Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
So they're making a claim about 2000 years based on 20 years of study. Woot for science!

Let me guess, you are against the big bang theory because we didnt start studying it 14 billion years ago.

No, genius, but they couldn't possibly measure the wider variances. There might not be just one cycle, there could be cycles within cycles. The point is, you can't know by observing 20 years...at least not well enough to make such an outlandish claim.

For the record, I'm against the Big Bang theory because it doesn't make an ounce of freakin' sense.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
So they're making a claim about 2000 years based on 20 years of study. Woot for science!

Let me guess, you are against the big bang theory because we didnt start studying it 14 billion years ago.

No, genius, but they couldn't possibly measure the wider variances. There might not be just one cycle, there could be cycles within cycles. The point is, you can't know by observing 20 years...at least not well enough to make such an outlandish claim.

For the record, I'm against the Big Bang theory because it doesn't make an ounce of freakin' sense.

Where do you get this "20 years" crap? The researchers specifically reconstructed the world's climate over the past 2,000 years. Did you actually read the linked article?

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
So they're making a claim about 2000 years based on 20 years of study. Woot for science!

Let me guess, you are against the big bang theory because we didnt start studying it 14 billion years ago.

No, genius, but they couldn't possibly measure the wider variances. There might not be just one cycle, there could be cycles within cycles. The point is, you can't know by observing 20 years...at least not well enough to make such an outlandish claim.

For the record, I'm against the Big Bang theory because it doesn't make an ounce of freakin' sense.

Yeah, a lot of modern physics is that way. As a physicist, I'll apologize for all of us: I'm sorry that we have advanced it beyond the point of intuitive observables that can be grasped by people who don't devote their lives to studying it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: etech
Warmest in 2000 years.

How many tons of greenhouse gases was man putting into the air 2000 years ago?

No the real question is how many tons of greenhouse gases mother earth has been expelling over the past 2000 years. Which would be, many many many times more than man. Heck mother earth has probably expelled more green houses gases in the last decade than man has in the last decade.

We know how much gases were expelled over 2000 years, we know even far beyond 2000 years. No, "Mother Earth" has not expelled more Greenhouse gases in the last decade than man. Read the data, some things, such as what the result will be is an unknown to a point, but the amount of gases and who/what has expelled those gases is a known.

 

[conehead433]

Well a crude thermometer was invented in 1612 by Galileo and a mercury thermometer came along in 1714 after being invented by Gabriel Daniel of Danzig. So looks like recorded temperatures could have only taken place since then. If you believe that tree trunk stuff is an exact science you probably also believe you can get messages from your dearly departed loved ones on the show Crossing Over.