World is at its hottest since prehistory, say scientists

[KrazyHorse]

If you don't understand that it's troublesome that a rise in CO2 (which happens, for the sake of argument every 10 000 years) corellates to a 200 year industrialisation period then you should probably rethink your position. It's a definite sign that what we're doing is having a measurable impact.

[Odin]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Have any reference for the CO2 rise that 8.000 years ago ? There isn't a clear path in the wiki and I'm lazy

I couldn't find a good CO2 graph for the right time scale in wiki, but I rember seeing a graph in a book showing a jump in CO2 levels at that time, Coevolution of Earth and Life I think is the book.

[Odin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you don't understand that it's troublesome that a rise in CO2 (which happens, for the sake of argument every 10 000 years) corellates to a 200 year industrialisation period then you should probably rethink your position. It's a definite sign that what we're doing is having a measurable impact.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you don't understand that it's troublesome that a rise in CO2 (which happens, for the sake of argument every 10 000 years) corellates to a 200 year industrialisation period then you should probably rethink your position. It's a definite sign that what we're doing is having a measurable impact.

If we knew all the different things that influence the climate on this planet and we knew what size of impact they had and if if could be shown that it is manmade CO2 that are the main reason climate changes, then you have a point.

Unfortunatedly, that isn't the case. We doesn't have a clue wether it's manmade co2, cloud coverage, interstellar radiation, the sun or just variations of the planets orbit that causes current mesaured changes. We only guess.

That said, I though think that it will be reasonable to reduce co2 emmissions but based upon efficiency, not fear of something unknown.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat


If we knew all the different things that influence the climate on this planet and we knew what size of impact they had and if if could be shown that it is manmade CO2 that are the main reason climate changes, then you have a point.

Unfortunatedly, that isn't the case. We doesn't have a clue wether it's manmade co2, cloud coverage, interstellar radiation, the sun or just variations of the planets orbit that causes current mesaured changes. We only guess.

Did you bother to read what I just said?

It is extremely troubling that a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature are both happening at the point in history during which we are releasing for the first time a globally significant amount of CO2. We have a physical mechanism for a rise in temperature given a rise in CO2 levels. I don't have to have a detailed model to tell you that it is very unlikely for these to simply be coincidences.

It's almost as though you've never done scientific research in your life.

Have you?

[Berzerker]

Odin

Yes, You can find this stuff on any book on climate history.

You posted an article claiming the earth is hotter than it has been since pre-history but now you say the peak was 6,000 years ago and we've been cooling ever since. So which is it?

From your link, the sunspot and temp graphs follow similar curves. Doesn't that indicate a more important relationship than miniscule CO2 levels? The so-called mini ice age a few hundred years ago was likely a result of reduced solar activity.

KH

It is extremely troubling that a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature are both happening at the point in history during which we are releasing for the first time a globally significant amount of CO2.

We're talking tiny amounts, CO2 makes up about .04% of the atmosphere so a whopping 27% increase is insignificant. What should be troubling for our posterity is how close we are to previous temp peaks. Once we hit the peak the world is going to get colder fast. There is 110-115,000 year old evidence from France of a 7,000 year long warming trend reversing back to an ice advance within a matter of years, even a generation. It happened so fast they're not even sure it took more than a year or two for the reversal.

The globe aint too warm and its gonna get colder and there probably aint nuthin we can do about it.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Odin

You posted an article claiming the earth is hotter than it has been since pre-history but now you say the peak was 6,000 years ago and we've been cooling ever since. So which is it?

I ment it was cooling for 6000 years before we started pumping out CO2.

From your link, the sunspot and temp graphs follow similar curves. Doesn't that indicate a more important relationship than miniscule CO2 levels? The so-called mini ice age a few hundred years ago was likely a result of reduced solar activity.

The 2 sunspot minima were associated with the two coldest periods of the LIA, but they had nothing to do with causing the WHOLE cool period, which is more connected to a loosly 1500-year cycle, possibly caused by solar activity but possibly not, IN WHICH WE ARE STILL IN THE COOL PHASE. The temperature is going up IN SPITE OF BEING IN THE COOL PART OF THE 1500-YEAR CYCLE!

We're talking tiny amounts, CO2 makes up about .04% of the atmosphere so a whopping 27% increase is insignificant. What should be troubling for our posterity is how close we are to previous temp peaks. Once we hit the peak the world is going to get colder fast. There is 110-115,000 year old evidence from France of a 7,000 year long warming trend reversing back to an ice advance within a matter of years, even a generation. It happened so fast they're not even sure it took more than a year or two for the reversal.

The globe aint too warm and its gonna get colder and there probably aint nuthin we can do about it.

That "insignificant" amount of CO2 keeps the earth 30C warmer than it would be without it. You also have an extra 0 in your dates. The Upper Dryas cold period about 11,000 years ago was a result of a partial draining of Lake Agassiz into the North Atlantic, shutting off the North Atlantic Current. And it took a few decades, not a year or two for the temperature to drop. It was the final Heinrich Event (rapid warming folled by a rapid colling) of the last glacial, they don't happen during interglacials because there are no glacial lakes to cause the current shutoff. The current meltwater from Greenland will weaken the current, but only a catastrophic release of fresh water can cause it to shut off completely.

[Berzerker]

Odin

I ment it was cooling for 6000 years before we started pumping out CO2.

This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago.

Does not compute unless 2,000 years ago people were pumping out CO2. You're looking at small swings and ignoring the trend. We are near a peak in the cycle and the future is a cold one with ice sheets covering much of the northern latitudes. If I thought a 27% increase in the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would prevent the ice from returning I'd be damn happy. It aint gonna happen, the system is self-regulating. We get too warm (unavoidable) and a cold cycle is triggered. Btw, according to BCs link CO2 is 130% its pre-industrial level. It more than doubled and you think CO2 is responsible for 30 C? Where's the corresponding rise in temperature?

The temperature is going up IN SPITE OF BEING IN THE COOL PART OF THE 1500-YEAR CYCLE!

Again, you're looking at a swing and ignoring the trend. Since you described this cycle as "loosely" defined, where is the link?

That "insignificant" amount of CO2 keeps the earth 30C warmer than it would be without it. You also have an extra 0 in your dates. The Upper Dryas cold period about 11,000 years ago was a result of a partial draining of Lake Agassiz into the North Atlantic, shutting off the North Atlantic Current. And it took a few decades, not a year or two for the temperature to drop. It was the final Heinrich Event (rapid warming folled by a rapid colling) of the last glacial, they don't happen during interglacials because there are no glacial lakes to cause the current shutoff. The current meltwater from Greenland will weaken the current, but only a catastrophic release of fresh water can cause it to shut off completely.

I'm aware of the Younger Dryas, I'm talking about a reversal around 110,000 years ago that shows up in France in paleo-botany records. Btw, if CO2 had that great an impact, couldn't we stave off the next ice advance by pumping it into the
atmosphere?

Hey, pollution saves the world!

[Berzerker]

Maybe God has been giving us goody huts so that we could stumble into the technology to pollute our way out of an ice age

By what I've read about past climates when ice was at a minimum, life was quite plentiful. Course that was before the continents split up...

[Alexander's Horse]

Its snowing

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Did you bother to read what I just said?

It is extremely troubling that a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature are both happening at the point in history during which we are releasing for the first time a globally significant amount of CO2. We have a physical mechanism for a rise in temperature given a rise in CO2 levels. I don't have to have a detailed model to tell you that it is very unlikely for these to simply be coincidences.

It's almost as though you've never done scientific research in your life.

Have you?

We understand that it is extremely troubling TO YOU. It is you who are not reading what the Black Cat and Berzerker are writing.

If you are such an expert, tell me, what percentage of total atmospheric CO2 emissions are generated by man?

It's rather as though you've never done scientific research. Where does your evidence show causality? Why not hypothesize that the increase in temperature is causing the higher atmospheric CO2 level?

There are dozens of significant factors besides man-made CO2 emissions. How is it scientific to ignore them?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


We understand that it is extremely troubling TO YOU. It is you who are not reading what the Black Cat and Berzerker are writing.

If you are such an expert, tell me, what percentage of total atmospheric CO2 emissions are generated by man?

It's rather as though you've never done scientific research. Where does your evidence show causality? Why not hypothesize that the increase in temperature is causing the higher atmospheric CO2 level?

There are dozens of significant factors besides man-made CO2 emissions. How is it scientific to ignore them?

You managed to ignore my point yet again.

Why did the CO2 level, which is on a fairly long (by human standards) cycle choose to shoot up during the fairly short period in which we have been industrialised?

But thanks a lot for playing.

[Gangerolf]

its minus 8

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


We understand that it is extremely troubling TO YOU.

It should be extremely troubling to anybody with half a brain.

The data is compelling, son.

[Kuciwalker]

are