The last interglacial period 115,000 years ago was 8 degrees C. warmer than today

I hear and read all the time it is the warmest EVER by the climate change alarmist yet when records are checked they are almost always FOS ! Here is one more item that might want to be considered when you hear such things.

It is a precondition for the feasibility of the method that bare land exists in the vicinity of the drill site, so dust particles can be found. This was the case during the last interglacial as the temperature then, app. 115,000 years ago, was up to 8 degrees C. warmer than today, according to a former study from the Niels Bohr Institute. Hence, the method will most likely be usable in North East Greenland and Canada. The researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute are already establishing new collaborations with Canadian researchers based on the new method.

Drilling of the ice core ReCap was supported by The Danish National Research Foundation, the American National Science Foundation, the German Alfred Wegener Institute and the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The measurements of dust were supported by the EU funding ice2ice and Horizon 2020—TIPES.

This does not fit the scenario AGW is cause by mankind ....
phys.org...

a reply to: 727Sky

So the climate change 115000 years ago, about which little is known....does not meet current fairy tales about climate.

Got it.

Because science?

a reply to: sunkuong

Im sure God's got this all figured out.

No need to science.

bigleaguepolitics.com...
Scientific Journal Forced to Retract ‘Landmark’ Climate Change Study Due to Falsehoods

The journal Nature had to retract the study that claimed oceans were warming due to climate change.

The scientific community was forced to admit that they published fake news and had to retract a false study in the prestigious journal Nature last week.

The journal admitted that a study that indicated oceans were warming rapidly due to the effects of climate change was false. It was initially published in the journal on Oct. 31, 2018, and conducted by academics at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The researchers refused to admit that their results were faulty despite the fact they owned up to making certain errors that affected the results of their work.

originally posted by: 727Sky
This does not fit the scenario AGW is cause by mankind ....
phys.org...

Nobody claimed it does. There's more than one way to heat up the Earth. More sunlight is one way that can happen as it did 115,000 years ago due to the Earth's orbit being different, see Milankovich cycles.

Another way to heat up the Earth is to change the composition of the atmosphere, and that too can happen with or without man's involvement.

There's no doubt the atmospheric composition is changing as a result of man's activities. What there are doubts about is exactly what effect that will have on the climate considering not only that but also all other factors affecting the climate too, including the Earth's orbit and other factors.

The warming trend will likely continue for some time, but eventually the earth will tend toward entering another ice age some tens of thousands of years from now unless we can find some way to prevent that. When that happens, more CO2 may be seen as a way of saving the planet, instead of destroying it.

Each of the three last temperature maximums, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval, have each been colder than the last, and the current one is even colder. The long-term trend is colder, not warmer.

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: 727Sky

So the climate change 115000 years ago, about which little is known....does not meet current fairy tales about climate.

Got it.

Because science?

We are in an ice age. How much of Earth's history has been in an ice age. What science says Earth should remain in an ice age and will never come out of it?

The Earth is going to warm, that's science. The only question is when and how much.

The study linked is about the rate at which glaciers advance and retreat, it's not so much about temperatures during interglacial periods. But it does reference this study from 2013.
homepages.vub.ac.be...
But that 8 degree temperature difference is not above "today", it above the mean of the last 1,000 years, at the drilling site. Today is warmer than that too.

On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation.

Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.

It is studies such as this which reinforce the theory that Milankovitch cycles are involved with glacial cycles and involve changes over thousands of years. According to Milankovitch cycles, we should be experiencing slow and slight cooling. Not warming. And indeed, that cooling trend seems to have existed until quite recently.



The CO2 we've been pumping into the atmosphere is mucking it up.

a reply to: Phage

Co2 is only .4 percent of the green house gases. Nitrogen is 78% and O2 is 20%. Co2 is not the driver of temperature, it is way too insignificant to effect weather.

The reason why you think that and why the alarmist fool you is because CO2 will increase when there is more animals and human life.

Also because we have been moving out of the Ice Age for thousands of years temperature will gradually increase.

Thus, the CO2 and Temperature graph trends in the same direction but really it's temperature that increases and CO2 lags behind as human life continue to thrive in warmer climates.

We know that CO2 is not the reason for climate change because you can look at the ice core in the arctic and it's been 4x greater in the past but we experience different climates from the Ice Age where CO2 was extremely high to the Jurassic Period with the climate was more Tropical. This concludes Co2 is not the driver and it's probably due to celestial events and changes in planetary alignments.

a reply to: ambassado12

Co2 is only .4 percent of the green house gases. Nitrogen is 58% and O2 is 20%.

Neither nitrogen or oxygen are greenhouse gases.

The reason why you think that and why the alarmist fool you is because CO2 will increase when there is more animals and human life.

Not really. The CO2 which humans and animals expel comes from the atmosphere (from plants), it's part of a cycle. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon which was buried for millions of years. And we can tell the difference.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also because we have been moving out of the Ice Age for thousands of years temperature will gradually increase.

But it hasn't been. Until recently.

We know that CO2 is not the reason for climate change because you can look at the ice core in the arctic and it's been 4x greater in the past but we experience different climates from the Ice Age where CO2 was extremely high to the Jurassic Period with the climate was more Tropical. This concludes Co2 is not the driver and it's probably due to celestial events and changes in planetary alignments.

CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least 2 million years and yes it was warmer before that and sea levels were much higher. Probably because of all that CO2, some of which we are putting back into the atmosphere.

The last time levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high came during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During that period, average sea levels were about 50 feet higher than they are today and forests grew as far north as the Arctic, said Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University. “Earth was a very different place,” he said. “You would hardly recognize the land surface, and my gosh, we don’t want to go there.”

www.nbcnews.com...