3 ms·
We are discussing “climate change”, something that has been occurring over the past 200 or so years. Yet the first link your provide in response to my query is
by dwaltrip 6y ago
We are discussing “climate change”, something that has been occurring over the past 200 or so years.
Yet the first link your provide in response to my query is discussing cycles with periods of 100,000 years, with no mention of anything related to the modern climate change events (at least, nothing in the abstract).
... What’s the deal? This is a complete non-sequitor.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoAnd neglects to address the other points.
- dwaltrip 6y agoIt isn't worth responding to secondary points if the primary point of discussion has devolved into non-sequiturs. It would be a distraction from the important parts.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoI fail to see your assertion that the other points are non-sequitor. OP states: > And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. And then goes on to provide you studies about oceanic cycles that stand unchallenged.
- dwaltrip 6y ago100,000 year climate cycles are not what anyone was referring to in earlier comments when they said “climate change”. We are talking about the changes over the recent centuries which have been driven by co2 emissions. It was a misleading change of topic.