Swedish Researchers Confirm 20th Century Warming “Does Not Stand Out” Over Past 2500 Years!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
1.2kTweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
148Email this to someone
email

A very recent study by Swedish scientists appearing in the journal Climate of the Past examining bottom water temperature (BWT) off the coast of Western Sweden (Gullmar Fjord) going back 2500 years found that “the most recent warming of the 20th century does not stand out.”

Team of researchers led by Irina Polovodova Asteman, University of Gotheberg, produced a record of bottom water temperature off the coast of western Sweden and found 20th century warming “does not stand out.” Photo: ResearchGate, University of Gothenburg

The 2500-year winter temperature record was of reconstructed by using a fjord sediment archive from the NE Atlantic and through analysis of oxygen isotopes and other methods. The study was based on an approximately 8-meter long sediment core extracted from the Gullmar Fjord (Sweden).

They found that the Gullmar Fjord d18O record mainly reflects variability of the winter bottom water temperatures with a minor salinity influence.

The researchers also pointed out that a comparison with instrumental winter temperature observations from Central England and Stockholm shows that the fjord record picks up the contemporary warming of the 20th century, see following diagrams:

t

t

Chart: Polovodova et al 2018

According to the scientists, the Gullmar Fjord record shows a substantial and long-term warming during the Roman Warm Period (~350 BCE – 450 CE) which was followed by variable bottom water temperatures during the Dark Ages (~450 – 850 CE).

The Viking Age/Medieval Climate Anomaly (~850 – 1350 CE) is also indicated by positive bottom water temperature anomalies, while the Little Ice Age (~1350 – 1850 CE) is characterized by a long-term cooling with distinct multidecadal variability.

The team of Swedish scientists, led by Irina Polovodova Asteman, Department of Marine Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, noted “the most recent warming of the 20th century does not stand out, but appears to be comparable to both the Roman Warm Period and the MCA (Medieval Climate Anomaly).

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
1.2kTweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
148Email this to someone
email

107 responses to “Swedish Researchers Confirm 20th Century Warming “Does Not Stand Out” Over Past 2500 Years!”

  1. dennisambler

    “I’d like to point out that the argument that something has happened before, doesn’t say anything about the reason for it happening now or whether or not it (the current warming) will continue.”

    We are constantly told that current climate staes are unique. Clearly they are not so the theory falls.

    1. SebastianH

      We are constantly told that current climate staes are unique. Clearly they are not so the theory falls.

      They are unique because they are caused by CO2 forcing. Not because it would already be warmer than in all of Earth’s history by now.

      1. AndyG55

        “They are unique because they are caused by CO2 forcing”

        More UNSUPPORTABLE, ANTI-SCIENCE rubbish from seb.

        You have ZERO evidence of CO2 forcing anything except plant growth.

        Just take the fantasy pills and

        … preach the mantra, seb !!!

      2. Newminster

        No. We are constantly told that the current climate state is unique because it is caused by CO2. That is not the same thing as it being actually caused by CO2..

        What was the 1860-80 warming caused by, or the 1910-40, or the Minoan, Roman, and Mediæval Warm Periods? And why has each of them been cooler than the previous one and all of them cooler than the Holocene Optimum?

        All the CO2 increase since the start of the 20th century has been entirely beneficial. It has expanded grasslands and fertile soils by about 12% worldwide, has improved crop yields and made a valuable contribution to reducing famine.

        The only people not to benefit are the environmentalists and their sad little hangers-on who see demonising CO2 as their best chance of undermining civilisation by forcing the end of the western lifestyle that has made us the most successful, healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived generation this world has seen.

        Why do you want to reverse that, sad seb?

        1. SebastianH

          You have a very twisted view of reality, Newminster. But if it makes you feel better to believe in this version, fine. Can’t take you serious though …

          1. AndyG55

            Nobody takes you seriously, seb

            You and your deliberate clown-like FACEPLANTS are a running JOKE for any sane person.

            Only person here with a twisted view of scientific reality is YOU, seb

            You just “believe” in your own little fantasy world, with ZERO SCIENCE to back up any of your mindless blathering.

            It is noted that you were totally unable to put up a substantial argument against anything in Newminster’s post…

            You have no real arguments, do you , seb.

            Just mindless, puerile yapping. !

          2. plusafdotcom

            Seb, there’s a lot of very reasonable data that shows CO2 increases TRAILED temperature increases, so unless you can refute all those reports with some degree of validity, please don’t use that argument.

            I’ve been collecting “Global Warming” reports (and jokes and cartoons) for, like, forever and there’s a lot of hard data that do not support your beliefs.

            Start with the links on my page here and have a party!

            http://www.plusaf.com/homepagepix/__pix-nav/_global-warming-links.htm

          3. Jim

            You’re like a Jehovah’s Witness of the Climate, ignoring any fact pointed out to you, ardently sticking to your script, lest you be ostracized by your cult.

          4. SebastianH

            You and your deliberate clown-like FACEPLANTS are a running JOKE for any sane person.

            Only person here with a twisted view of scientific reality is YOU, seb

            You just “believe” in your own little fantasy world, with ZERO SCIENCE to back up any of your mindless blathering.

            Repeating this over and over doesn’t make you lose that clown stigma, AndyG55. Do you seriously think this act is helping your side of the argument? 😉

            It is noted that you were totally unable to put up a substantial argument against anything in Newminster’s post…

            You have no real arguments, do you , seb.

            Huh? Would you argue against someone with a delirious fantasy? There is no getting through to you people. You are convinced of your version of reality. Those kinds of people exist whereever there is an argument. When threatened they resort to violence or in case of internet discussion to insults and creative name coining …

            @plusafdotcom:

            Seb, there’s a lot of very reasonable data that shows CO2 increases TRAILED temperature increases, so unless you can refute all those reports with some degree of validity, please don’t use that argument.

            Of course CO2 trails temperature, the physical mechanism has been known for a long time. But you aren’t seriously claiming that CO2 introduced by burning carbon fuels that causes the current CO2 concentration increase comes from the current temperature increase, are you? Why is it so difficult for skeptics to accept the concept that higher temperatures can cause a CO2 increase as well as can be caused by a CO2 increase. It’s no contradiction, in case you have a feeling that it would be one.

            You’re like a Jehovah’s Witness of the Climate, ignoring any fact pointed out to you, ardently sticking to your script, lest you be ostracized by your cult.

            Sure, (pseudo-)skepticism as observed in blogs like this one are not a cult … dream on 😉

            What fact am I ignoring, Jim?

            No. We are constantly told that the current climate state is unique because it is caused by CO2. That is not the same thing as it being actually caused by CO2..

            Huh? You are being told 1 + 1 = 2, but it’s not the same thing as 1 + 1 actually being 2?

            What was the 1860-80 warming caused by, or the 1910-40, or the Minoan, Roman, and Mediæval Warm Periods?

            Not by human CO2 emissions.

            And why has each of them been cooler than the previous one and all of them cooler than the Holocene Optimum?

            Why is that relevant? Again, “it has been warm before” is no valid argument against CO2 causing the modern warming. It’s like saying people died before, so people dying in mass shootings in modern times are nothing special.

            All the CO2 increase since the start of the 20th century has been entirely beneficial. It has expanded grasslands and fertile soils by about 12% worldwide, has improved crop yields and made a valuable contribution to reducing famine.

            That is the core of the pseudoskeptics fantasy. Everything is beneficial, even if we had caused it. No problem, right? Maybe papers such as this one will open your eyes: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf

            Or even something simple as the wikipedia page about the economic impacts of climate change:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change

            The only people not to benefit are the environmentalists and their sad little hangers-on who see demonising CO2 as their best chance of undermining civilisation by forcing the end of the western lifestyle that has made us the most successful, healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived generation this world has seen.

            And he drifts into conspiracy territory … besides, why would decarbonisation make us lose our lifestyle?

          5. AndyG55

            Poor ZERO-SCIENCE seb

            Still squirming his way to avoiding producing Anything that shows human CO2 warming

            Do you seriously think your ABJECT INCAPABILITY is helping your non-arguments?

            There is NO VALID ARGUEMENT FOR CO2 WARMING, otherwise you would produce it

            EMPTY. NOTHING, NADA. (except another mindless irrelevant analogy)

            You are totally unable to produce one bit of real science that shows atmospheric CO2 to be ANYTHING except beneficial to all life on Earth.

            Your MANIC rants are getting more and more clown-like by the day. Hilarious to watch you strutting around like a headless chook.

            But that is all you have left, isn’t it seb.

            Again seb and his conspiracy theories.

            Is it that he KNOWS they exist and is trying to hide the fact?

            And wiki as a source, quoting AGW propaganda lies and fabrication.

            “Stern review….it has been predicted”…..

            roflmao..

            Your incredible LACK of any self-thought or rational brain activity is BIZZARE to say the least.

            so sad.. but so seb

          6. Newminster

            Don’t address the substance of the comment, seb, whatever you do.

            And I’m wrong about what, precisely?

          7. AndyG55

            “Not by human CO2 emissions.”

            You mean they were just like the current HIGHLY BENEFICAL warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years

            Absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that this warming was caused by human CO2.

            You KNOW that, but are just acting the troll-clown in your pathetic attention-seeking ritual ranting.

          8. AndyG55

            “why would decarbonisation make us lose our lifestyle”

            really.. did you actually ask that question?

            EVERYTHING around you is there because of the use in one form or other of carbon based products, carbon based fuels, atmospheric carbon, fossil fuels.

            Feel free to “decarbonise” any time you like, seb. 😉

            Or just remain totally tied to the NATURAL carbon cycle that feeds and sustains ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

        2. tom0mason

          Obviously Newminister you have a problem with reality – you are very aware and cognicent of the important aspect of it around you.

          Glad to know you understand better than the anti-science brigade.

          Well made points that show the IPCC supposition very questiionable.

          1. Newminster

            Yeh, I know, tomo. I keep trying suppress this urge to talk sense to trolls but it keeps breaking out.

            {:<()

          2. SebastianH

            How about talking sense into your fellow pseudoskeptics? Then consider how you are wrong with calling AGW beneficial (the usual last straw when skeptics don’t jump on their other defaults of “there is no warming” and “the warming is not caused by human emissions”).

          3. Kenneth Richard

            you are wrong with calling AGW beneficial

            Please identify the reasons why the warm-up since the Little Ice Age (regardless of cause) has not been beneficial to the biosphere.

          4. SebastianH

            Kenneth, the original claim was that all the CO2 was beneficial. It was in connection with “the current climate state” being caused by CO2, also called AGW.

            So why are you talking about a warm-up since the LIA? Another misunderstanding?

          5. AndyG55

            “Then consider how you are wrong with calling AGW beneficial”

            1. Show where there is any AGW

            2. Show that the NATURAL warming out of the coldest period in 10,0000 years, has NOT been totally beneficial

            You have been totally EMPTY on both these points ever since you graced us with your mindless nil-science and baseless AGW rhetoric.

          6. AndyG55

            ” “the warming is not caused by human emissions”).”

            WOW, could seb be starting to see the truth 🙂

            He has woken up to the FACT that changes in the Antarctic are totally NATURAL

            Next he will be forced to admit that Arctic changes are TOTALLY NATURAL.. no human forcing

            Then maybe he will start to wake up to the fact that the slight warming out of the coldest period in 10,0000 years has been..

            .. TOTALLY NATURAL, and TOTALLY BENEFICIAL.

            He is certainly TOTALLY UNABLE to prove otherwise.

          7. tom0mason

            Kenneth Richard 14. June 2018,

            Indeed Kenneth, cAGW misanthropes must believe they know the correct global temperature and level of atmospheric CO2.
            For them both of these must be lowered despite plenty of evidence that such reductions would cause life on this planet lots of hardship.

          8. SebastianH

            Indeed Kenneth, cAGW misanthropes must believe they know the correct global temperature and level of atmospheric CO2.
            For them both of these must be lowered despite plenty of evidence that such reductions would cause life on this planet lots of hardship.

            First of all, I am sure “cAGW misanthropes” exist somewhere, but why are you – again – putting them into the same basket as the majority of climate scientists that showed us that AGW is real? Should we as well put normal skeptics in the same group as you pseudoskeptics with a disinformation agenda that tries to push conspiracy themes and climate change denial onto simple minded people? I think they would not like to be associated with you guys.

            P.S.: I am not aware of any movement that tries to lower either temperatures or atmospheric CO2. The goal is to limit the increase of both in order to limit economic and ecological harm.

          9. AndyG55

            Poor seb’

            Nothing but empty rhetoric.

            You have yet to show us that CO2 causes any warming, neither has anyone else.

            You have yet to show us that AGW is real.

            Putting up anti-environment, erratic wind turbines and irregular solar energy will have ABSOLUTELY ZERO effect on temperature, and very little effect on the continued rise of atmospheric CO2.

            Whatever they think they are trying to do..

            .. it is FAILING MONUMENTALLY.. Just like you.

          10. tom0mason

            “cAGW misanthropes must believe they know the correct global temperature and level of atmospheric CO2.”

            Just to clarify ‘cAGW misanthropes’ are the types of cAGW advocate who comment on this site, and maybe others.

            These ‘cAGW misanthropes’ have little awareness of how they appear to others.

        3. Yonason

          Logic is lost on trolls, Newminster.

          And, speaking of reality, do you have the geocraft.com link? He’s got some good material on climate. It’s one of the first good refs on what’s wrong with AGW that I found years ago. Here’s one item about warming I think is informative.

          “Beginning about 18,000 years ago the Earth started warming up, halting at least temporarily a 100,000-year-long Ice Age, during which the upper latitudes of almost all the continents lay buried under thick sheets of glacial ice.”

          The accompanying gif of the melting that has taken place as a result of that unrelated to CO2 warming explains sea level rise during that period.
          http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/anim_glac.gif

          Found here…
          http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

          When seen in perspective, the completely natural and very mild climate change of today is a non-starter, as you know but the trolls never will. It’s like they’ve been lobotomized, or something. And, have you noticed, their sense of humor is also either missing or seriously impaired, as well?

          1. AndyG55

            “And, have you noticed, their sense of humor is also either missing or seriously impaired, as well?”

            Our resident AGW apostle wannabe is great at slap-stick comedy… I don’t think he does it intentionally, though. 🙂

            His latest efforts on Antarctic melt have been an absolute hoot ! Downright hilarious. 🙂

            Even funnier, is that he doesn’t even realise how much of a BUTT of hilarity he makes himself .

    2. Yonason

      Paraphrasing the activists

      “Just because it has feathers, looks and waddles like a duck and quacks like one, don’t assume it actually IS one, especially when I tell you it’s a dangerous python.”

      At least they occasionally provide comic relief.

      1. SebastianH

        If you want to go full analogy instead of trying to be the clown (that job is already taken by AndyG55), then do it like this:

        If researchers would find out that the amount of living things flying through the air is today not higher than in some previous time. Would you then also claim that the type of living things in the air must be the same as in those previous times despite clear evidence of thousands of humans flying at all times?

        1. Bjorn Ramstad

          Humans do not fly. They are being flown.

          1. Don from OZ

            Precisely Bjorn. Well said.

            Whilst here I point out for the benefit of all but most significantly for Sebastian the emails exchange between Tom Crowley (Texas A&M University & a co-conspirator) and Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa ( UEA & co-conspirators) in which Malcolm says ‘..although carbon dioxide is still the best candidate to explain the effect (warming) it is far from proven.’
            Surely an unambiguous statement like that is proof enough that the whole debacle was based on a falsehood.

      2. tom0mason

        Yonason 13. June 2018 at 1:46 PM
        Great analogy, for at least it contains humor, and just like others posted at this site does not have to be thought of being accurate, though in this case it probably is.

        🙂

        1. Yonason

          Speaking of humor, no doubt you’ve noticed that the more analogy/metaphor-challenged/impaired they are, the more lacking they are in a sense of humor? …or the more warped it is, if they do have one?

  2. Penelope

    “I’d like to point out that the argument that something has happened before, doesn’t say anything about the reason for it happening now or whether or not it (the current warming) will continue.

    But Seb, it IS an argument that those who claim it’s unprecedented are either hoaxers or ignorant of an extraordinary body of evidence to the contrary.

    If the warming that we experienced for awhile were unprecedented it would require a cause not previously present. And THAT is the reason that TPTB pay for the ludicrous “unprecedented” meme.

    1. SebastianH

      If the warming that we experienced for awhile were unprecedented it would require a cause not previously present

      That is the case, so it is unprecedented.

      1. AndyG55

        “That is the case, so it is unprecedented.”

        Absolutely ZERO evidence that warming has come from atmospheric CO2, so what is this “other cause”?????

        spooky twilight zone music….

        No seb. It is NOT unprecedented, except in your warped little AGW-hosed mind.

      2. AndyG55

        And yes, I totally agree that the AMOUNT of warming in the GISS and other related temperature non-data, is TOTALLY UNNATURAL and has a large human fingerprint.

        But that is to do with agenda, not CO2

    2. Yonason

      LOL – If it isn’t repeatable, it isn’t science. By saying it doesn’t have to be, SebH has just declared science to be unscientific. But, given all his previous nonsense, that should come as no surprise to anyone.

  3. Steve

    the ocean in and around sydney is warm for this time of year.
    do i care…no…do i care if it gets colder…no… i will wear a wet suit.
    if the sea level rises i will have less sand to cross to have a dip and if the level falls i will have to walk further which will be good because it is more exercise
    why in the world is anyone worried about such trivialities

    sorry about the no capitals

  4. Charlie

    But the South Pole has melted! I read that in the Atlantic and USA Today! LOL

    1. SebastianH

      The ice loss in Antarctica is indeed accelerating:
      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

      1. Kenneth Richard

        SebastianH: “The ice loss in Antarctica is indeed accelerating”

        Yes, it’s accelerated so much that we have had an alarming 0.76 of a centimeter added to sea levels from Antarctic ice melt since 1992 (according to your link). And yet the advocates of alarm on your side believe this melt contribution will suddenly add 10 feet (305 centimeters) to sea levels by 2065. Can you explain why it is you and your side believes we’ll go from 0.76 of a centimeter in the last 25 years to 305 centimeters in the next 50? What’s the mechanism for that kind of change…since Antarctica hasn’t warmed overall since 1979, and neither has the surrounding Southern Ocean?

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
        “Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres

        1. SebastianH

          Can you explain why it is you and your side believes we’ll go from 0.76 of a centimeter in the last 25 years to 305 centimeters in the next 50?

          Do you need an explanation what the phrase “ice loss is accelerating” means?

          Half of the 7.6 mm increase is from the ice loss in the last 7-ish years.
          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y/figures/2

          1. AndyG55

            OMG, Please explain how an ice mass which is always well below freezing point looses mass, seb

            Not the atmosphere.. so NOT human CO2

            Maybe the oceans… so NOT human CO2

            Maybe volcanic activity.. so NOT human CO2

            Even if this concoction is correct…

            there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.

            But ZERO-EVIDENCE is all that seb is interested in or has ever produce..

            His mantra.. his cult-belief is based on ZERO-EVIDENCE.

          2. SebastianH

            Oh, I forgot. Climate is now defined as 7 years and 3 millimeters.

            Huh? What is your point? Kenneth asked for an explanation why the ice loss in the next 50 years should be greater than the one in the last 25 years. I pointed out the pretty obvious.

            And you are now trying to argue that 7 years is too short of a timeframe, right? That is completely missing the point. The point is, the ice loss is accelerating which can be clearly seen from the linked figure 2.

            @AndyG55:

            OMG, Please explain how an ice mass which is always well below freezing point looses mass, seb

            Read the paper, I am not your nanny/teacher.

            there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.

            Where have you read the claim that this ice loss is caused by humans? Skeptics imagining stuff … that’s all you can do, isn’t it?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Where have you read the claim that this ice loss is caused by humans? Skeptics imagining stuff … that’s all you can do, isn’t it?

            So what’s causing the ice loss for the Antarctic ice sheet, since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have been cooling overall since 1979? Be specific.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            Do you need an explanation what the phrase “ice loss is accelerating” means?

            Half of the 7.6 mm increase is from the ice loss in the last 7-ish years.

            If we’re using 7 years as the standard for determining acceleration vs. deceleration, would you agree that the Greenland ice sheet’s mass loss has substantially decelerated since 2008-2012 (-367 Gt/yr average)? If so (and you have to agree, given the data), to what do you attribute that deceleration in ice mass loss…since you obviously believe that an acceleration is caused by humans? Yes, we need you to explain what “ice loss is decelerating” means for the Arctic…and why it has decelerated.

          5. SebastianH

            So what’s causing the ice loss for the Antarctic ice sheet, since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have been cooling overall since 1979? Be specific.

            Kenneth and his homework assignments. Why this distraction?

            If we’re using 7 years as the standard for determining acceleration vs. deceleration

            We aren’t. Saying half of the total increase over the entire time happened in the last 7 years is a way of describing the acceleration, not determining the acceleration. Same as when I tell you that half of all operating solar panels have been installed in the last 3 years. Those 3 years are the doubling period in this case, not the time used to determine if installations accelerate …

            Yes, we need you to explain what “ice loss is decelerating” means for the Arctic…and why it has decelerated.

            No, you don’t. You need to distract from the topic of this thread: ice loss in Antarctica is accelerating. Not this time … not biting, Kenneth.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “Where have you read the claim that this ice loss is caused by humans? Skeptics imagining stuff … that’s all you can do, isn’t it?”

            Kenneth Richard: “So what’s causing the ice loss for the Antarctic ice sheet, since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have been cooling overall since 1979? Be specific.”

            SebastianH: “Kenneth and his homework assignments. Why this distraction?”

            ————————-

            So you claim that skeptics are “imagining” that it’s been claimed that Antarctic ice sheet melt is caused by humans. So I ask you to identify what has been causing the Antarctic ice sheet to melt, if not humans, and your dodge the question by claiming it’s a “distraction” to answer this “homework assignment”. What a childish response.

            ————————-

            Another one…

            Kenneth Richard: “If we’re using 7 years as the standard for determining acceleration vs. deceleration…”

            SebastianH: “We aren’t. Saying half of the total increase over the entire time happened in the last 7 years is a way of describing the acceleration, not determining the acceleration.”

            Uh, SebastianH saying you only “described” the acceleration rather than “determined” the acceleration is rather silly.

            ————————-

            Another one…

            SebastianH: “You need to distract from the topic of this thread: ice loss in Antarctica is accelerating.”

            So the topic of this thread is that the ice loss in Antarctica is accelerating, and yet when I ask you to identify why it is accelerating, since you claim it is not anthropogenic, you claim that this question is a distraction! You can’t even avoid contradicting yourself in the body of a single post!

          7. SebastianH

            Oh, and no, “my side” is not arguing that the sea levels will increase by 305 centimeters until 2065.

            Have you ever read the paper? https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

          8. Kenneth Richard

            Oh, and no, “my side” is not arguing that the sea levels will increase by 305 centimeters [10 feet] until 2065.

            https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sea-levels-could-rise-by-10-feet-50-years-says-ex-nasa-scientist-1512590
            “Retired Nasa scientist James Hansen who first rang the climate alarm bell in 1988, is now back with a study that points to major sea level rise in the next 50 years owing to speeding up of glacier melt. In what Hansen says is his most important paper on climate change, he claims glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.”

            https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-hansen-sea-level-rise_us_55aecb02e4b0a9b94852e7f5
            “The paper, which will be published online in the European Geosciences Union journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion later this week, projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years.”

            http://www.planetexperts.com/new-climate-study-predicts-10-ft-of-sea-level-rise-in-50-years/
            “According to the new study from James Hansen and 16 other scientists, the Earth is on track to heat up an average of 2°C by the end of this century, accelerating glacial melt in Greenland and Antarctica by tenfold. This is generating a feedback loop of cool water entering the ocean and forcing warmer, saltier water up and underneath ice sheets, speeding up their melt rate and the volume of cool water entering the ocean. This could result in ocean levels rising by at least 10 feet in just 50 years, though when the loop will really kick in is unknown. Researchers say that it is “likely” to occur before 2100.”

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html
            Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning
            “The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.”

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/22/james_hansen_sea_level_rise_climate_warning_passes_peer_review.html
            James Hansen’s Bombshell Climate Warning Is Now Part of the Scientific Canon
            “Last summer, James Hansen—the pioneer of modern climate science—pieced together a research-based revelation: a little-known feedback cycle between the oceans and massive ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland might have already jump-started an exponential surge of sea levels. That would mean huge levels of sea level rise will happen sooner—much sooner than expected. Hansen’s best estimate was 2 to 5 meters (6–15 feet) by the end of the century

          9. SebastianH

            So you claim that skeptics are “imagining” that it’s been claimed that Antarctic ice sheet melt is caused by humans.

            Yes. No such claim was made, yet he felt the need to point out that “there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”. What else would you reply to such a phrase he tries to throw at everything?

            So I ask you to identify what has been causing the Antarctic ice sheet to melt, if not humans, and your dodge the question by claiming it’s a “distraction” to answer this “homework assignment”. What a childish response.

            Kenneth, let’s be honest, what are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Or are you really misreading what people write and/or just don’t understand? Why would you think now that it wasn’t humans and that I need to explain to you what it was/is? Can you explain it to me? Maybe the paper has some clues? This thread started by pointing out that Antarctic ice loss is accelerating and now you are distracting by trying this back and forth and “he is not answering my questions” act.

            Another one… […] Uh, SebastianH saying you only “described” the acceleration rather than “determined” the acceleration is rather silly.

            Again, what is your point? What are you trying to accomplish by this? Don’t you know the difference? Is the acceleration of solar panel installations being determined by the last 3 years or not when someone points out to you that installations doubled in those 3 years? What do you think?

            Another one… […] So the topic of this thread is that the ice loss in Antarctica is accelerating, and yet when I ask you to identify why it is accelerating, since you claim it is not anthropogenic, you claim that this question is a distraction! You can’t even avoid contradicting yourself in the body of a single post!

            Why the need of a straw man here? Nope, that was not claimed. But thank you for confirming yet again, that you misinterpret everything you read (or don’t read, who knows).

            Contradicting myself … yeah right, contradicting your straw man you mean. And the distraction has run its course …

            Regarding your quotes from websites about the paper: so you haven’t read it or the quotes? Your answer whether or not “my side” is claiming what you claim it does, is in those quotes, perhaps invisible to your “keen eyes”. And in case you are still wondering what accelerating ice loss means, that answer is also in those quotes (and the paper). But then again, exponentials and derivatives aren’t your thing, aren’t they?

          10. Kenneth Richard

            So you claim that skeptics are “imagining” that it’s been claimed that Antarctic ice sheet melt is caused by humans.

            Yes. No such claim was made

            OK, 3rd time now: If humans are not causing the acceleration in Antarctic ice sheet melt, what is? What’s the mechanism?

            See if you can avoid dodging the question for a 3rd straight time.

          11. AndyG55

            WOW.. so suddenly the “antropogenic” is getting dropped from everything, is it seb

            About time, wouldn’t you say. 🙂

            We have been trying to tell you, ever since you poke you mindless brain-hosed nose in here.. that ..

            .. THERE IS NO AGW.. its NGW.

            Now it seems you are starting to agree with us. WELL DONE 🙂

          12. AndyG55

            “Where have you read the claim that this ice loss is caused by humans?”

            ” “there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”. ”

            Thank you so much for AGREEING with the facts for change seb.

            No wonder you are so distraught 🙂

            No “A” in AGW.

            FINALLY we are getting somewhere. ! 🙂

          13. AndyG55

            “Kenneth, let’s be honest,”

            OMG .. we are about to see a totally new seb !!

          14. AndyG55

            What a totally hilarious interchange 🙂

            seb bring up a study showing Antarctic ice melting

            I show it CANNOT be anything but natural,

            seb agrees, but gets all huffy and pouty and refuses to say what could be causing it (if its real).

            Ends up running around like a headless chook

            I could say faceplanting every second step…

            .. but headless chooks don’t have a face.

            How come I miss out on all the frivolity until after its over. 🙁

            .. or is it over.. we will see, 😉

            “And in case you are still wondering what accelerating ice loss means,”

            Well , its been well established that its NOTHING to do with human CO2. ! 🙂

          15. AndyG55

            ” Why would you think now that it wasn’t humans “

            Seb. You just TOLD us it wasn’t humans.

            As I said …

            ““there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”. “

            Are you now saying that there is?

            If so. PLEASE PRODUCE THAT EVIDENCE. !!

            Your poor little mind seems to have gone into a fever of self-contradictory confusion, disarray and chaos.

          16. SebastianH

            OK, 3rd time now: If humans are not causing the acceleration in Antarctic ice sheet melt, what is? What’s the mechanism?

            See if you can avoid dodging the question for a 3rd straight time.

            Not playing, Kenneth. For the last time, nobody said that humans aren’t causing the acceleration.

            I show it CANNOT be anything but natural,

            AndyG55, you are serious, aren’t you?

          17. AndyG55

            “I show it CANNOT be anything but natural

            roflmao

            Is that REALLY the best you can do, seb

            As always, you have ZERO PROOF that it is anything but natural.

            Seems you agree its nothing to do with human CO2 or anything else human caused…

            So, Come on, what UNNATURAL cause is there for the tiny amount of Antarctic melt they say they have discovered.

            We are all waiting with strapped side for you slap-stick answer.

            “nobody said that humans aren’t causing the acceleration”

            Seriously seb.. is that really all you have ????

            Nobody can say humans are causing ANY of it.

            There is ZERO REASON to even think they might be.

            Its just a bunch of imaginary nonsense.

            But that is all you have , isn’t it seb

            Imaginary nonsense.

          18. AndyG55

            “AndyG55, you are serious, aren’t you?”

            You could at least TRY to prove me wrong.

            Laughter is meant to be the best medicine.

            “there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”.

            Here’s you big chance, seb. !

            Antarctic is oooling or steady, so its not global warming

            If its the oceans, it can’t be human CO2, and the southern oceans have been cooling anyway.

            So come on seb, time to put up.

            “there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”.

            … for any changes in the Antarctic ice mass.

          19. SebastianH

            AndyG55, you wrote:

            OMG, Please explain how an ice mass which is always well below freezing point looses mass, seb

            Not the atmosphere.. so NOT human CO2

            Maybe the oceans… so NOT human CO2

            Maybe volcanic activity.. so NOT human CO2

            You claim that this “show[s] it CANNOT be anything but natural”. I repeat my question: are you serious?

            As always, you have ZERO PROOF that it is anything but natural.

            You are claiming it is natural. The burden of proof for this claim is on your side. So come on, prove it!

            Seems you agree its nothing to do with human CO2 or anything else human caused…

            Why do you two dishonestly claim that this is what I wrote? How can “Where have you read the claim that this ice loss is caused by humans?” be possibly interpreted this way?

            Its just a bunch of imaginary nonsense.

            Please don’t confuse your side with actual climate science …

          20. AndyG55

            Only the most incredibly hallucinogenic AGW brain-hosed cultist could think there is even the slightest possibility of any human cause to the melting identified in the paper seb cited.

            Lets have a look at where ALL this melting is taking place. Remember, CO2 is evenly spread.

            https://s19.postimg.cc/oagd79rbn/antarctic-melting-2018.gif

            So all this melting is coming from one little area, which just happens to be sitting upon one of the largest volcanic regions on the Earth. 91 newly discovered volcanoes, also there has been raised volcanic activity around the world recently.

            NO POSSIBILITY of any human cause.

            NO EVIDENCE of any human cause.

            PURELY and TOTALLY NATURAL.

          21. AndyG55

            So I repeat, for the very squirmy seb

            “there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”
            … for any changes in the Antarctic ice mass.

            So come on seb, here is your chance to put up.

            Do you have ANYTHING to counter this statement?

            Do you have ANY scientific proof of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2?

            We have been waiting a VERY LONG TIME.

            Or will you faceplant, yet again, with a load of mindless slap-stick, rhetoric and evasion.

          22. SebastianH

            Lets have a look at where ALL this melting is taking place. Remember, CO2 is evenly spread.

            Wow, ok. Is this why you think it can’t be CO2 because for it to be CO2 the warming (and melting) would have to be as evenly spread as the CO2 concentration increase?

            I can really only reply with a resounding “wow” to this revelation. If this is the reason for your “skepticism” than some reading about CO2, warming and weather pattern / ocean currents distributing the heat should fix your strange conviction easily.

          23. AndyG55

            ZERO-evidence seb continues to faceplant in the manic slap-stick comedy only he can manage.

            HE KNOWS its not CO2, because Antarctic ISN’T warming

            He KNOWS he has ZERO-Evidence that CO2 causes any warming.

            HE KNOWS that CO2 cannot warm oceans , and therefore cannot be responsible for warm ocean current

            But the brain-hosing is strong with this one.

            Despite ZERO-EVIDENCE he still just “believes”

            Just keeps up the mindless yapping.

            WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE of human influence on the volcanic warming of the West Antarctic, seb?

            NOWHERE…you have ZERO-EVIDENCE.

            One can only say “WOW” to someone that thinks CO2 can “target” just a volcanic region for warming.

            Weird stuff this CO2. A mind of its own, which is more than can be said for seb.!!

          24. AndyG55

            Let’s repeat again, see if we can get anything except MINDLESS EVASION.

            “there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”
            … for any changes in the Antarctic ice mass.

            So come on seb, you can do it !!

            This is what you are here for, isn’t it?

            To present EVIDENCE for your rancid anti-CO2 AGW beliefs?

            Or are you here for another purpose.. like mindless ATTENTION-SEEKING

          25. SebastianH

            No answer is also an answer … thank you for confirming that most pseudoskeptics beliefs are just based on wrong understanding of the mechanisms.

          26. AndyG55

            “No answer is also an answer”

            Yep , and it the only answer you have. EMPTY mindless rhetoric

            You KNOW you cannot counter this statement,.
            so choose the PATHETIC headless chook evasion and distraction routine you are so known for.

            You apparently know NOTHING about anything , and cannot back a single word you say with anything even resembling science.

            “there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any human based cause.”
            … for any changes in the Antarctic ice mass.

            So come on seb, you can do it !!

            or you could just keep up your cowardly clown act.

            “wrong understanding of the mechanisms.”

            Come on then..

            EXPLAIN these mechanisms, with scientific proof, of course..

            .. but you CAN’T and you WON’T..

            .. so you will just continue your mindless, petulant attention seeking.

            Let’s all watch as seb either runs away in a tantrum, or proceeds to bury his head in his own BS, yet again. 🙂

      2. AndyG55

        And as the comedic alarmist carrying-on and bed-wetting from seb’s Antarctic ice loss paper subsides…

        we get…

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/14/inconvenient-antarcticas-ice-sheet-may-be-more-durable-than-we-thought/

  5. Andrew Seymour

    From the source:
    “The 20th century warming clearly exceeds the temperatures
    observed during the prior 2500 years.”
    and

    “its recent warming is unprecedented in a 2500-year perspective”
    Don;t read this article, read the actual source. If you can’t be bothered to read the source, stop having an opinion.

    1. AndyG55

      “Don;t read this article, read the actual source”

      You should try it, instead of cherry-picking one tiny statement about a SHALLOW lake during the largest Grand Solar Maximum in well over 1000 years.

      I guess you don’t know how solar warming works, do you..

      just rant.. don’t think !!

  6. Statistik: Zwei der kommenden fünf Winter in Mitteleuropa werden besonders kalt – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Swedish Researchers Confirm 20th Century Warming “Does Not Stand Out” Over Past 2500 Years! […]

  7. M E

    “Perhaps the best way for scientists to predict how ice sheets will behave in the future is by learning how they behaved in the past,”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/14/inconvenient-antarcticas-ice-sheet-may-be-more-durable-than-we-thought/
    We see a similar point often enough in science publications.
    This is the main point of the very interesting article quoted above.
    I wonder why it has got lost in Sebastian’s childish squabbling. I’m wondering if our resident monitor who does not get the point of jokes or observations is not a journalist from French Canada,English not being his/her first language. This would make his/her mistakes excusable.
    ( I am defending you SebastianH though you think you don’t need it)

    1. Yonason

      Yes. Looking at how glaciers behaved in the past is very helpful (as I recently posted to another thread)
      http://blog.heartland.org/2014/05/glaciers-and-global-warming/

  8. Swedish Scientists: Modern Warming 'Does Not Stand Out' in Last 2,500 Years! | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close