........
Is it ever too late to learn to ignore the bullshit, and retrieve the occasional gem with the approximation of truth?
(personally, it matters little to me where i found a chart so long as it approximates other charts that I have studied)
...............................
clarification:
What I said was that "mis 7 was seemingly cooler than the holocene(mis 1) which is cooler than mis 5, 9 and 11
and yet
as/re coastal studies in Brazil, had a mean sea level (msl) 10 meters higher than current."

Can you forget Tony for a moment, and find the lie in what I actually posted?
Or.................................................................?
 
Last edited:
Some further information on this Watts character: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

He is, I see, a college dropout with no training in the relevant science. So the parallels with creationism get more and more marked. :rolleyes:

I am not here to defend Anthony Watts, nor his fellow posters. If you wish to bash Anthony Watts, go ahead, I ain't gonna stand in your way.

I'm here to discuss the science involved in climate change based on known previous interglacials, and the whole of the holocene(so far)!

That's it, that is all that I am currently interested in.
Have you anything constructive to add to the discussion of MIS 7?
 
I am not here to defend Anthony Watts, nor fellow his posters.

I'm here to discuss the science involved in climate change.
On you go, then.

Me, I prefer to discuss science with honest people, who provide the sources, authorship and context for the material they want to discuss.
 
Dead right: I've been discussing it with you.
No
No you have not.

You've not been discussing the curious case of MIS 7.

.................................
that being "said"
I agree that 16 and 18 O do not have a 1:1 correlation to temperature...............(that would be too easy?)
 
creationing denial up ya climate for a change

layers designed to simply drown out the real science and tire the reader into feeling they have gathered large amounts of data, like watching endless imitations of the apprentice
then deciding the person doing the most shouting & pointing is probably 100% scientifically correct

when anyone asks a technical question you cant answer without being shown to be a tin-foil hat wearing liar..
you post lots of squiggly lines(graphs that have poor keys and lack scientific relevance to the scientific data)
 
I'm here to discuss the science involved in climate change based on known previous interglacials, and the whole of the holocene(so far)!
You have ignored, refused, dismissed, or denigrated, all attempts at discussing the "science involved in climate change". You have then posted Republican Party (corporate fossil fuel funded) propaganda memes and publicity feeds from known shills and corrupt sources as if they, and not the AGW research findings, should be the topic of all climate threads.

You have also praised, "liked", and supported others here likewise - and even more obviously - engaged in spreading Republican Party media feeds and propaganda memes.

You have never done otherwise - never posted and defended anything from the research and findings of AGW investigators that the US Republican Party was attacking via its media feeds.

So we have your posting to inform us of why you are here:

You are here to post innuendo that casts doubt on all scientific research and findings of AGW,
and denigrate - personally - any scientist or journalist or bystander who takes the published research seriously.
You've not been discussing the curious case of MIS 7.
To the extent that it is relevant to AGW findings and research, it's been discussed here - several times. AGW is a topic of interest, and draws some discussion.

It's not that "curious" of a "case", after all, except to specialists - especially not in its apparently normal and standard relationship to AGW.
Discussion of it, especially in the context of AGW,

which must be carried on largely without your participation, notice, as you do not post anything that implicates you or makes you accountable for definite claims about verifiable physical events,

simply doesn't last long.
 
I think that anyone who would deny climate change, or thinks that they can control climate change is a complete and total nut-job.
But human beings have been controlling climate change since the industrial revolution, by pumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, much of it from fossil fuels. Do you disagree?
 
But human beings have been controlling climate change since the industrial revolution, by pumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, much of it from fossil fuels. Do you disagree?
Yes James, I do disagree!
Forget for the moment that we were warming out of the little ice age since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and added in instrument bias.
You "speak" of control-----------who was in control? Was a conscious decision made by any human being when loading the atmosphere with more CO2?

anecdote
circa 1958, when I was a child of about 10, my older brother and his friend claimed that they knew how to drive the tractor. I knew that I did not know how to drive a tractor, but I had figured out how to hotwire it. So, I started the tractor which was in the garage facing the rear of the garage----it was in gear. As the tractor lurched forward, my brother and his friend jumped off. Uh Oh... miraculously, all by itself the tractor did a u-turn around the center post in the garage without hitting the post, headed down the driveway, turned left into the front yard and ran into a tree, which broke its radiator while digging 2 trenches in the lawn. I pulled the wires and shut it off.
I had a causal role in the action, but I submit that nobody was in control.

Looking at past climates ( I wish that I could simply phrase that better----it is all one climate--one earth---one sun---one arm of the galaxy through which we wander up and down into or away from more mass, more gravity.)----How about "past glacials and interglacials" ---glacial cycles
Looking at past glacial cycles, as out technology has improved, it becomes apparent that the old model of 2 steady states (90k yrs of ice--10k years of no ice) is grossly oversimplified and, well just wrong.
first-----------there is no steady state
Change is a constant. Understanding the cause and effect of that constant(change) then becomes a worthwhile endeavour. And, the only way to understand the present course of change is to look at past changes with an unbiased eye.

Overuse of agw as a definitive causal agent of climate change is a decided bias which will doom its adherents to continued ignorance.

.................................
Back to this thread(if you please):
Mis 7 was an anomaly (discounting mis 3), mis 7 was the coolest of the last 4 interglacials, and had higher sea levels, and a more heavily forested southern europe.
Mis 7 may have seen the birth of sapiens sapiens, the development of h. neanderthalensis,
and possibly the last of h, heidelbergensis.
Unfortunately, we have more information about mis 5, mis 11, and possibly mis 9 than we do of mis 7
Mis 7 was also a rather long interglacial, which could, so it seems, have accounted for the higher ocean highstand contained therein.
Definitely a curious case!
ergo this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top