[ctdonath]

Fact is there's a 125,000 year cycle. We're at the high of one, due for a long drop. When I bring out this long term data, funny how many people shriek at it - but there it is, and the "warmers" won't produce any graphs covering the same (or longer) periods.

Yes, the data is limited. BUT - I hunted it down, put it together, gave it what I considered fair context, and there it is. Don't like it? counter with your own half-million year graph, not snide religious insults.

[tstactplsignore]

It's almost as if the very scientists who collected, analyzed, and are most familiar with the 125,000 year cycle are also the ones who are very worried about the current trends.

The simple point is that CO2 levels are likely higher now than in the last 20 million years[1], and the current rate of temperature change is likely faster now than any time in the last 65 million years [2]. The prehistorical cycles are large, but they are also slow- we're acting on unprecedentedly fast timescales now. How you can be so arrogant is beyond me. Do you think that climatologists, the very people who produced our complete understanding of our Earth's past, are merely unaware of prehistorical cycles? Perhaps they're "ignoring" it? (...while continuing to publish about and do research on them). Do you think you're more clever than scientists, who somehow haven't noticed that there are long term climate cycles in their published results, despite still managing to write extensively about them? It must be a bizarre mindset which leads to your arrogance.

1. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat...

2. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/486

[ctdonath]

Arrogant? All I did was graph long term data and present it, observing that people freak when it shows something other than what their doctrine insists.

Sure I expect those scientists are familiar with the timeframe I present. Then why don't they present it? Why no comments on the non-warming of the last decade? If 20M years of CO2 data, then why no graphs showing correlation with temps? (BTW, CO2 lags temp.) How about that massive arctic ice sheet growing now growing well beyond normal reach? And ya gotta admit the frequency of global warming conferences getting snowed out is just funny.

[cromulent]

How about "that massive arctic ice sheet growing now growing well beyond normal reach"? What do you mean?

Reports I have seen show that although the ice did not drop to last year's record low (instead regressing towards the mean as you would expect), it was still well below the average for the last 30 years and the trend is towards reduced ice.

Are you suggesting that this year's result means the trend has reversed?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/arctic-se...

[Daishiman]

> Arrogant? All I did was graph long term data and present it, observing that people freak when it shows something other than what their doctrine insists.

You're arrogant because you believe that a single graph disproves or even begins to question the work of hundreds of doctoral and post-doctoral theses and thousands of man-years of research by people much smarter and informed than what you may find in this thread.

And while there are certainly many fields of human endavour with questionable analysis, climate science is not one of them.

[jmackinn]

Tried to check your sources, and for the first could not find anything talking about CO2 levels going back 20 million years, and the second links to a non existent article.

[cromulent]

When you say the "warmers won't produce any graphs covering the same periods", I think you are wrong. They do.

Here's an example.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html