The article makes it clear that 812 is merely the extent of the historical record-keeping, not that 812 had a remarkably early peak. The article also includes a graph that illustrates no obvious cyclical behavior over that time span.
Starting comments with "lol ok" isn't in keeping with HN guidelines, by the way.
Some things cycle, and some things trend. Look up the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and tell us: is that cycling or is it trending upwards? Look up the temperature in the past 100 years and tell us: is that cycling or trending upwards?
Judging based on your "lol ok", you may not be here to advance the dialogue.
So to be clear (some responses imply this, but I figured it's worth calling out) - "since 812" is not saying 812 it was this early. It wasn't. This is the earliest -we've ever recorded-. And the records go back to 812.