Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)

23. I doubt that pre-fossil fuel populations would have influenced climate due to biofuel burning

Reply to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:12 PM

Mar 2012

See link for graph of population of China from 0 to present of current era. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/SRD/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_21_m.htm

Population collapse after the Song dynasty is a little early for your theory. Also bear in mind that during this period China and India, as well as other parts of Southeast Asia consisted of the bulk of humanity.

The graph is interesting because it gives one an idea of the steady state carrying capacity of China in the pre fossil fuel era (and probably in the post fossil fuel era), i.e. something less than 10% of the current population.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC [View all] FarCenter Mar 2012 OP

Extremely vague statement tabatha Mar 2012 #1

+1 ProfessorGAC Mar 2012 #2

"warming-alarmist" in the first sentence immediately colours whatever this article is saying... SidDithers Mar 2012 #3

Precisely. n/t ljm2002 Mar 2012 #9

Agreed. mmonk Mar 2012 #12

That's what Bohunk68 Mar 2012 #18

More junk science from denier Lewis Page JBoy Mar 2012 #4

he has quite a record..., G_j Mar 2012 #19

LOL... good lawd fascisthunter Mar 2012 #5

Lewis page also believes pscot Mar 2012 #6

The term "climate change" is vague enough to allow for an ice age. Boojatta Mar 2012 #8

My understanding is that if the Gulf Stream fails hootinholler Mar 2012 #34

How quickly did the warming occur? mmonk Mar 2012 #7

while the author of the article is a bit of a kook... ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2012 #10

The study probably does not say what the reporter/columnist asserts it says Viking12 Mar 2012 #14

The study does claim in the abstract ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2012 #16

"This ikaite record qualitatively supports..." Viking12 Mar 2012 #20

yes...that is why i said IF... ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2012 #21

Nope. No quantitative data at all. Viking12 Mar 2012 #24

so, would it then contradict the other data ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2012 #25

My super-fast reading is that it is in line withing existing proxy analyses back to at least the LIA Viking12 Mar 2012 #26

ahhh, that would 'splain it ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2012 #28

If that story were any more slanted the words would slide right off my screen. nt Codeine Mar 2012 #11

What complete Bunk Bandit Mar 2012 #13

This is about temperature, not carbon dioxide FarCenter Mar 2012 #15

There are numerous methodologies to determine past climate changes. DCBob Mar 2012 #22

The statement that is being contested is the following: FarCenter Mar 2012 #29

The article referenced in the OP does nothing to 'contest' the IPCC Viking12 Mar 2012 #30

The lead researcher was quoted in the Syracuse University release as saying: FarCenter Mar 2012 #32

So? That says NOTHING about your false assertions about the MWP and the IPCC. Viking12 Mar 2012 #33

The Medieval Warm Period was actually cooler than what we considered "normal" temperatures Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2012 #17

I doubt that pre-fossil fuel populations would have influenced climate due to biofuel burning FarCenter Mar 2012 #23

Medieval Bikini Babe... Tikki Mar 2012 #27

It's F'n Lewis Page exagerating - again intaglio Mar 2012 #31