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:
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).”
107 responses to “Swedish Researchers Confirm 20th Century Warming “Does Not Stand Out” Over Past 2500 Years!”
Just another one to add to the long, long list of papers showing that today’s warmer temperatures are absolutely nothing new, and just more run-of-the-Holocene activity. It’s getting so tough for the catastrophe-obsessed warming neurotics.
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.
You probably are aware that models predict further increase in temperatures and heat content. Even though you also probably don’t think that the models are correct, we are nevertheless only at the beginning of this development. If todays warming is comparable to earlier warmings, then it will easily surpass those earlier warming in the next decades.
Well … except if you are a believer in the coming (small) solar weakening induced ice age. How is that -2.x prediction for 2020 coming? Any sign we might reach that?
P.S.: Will the cookie issue be fixed or do we have to enter our name/email for every comment we make from now on?
Cookie acceptance period is once per month, and so the banner should not appear each day.
Not referring to the “accept cookies” banner, but the cookies for the comment input field. It doesn’t remember name/email/etc anymore (tested on multiple devices).
I’ll look into it as soon as I get some time.
No sign of any CO2 induced warming anywhere, seb
Just solar heat into the oceans.. all natural.
Maybe some urban heat bleeding through into the surface temperature series, but the satellites aren’t showing much of that because urban areas are really a very small percentage (in the surface data they often dominate)
No warming between El Ninos AT ALL.
No reason to make anti-science guesses that the highly beneficial warming out of the anomalously cold LIA will continue.
But you don’t need a scientific reason, do you , seb.
“I’d like to point out…. blah blah… some seb fantasy babbling”
I’d like to point out that there is zero evidence that anything out of the ordinary is happening with the climate, rather benign from a historical perspective, actually..
.. and that there is ZERO evidence that human CO2 has caused ANY of the highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Another grim meeting of troll with reality.
Poor troll’s head must be spinning.
From the source:
“The 20th century warming clearly exceeds the temperatures
observed during the prior 2500 years.”
“its recent warming is unprecedented in a 2500-year perspective”
The actual source concludes that the warming is “unprecedented” in a 2500 year perspective.
cherry picked one SHALLOW bay, during the grand solar maximum.
WAKE UP and use your AGW diminished brain capacity if you can.
Yes Solar activity has been VERY HIGH during the latter half of last century.
And yes strong solar activity has big effects on shallow enclosed waters.
What else don’t you know ???
“If todays warming is comparable to earlier warmings, then it will easily surpass those earlier warming in the next decades.”
Non sequitur, Seb.
” Even though you also probably don’t think that the models are correct, we are nevertheless only at the beginning of this development.”
I’m sure you join us in thinking the models are not currently correct; they’ve so far been spectacularly incorrect.
By “we are at the beginning of their development”, if you mean they may improve, well of course.
Same temperatures back then and now mean that a continued warming in modern times will surpass the previous warming.
That is not the case!
Sure they will, but I meant we are at the start of the warming phase. It’s not over yet.
Real temps vs models (as opposed to specifically altered temperatures)
..and this is RCP4.5, which CO2 emissions are well below.
Why is it you ALWAYS fall for ALL the lies and propaganda from the AGW stall-warts, seb
Inability to think for yourself ???
“but I meant we are at the start of the warming phase.”
ZERO-evidence seb, yaps again !!
Cooling spell coming seb..
And I suspect you KNOW that.
Since records have been kept (1979 when satellites were launched)earth has mostly been on a positive pdo and positive amo. Also, the sun has been at its highest sunspots in nearly a 1,000 years. Since the mid 1700’s, earth has been warming from the little ice age when the Thames river froze. It has been reported that in the late 1930-40’s, the temperature was the same as it is today, but we were using good old fashioned mercury thermometers rather than satellites back then so those temperatures apparently need to get modified and don’t count.
But, during this last 30 year run (also 1/2 of a 60 year cycle)there has been increasing co2 at the same time as warming.
So rather than saying there are cycles, cycles matter, sun might be the real deal, other factors such as ocean currents, el nino, and many more….Nope. Temperatures going up since satellites when up and co2 up…that must be the only reason.
Riiiight. Rather than disregard thousands and millions of years of core data and related science, lets just look at the past 30 years and the magical models. Man’s suvs and energy consumption is the sole reason for the temperature rise.
I’ll wait to see how the negative amo and negative pdo and quieter sun impact the oceans and temperatures before I go decide to trash the modern society, industry, and medicine to save the earth.
“to trash the modern society, industry, and medicine to save the earth.”
Unfortunately, that is already happening.
Save the Earth… What from. ??
Save it from the idiocy of the AGW scam/agenda.!
Hey Sebastian, how’s the Al Gore snow forecast working out ? Was supposed to be a thing of the past that children would only know about by reading history books eh ?
How many decades snow records were broken in Europe over this last winter ?
Wasn’t Manhattan also predicted to be underwater by early 2000’s ?
Forgive my cynicism, but I’d have doubt’s that ‘ Climate Change ‘ ( because Global Warming was obviously such a joke ) afficionados would correctly be able to forecast the day that comes after a Saturday
Pierre, Thank you and Irina for another great paper.
“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.
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.
“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 !!!
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?
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 …
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. !
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!
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.
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? 😉
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 …
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.
Sure, (pseudo-)skepticism as observed in blogs like this one are not a cult … dream on 😉
What fact am I ignoring, Jim?
Huh? You are being told 1 + 1 = 2, but it’s not the same thing as 1 + 1 actually being 2?
Not by human CO2 emissions.
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.
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:
And he drifts into conspiracy territory … besides, why would decarbonisation make us lose our lifestyle?
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”…..
Your incredible LACK of any self-thought or rational brain activity is BIZZARE to say the least.
so sad.. but so seb
Don’t address the substance of the comment, seb, whatever you do.
And I’m wrong about what, precisely?
“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.
“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.
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.
Yeh, I know, tomo. I keep trying suppress this urge to talk sense to trolls but it keeps breaking out.
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”).
Please identify the reasons why the warm-up since the Little Ice Age (regardless of cause) has not been beneficial to the biosphere.
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?
“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.
” “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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
“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 .
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.
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?
Humans do not fly. They are being flown.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
That is the case, so it is unprecedented.
“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.
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
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.
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
But the South Pole has melted! I read that in the Atlantic and USA Today! LOL
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?
“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“
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.
Oh, I forgot. Climate is now defined as 7 years and 3 millimeters. Kenneth, I suggest responding with a post, and not in a silly discussion with hysterical readers here.
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.
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.
Read the paper, I am not your nanny/teacher.
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.
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.
Kenneth and his homework assignments. Why this distraction?
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
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.”
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“
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?
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.
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?
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?
So you claim that skeptics are “imagining” that it’s been claimed that Antarctic ice sheet melt is caused by humans.
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.
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 🙂
“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. ! 🙂
“Kenneth, let’s be honest,”
OMG .. we are about to see a totally new seb !!
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. ! 🙂
” 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.
Not playing, Kenneth. For the last time, nobody said that humans aren’t causing the acceleration.
AndyG55, you are serious, aren’t you?
“I show it CANNOT be anything but natural“
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
“AndyG55, you are serious, aren’t you?”
You could at least TRY to prove me wrong.
Laughter is meant to be the best medicine.
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.
… for any changes in the Antarctic ice mass.
AndyG55, you wrote:
You claim that this “show[s] it CANNOT be anything but natural”. I repeat my question: are you serious?
You are claiming it is natural. The burden of proof for this claim is on your side. So come on, prove it!
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?
Please don’t confuse your side with actual climate science …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.!!
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
No answer is also an answer … thank you for confirming that most pseudoskeptics beliefs are just based on wrong understanding of the mechanisms.
“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. 🙂
Going back to 1992? Why 1992? Antarctic sea ice should be looked at far on longer time scales in order account for all the multidecadal cyclic factors. I’d be curious to see the trend since early 20th century, if there’s data on that out there.
Not necessary! The Mass change is negligible or almost not there.
They are talking less than 0.001% of ice loss yearly and 0.001% over time.
Even if they think they can measure it, they will have a hell lot of trouble to explain that the yearly ice mass change of the sea ice is far more than what they think is lost on the continent.
Antarctic has been COOLING for a long time, certainly as long as we have satellite temperature data.
So any loss CANNOT be because of atmospheric warming.
Poor seb, FACEPLANTS in his BS, yet again !!
His NATURAL status in life.
Because that is the point in time when accurate data about the ice mass was available.
It’s even smaller compared to the mass of the universe. What are trying to achieve here? Accelerating ice mass loss is just that. Why is it difficult for you guys to just accept that fact? It says nothing about what causes this acceleration nor that it will continue forever causing the eventual melting of the entire continental ice sheet.
The only clown “faceplanting” again and again here is you.
Would you agree that decelerating ice mass loss is “just that” too…since the Greenland ice sheet’s mass loss has dramatically decelerated since the 2008-2012 period average (-367 Gt/yr)? Is it difficult for you to accept that Greenland’s ice sheet mass loss has been decelerating…or that the total loss contribution to sea level rise since 1993 has been 0.39 of a centimeter? Again, how are we going to get to your belief in catastrophic sea level rise of 305 centimeters (10 feet) by 2065 if the two largest contributors have added about a centimeter and a half to sea levels since the early 1990s?
Why would that be difficult. Just looking at the graph for Greenland (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/ ) reveals a slight deceleration. But then again, the mass loss in Greenland only really started around the year 2000 … practically yesterday.
“the mass loss in Greenland only really started around the year 2000”
Oh, so NOT from 1979 , hey 😉
And Greenland has been GAINING mass the last 3 or 4 years.. Exiting, isn’t it seb.
No indication of ANY human CO2 reason for that loss and now gain of mass, is there seb
Totally NATURAL, wouldn’t you agree.
Apparently, Pierre, the reason 1992 is the start is because that’s when measurements began.
“Indeed as Shephard himself is forced to admit, we did not start collecting data until 1992. This sort of melting could have been going on for centuries or longer. In fact, another paper published this month by Kingslake et al finds that there has been extensive retreat and re-advance of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet during the Holocene.”
Also, from Paul Homewood…
“2) We have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage
Again, this is a fake claim.
According to a NASA study in 2015, the land ice is actually growing in Antarctica:”
Another companion for Michael Mann in the junk pile of climate history? Looking likely.
(Watch for activist trolls triggered by Breitbart/Delingpole in 3…2…1…)
Care to give a source for this nonsense? Not this, right? http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
So you can accept a NASA claim when it suits your agenda, but when it doesn’t NASA is also fake. Sure … to junk pile of pseudoskeptic comments you go.
Poor seb, unable to even follow basic SMB graphs. INCOMPETENCE writ large.
Greenland has been gain mass last 3-4 years, seb
GET OVER IT.
Mass losses and gains in Greenland are TINY, and the ice area is still only just a tiny amount down from the LIA. WAY above most of the last 8000 years
Anomalously HIGH, seb
Levels have not even dropped back down the MWP levels or anywhere near them
Something tells me you are the one who can’t interpret SMB graphs. Maybe read the text next to them or something like that. Don’t be afraid to “read a lot” … it could change your mind though.
No, Greenland hasn’t gained mass in the last 3 to 4 years. There is a slim chance that it has in the 2016 to 2017 season, but unfortunately the replacement for the GRACE satellites has been put into orbit only just a few weeks ago.
seb proves he cannot read SMB graphs.
get a chihuahua to help you next time, seb
And as the comedic alarmist carrying-on and bed-wetting from seb’s Antarctic ice loss paper subsides…
From the source:
“The 20th century warming clearly exceeds the temperatures
observed during the prior 2500 years.”
“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.
“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 !!
[…] Swedish Researchers Confirm 20th Century Warming “Does Not Stand Out” Over Past 2500 Years! […]
“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,”
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)
Yes. Looking at how glaciers behaved in the past is very helpful (as I recently posted to another thread)
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]