Talk:Holocene climatic optimum

message: (William M. Connolley 14:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: The milankovitch section (DF?) is completely unref'd. However I left it. I took out the sunspots pic, because (if we believe the M section) its irrelevant. It also doesn't seem to be ref'd in the text. William M. Connolley 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes? 

message: The article Middle Jomon about Japan links to Thermal optimum which says merely "The thermal optimum (between 4000 and 2000 BC), was a period when temperatures reached several degrees Celsius higher than the present, and the seas were higher by 5 to 6 meters" with no source. Should Thermal optimum be redirected here? I do not see the statement here about the sea level. Edison 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to sea level the statement about SL is simply wrong. I doubt the T stuff too (except locally). Anyway I've changed the link to HCO and removed the dodgy text William M. Connolley 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thermal optimum

message: I'm not an expert on this subject but I came here because global warming interests me. Could someone speak about the CO2 levels at this time period please. Since this is such a topic of interest now days. Bryanpeterson 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 

message: undid William's changes, as the graph clearly does show every line (but the yellow-orange line) going above the most current recorded temperature (2004), and is consistant with the text.
:Please check the image page for the graph. Each of the colored graphs seems to be local/regional figures, with a large amount of uncertainty - so you shouldn't conclude anything from it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  More, you could just as easily write "0.5 to 2 *colder*" than mid-20th-C by looking at the individual lines - why should we be interested in pickin gout the warm side of the wiggles? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warmer not colder then today 

message: The first thing I thought of when I read this article was: how did the polar bears survive this time period?  The earth is not yet as warm today as it was then, and the polar bears are having a hard time now, so I was just wondering how they managed back then.  If anybody knows, it might make an interesting addition to the article? -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The earth is not yet as warm today as it was then - who says? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  polar bears 

message: The first paragraph ends with this: "In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns)."   It disagrees with the remainder of the article.   If this is substantiated by studies using observed or inferred data (as opposed to GCMs) then those studies should be cited.   Otherwise, it should be removed as unverifiable.   24.128.186.135 (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bits does it disagree with? And where do the GCMs come in? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Oops, I see the text went. Never mind, I've restored it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

text: No source cited to provide evidence that "global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.40.78 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  warmer or cooler? 

message: What is the meaning of the word 'optimum' in this context? Is it intended to say the temperature was 'good'/'optimal' in that period, or merely that it was highest? --Raboof (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of 'optimum' 

message: It truly would be an impossible feat for anyone to change the entire historic record, in order to further some agenda.  A real encyclopedia, by it's nature untouchable by political winds, gives a rational and reasoned explanation of the recent historic events of our planet.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269574/Holocene-Epoch/70027/Continental-shelf-and-coastal-regions
The HOLOCENE TRANSGRESSION, a well known name to any real student of climate history, appears in thousands and thousands of papers, textbooks and in any real history of sea levels.  
http://sp.sepmonline.org/content/sepspqua/1/SEC37.abstract
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/521323?uid=2&uid=4&sid=47698786517957
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00491025/
etc etc Ad nauseam 
It's absence from Wikipedia seems hardly an unfortunate accident.  It's absence from the article under discussion, is almost criminal in it's ignorance. It's absence, the Holocene Transgression, would almost beg for a creation event.  Yet.. I was quite unaware until of late of the concerted efforts by some to try to write their own version of climate history.  That the well known climactic optimum has become yet another Wikipedia political article, beset by the well known revisionists, perhaps just another nail in the collective coffin, of reasonable and intelligent who scoff at finding balance and truth when it comes to science here. 
Yet hope springs eternal.  Hence the oft times useless talk page.
I challenged another editor to provide sources for his wild claims.  A quick investigation into history shows there is little chance of that fruitful action.  Be that as it may, it has brought forth the crux of the matter, in regards to the current article, despite the dismaying state of things.
(addendum)  Since the above I see my scant powers of prediction were on the money. It seems the very essence of the climactic optimum is vacant from certain minds.  The original discovery of the warm period was spurred by the raised beaches, or recent origin, worldwide.  While the majority are around 3 meters, uplift from rebounding places many much higher.  This does not point to a great rise, but the land rising up.  This is basic basic stuff of climate history.  The inland flooding, the river deltas, this is not even in question amongst the scientific community.  Pick up any encyclopedia and it is just there.
Fascinating that anyone would not know this. FX (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Holocene Transgression 

message: Reference number 4, "Tropical Pacific Climate at the mid-Holocene and the Last Glacial Maximum" was used to assert the following, "Average global temperatures were probably colder than today."
There are problems with this.  First, the editor did not use the complete title of the article, which is "Tropical Pacific Climate at the mid-Holocene and the Last Glacial Maximum Simulated by a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Model."
Those last nine words are crucial.
The authors (Kitoh et al) were not discussing the actual mid-Holocene (or LGM).  They were discussing the results of their models.  When they stated that temperatures were cooler by 0.35 deg, they were saying that this is what they found in their 200 year simulation for the mid-Holocene.
They also stated that their input data was limited and left out important factors.
The fact that the editor uses this article to support the citation that the mid-Holocene was generally colder than today despite a much higher sea level indicates that his neutrality is suspect and that he can't find legitimate data to support his claim.  I will change this paragraph in the upcoming days if no one can present better data.Badamours (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misused and falsely cited reference, section Global Effects 

message: using archive.org because the url no longer works. Fxmastermind (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced link for ref #4 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Holocene climatic optimum. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001PA000724.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Holocene climatic optimum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.sibran.ru/psb/show_text.phtml?eng+4213+9+
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608032955/http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEURASIA.html to http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEURASIA.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The statement "The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 0.2% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2)" implies that solar radiation provides 20kW/m^2 of energy to the Northern hemisphere, which is an order of magnitude higher than the actual figure of 1-2 kW/m^2. Either the percentage or the wattage is incorrect. 2600:1015:B115:8A79:FB05:50CB:2434:6ED6 (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar radiation value possibly in error