"Peter D. Tillman" wrote:
Yes, and this may be the best result of the current 'global warming'
kerfluffle, as real paleoclimatology research is getting funded.

Well, that's an interesting point of view for you to have on the matter.
How's the weather down there in Santa Fe, by the way?

The Ice Age climate was dramatically different from that of the
present era.

A dramatic difference between the states of a system at two times is
the hallmark of the existence of a phenomenon known as a phase
transition. Invariably that means that the system can exist in
multiple states under a given set of conditions and that its
current state is actually not only history dependent, but that this
very dependence means there will also exist hysteresis, and that you
are, in fact, in a hysteresis region.

The slightest change in parameters in a hysteresis region, beyond
a certain threshold, can push you straight into another of its
possible states. And a phase transition takes place in a system
it can be very abrupt. For a system, like the Earth's climate,
this means: not millennia, not centuries, and probably not even
decades -- but over time periods even as short as a single season.

And as you accumulate more evidence, you will find that these
types of climate changes took place in times as short as a few
seasons, very likely even within the same decade.

Gradualism is a dangerously and even irresponsibly flawed premise
when it comes to dealing with any kind of system that is already
known to exhibit phase transition behavior.

Unfortunately, it can be hard to distinguish the real researchers from
the 'political scientists' with an axe to grind, especially the
anti-industrial ones and their leftie opportunist politico-hangers-on.
Speaking as a totally unbiased observer GG.

There is no distinction. Science also exhibits a political dimension
along with the conservative vs. liberal distinction. The more
conservative scientist tends to keep with the dominant paradigm of the
time, and the liberal one is the one pushing a new paradigm.
You can't get away from politics. It's all one big ape show.

Does someone have a pointer(s) to a recent, unbiased review article on
the causes of major climate changes?

Do a search on nonequilibrium dynamics. That's the whole point of
the idea of the phase change phenomenon. It doesn't need a cause
in any usual sense of the word. The system, itself, is simply
unstable and can exist in multiple states, for a given set of
conditions. The state is NOT a function of the system's current
conditions. It's also history-dependent, in virtue of the
hysteresis.

The Schloegl Model is a perfect example of this type of system.
An even simpler system is a bent rod. The 2 states are the up
state and down state. Pushing the rod in increases the hysteresis
effect. Pushing it up or down the right way hard enough can
cause it to abruptly change over to the other state. The transition
is more abrupt and hysteresis region deeper, the harder the rod
is pushed in. The Schloegl Model is the chemical equivalent of
this system.

Right now, the world's climate is in the middle of a phase
transition. Politics and policies are irrelevant. They won't
have any bearing in the issue anymore, because it's too late.
You'll just have to sit back and watch to see what new state
the climate transitions into over the next few years. I eagerly
await the outcome.