World is at its hottest since prehistory, say scientists

[Berzerker]

Odin

Berz shows is lack of knowledge on the subject by trying to use the glacial-interglacial cycles.

You cited ice core data going back 650,000 years claiming climate change is not cyclical and I linked ice core data going back 400,000 years showing the cyclical nature of climate change. You're wrong... again...

We HAVE been cooling from the peak of the current interglacial for the past 6000 years.

The peak of the current interglacial was 6,000 years ago and we've been cooling ever since?

More CO2 = warmer temperatures, it's right in the graph in your link. Anyone who disagrees with that fact is a MORON.

Who denied that more CO2 = warmer temperatures?

[joncha]

[Provost Harrison]

Hottest year? You must be bleeding joking

[Dis]

There also remains the possibility that in the future we may find a way to deal with this excess carbon. In fact, there have already been theories proposed to "bury it". I'm skeptical of these ideas. But maybe in the future something more concrete will come about.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin
Berz shows is lack of knowledge on the subject by trying to use the glacial-interglacial cycles.

We HAVE been cooling from the peak of the current interglacial for the past 6000 years. And where do you think that extra CO2 in the air came from in the past 200 years? More CO2 = warmer temperatures, it's right in the graph in your link. Anyone who disagrees with that fact is a MORON.

PWN3D

That link Berz provided isn't so easy to read, but try to take a look at :

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

unless I'm wrong, then it's the same data but shown together.

More CO2 -> warmer temp or warmer temp -> more CO2 ? MORON ? PWN3D ?

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but is it of significance in rising temperature or a result of rising temperature ?

[Japher]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

exactly!

we get to measure things for 40 years and then predict what will happen on a planet that is billions of years old!

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by joncha

So fitting

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker

The peak of the current interglacial was 6,000 years ago and we've been cooling ever since?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Just a minor detail. Your link states :

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

Is it reasonable to think that the temperature started to rise at that point ? I know it's wiki, but you introduced it

[Odin]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Is it reasonable to think that the temperature started to rise at that point ?

It did slowly rise until the late middle ages, and then the bottom fell out, The little Ice age was the coldest it has been in 10,000 years. The supposed "botoming out" is probably a statistical artifact created by that unusually long warming trend just before the Little Ice Age hit. And even if it had botomed out, if you look at the chart on the wiki page, the current world average temperature (marked by the "2004" with the arrow). is significantly above even the altithermal peak. The temperature went from the coldest it has been since 10,000 years ago to past the peak in 150 years. Thats pretty damn abnormal climate behavior for an interglacial period.

[General Ludd]

LOL ITS COLD TODAY, I HOPE THE WORLD INCINERATES

[BlackCat]

That doesn't differ much from the jump 8.000 years back - it looks pretty much as a 0.75 where we now has something like 1.0.

Stating that a 1.0 jump proves major human impact when a similiar 0.75 jump certainly can't be blamed on human impact can be a little troublesome. Well, some seriously biased censors would probably accept it.

[Odin]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That doesn't differ much from the jump 8.000 years back - it looks pretty much as a 0.75 where we now has something like 1.0.

Stating that a 1.0 jump proves major human impact when a similiar 0.75 jump certainly can't be blamed on human impact can be a little troublesome. Well, some seriously biased censors would probably accept it.

Both were associated with rises in CO2 levels. the differnece is that the earlier one was from a natural rise in CO2 levels, the current one is from an artificial rise in CO2 levels.

[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

[BlackCat]

Oh, forgot to ask - any comments at the point that CO2 seems to rise after the temperature as the Ice core data seems to suggest ?