The curious case of mis 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
, the exact definition of an interglacial is not simply stated. We live in such an interglacial. Human actions, increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, ensure that our climate will become warmer in the next century and remain warm for many millennia to come [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013]. This makes particularly pertinent the study of periods in which at least sectors of the Earth system may have been “warmer” than they are currently.
Our understanding of the climate of our current interglacial is good in a static sense: given the boundary conditions (solar irradiance, astronomical characteristics, geography, ice cover, and concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases such as CO2) and the resulting radiation balance of the planet. However, we cannot currently give a satisfactory explanation of how the climate system evolved to this state: why we live in an interglacial at this time, or indeed why we live in an interglacial embedded in 100 ka rather than 40 ka cycles.
read more at:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015RG000482
 
Overuse of agw as a definitive causal agent of climate change is a decided bias which will doom its adherents to continued ignorance.
Not sure what you mean by "overuse". To deny anthropogenic global heating in 2019 is pure idiocy, typically seen from those who have a vested interest of one kind or another. The scientific data is in. It is time to recognise that we've been heating our planet for a long time now, and we need to start thinking about how long we want to continue down that track, taking into account the costs in the short and longer term.
 
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.
Which is exactly what the AGW researchers have been doing - including the valuable information from mis 7 in their investigations, of course, for decades now.
The current Republican administration - like the recent past ones - has been trying to prevent them from doing that, publishing their findings, etc.
Overuse of agw as a definitive causal agent of climate change is a decided bias which will doom its adherents to continued ignorance.
Fortunately such overuse is almost nonexistent and has few "adherents", none of them powerful or even influential.

Unfortunately, "underuse" of the threat from AGW in guiding government policy is epidemic - deliberate, willful, motivated, actively engaged "underuse"; billionaire bought and paid for "underuse"; widespread and powerfully backed and dominatingly influential "underuse".
Definitely a curious case!
ergo this thread.
No.
This thread was "ergo" the need of Republican allied fossil fuel interests to deflect attention from the immediate threats of AGW to something safe and obscure and distant from taxes or regulations or government restrictions on fossil fuel corporations, water supply owners, trade and economic policy settings, and so forth.

That is what the actually existing bias looks like, and you are shilling for it here - as noted:
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.
 
Not sure what you mean by "overuse". .
James
Is this thread not obvious enough ?
I started this thread to have a discussion about climate science . mis 7 in particular.
Along came a couple climate science deniers spouting their overused agw mantra in an attempt to avoid or disrupt a real discussion of climate science.
There is no sane nor logical way to connect agw to mis 7 and, yet, here we have it. overused and inappropriate.
 
It would seem James, that by moving this attempt at a discussion of the earth's climate to the cesspool, you have rather made my point for me.
 
It would seem James, that by moving this attempt at a discussion of the earth's climate to the cesspool, you have rather made my point for me.
The point has been made, but not the one you think.
 
The point has been made, but not the one you think.
as always
Perspective matters.
The more you focuses on one thing, the less likely you are to see other things.
In my youth, that was commonly referred to as being narrow minded.
This thread was intended to be about mis 7.
I can appreciate that not everyone would be interested in discussing or reading about the climate of mis 7. Few cared about the thread: Mamontovaya Kurya and Byzovaya sites.
Had those who were not interested not posted, the thread would have been left unattended and faded from view. Easy transition if no one else is interested.
However, an attempt to discuss the earth's paleoclimates was not intended as a shibboleth for those whose interest in climate go no further than agw
Again---eye of the beholder---perspective matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top