Climate Alarmism Dies In 2018 As Modern Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise Has No Net Impact On World’s Coasts

The year 2018 could mark the beginning of the end of climate change alarmist reporting.  Projections of catastrophic melting of the ice sheets and sea level rise swallowing up the Earth’s coasts are increasingly undermined by observations. 

Extensive glacier and ice sheet melt resulting in an accelerated sea level rise threatening the world’s population centers living along the coasts is indeed the most legitimate threat posed by a global-scale warming trend.

Alarming sea level rise predictions abound.   Several meters of sea level rise due to catastrophic melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been predicted based on anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios.

For example, claims that we shall experience 260 centimeters (2.6 meters) of global sea level rise by 2100 unless we dramatically curtail our fossil fuel consumption have been published by authors like Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Richard Alley (Garner et al. 2017).  These same authors even suggest seas will rise by 17.5 meters in the next 180 years (Mörner et al., 2018).

Image Source: Mörner et al., 2018

Despite the hackneyed practice of reporting “staggering” ice sheet melt for both Greenland and Antarctica in recent decades, the two polar ice sheets combined to add just 1.5 centimeters to sea level rise between 1958 and 2014 (graph from Frederikse et al., 2018) as global sea levels only rose by “1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ)” or “1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors”.

That’s about 7.8 centimeters (3.1 inches) of global sea level change in 56 years.

Even more significantly, satellite observations all across the globe show that the coasts of islands and sandy beaches and continents have not only not been shrinking for the last several decades, they’ve been stable to growing on net.  Along the world’s coasts, there is today more land area above sea level than there was in the mid-1980s (Donchyts et al., 2016), leaving scientists “surprised”.

We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.  “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”  (BBC press release for Donchyts et al., 2016)

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner – a world-renown sea level expert who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University – and 3 other co-authors have concluded that sea level rise projections of 2.6 m by 2100 and 17.5 m by 2300 are “deeply flawed” and “not rooted in facts” (Mörner et al., 2018).

What follows is a very abbreviated summary of the dozens of alarmism-quelling papers published in 2018 pertaining to ice sheet melt, sea level rise, and coastal expansion.

Mörner et al., 2018

Estimating Future Sea Level Changes, Assessing Coastal
Hazards, Avoiding Misguiding Exaggerations, and
Recommending Present Coastal Management

“Tide-gauges offer records of the relative changes in sea level. Out of a total of about 2300 stations (PSMSL), “a global set of ~300 tide gauges that serves as the backbone of the global in situ sea level network” in the Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS). There is no objective, straightforward solution for estimating a global mean value. The University of Colorado chose 184 global tide-gauge records. Their rate of distribution has a marked peak in the zone from ±0.0 to +2.0 mm/yr with a mean value at +1.14 mm/yr. Because the majority of stations used include a component of regional subsidence and local sediment compaction, the true mean sea level value should be <+1.14 mm/yr. … Satellite altimetry is a new and important tool, which reconstructs the entire ocean surface changes. But nowhere do the measurements agree with coastal observations. Satellite altimetry exceeds tide-gauge records by about 300%. There have even been accusations of data manipulation [Mörner, 2018].”
Garner et al. (2017) propose SLR of up to 2.6 m by 2100, 10.5 m by 2200, and 17.5 m by 2300 (Fig. 1). These SLRs are far greater than those that occurred during catastrophic melting of immense ice sheets at the end of the Pleistocene, so the question arises, where will all the water come from to produce these very large SLRs? Melting of small, temperate, alpine glaciers wouldn’t produce anywhere near the SLRs projected by Garner et al., so the only possible sources of water are the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. The projections of Garner et al. of SLR of 7–8 m per century would require about seven times the end of the Pleistocene SLR when immense ice sheets were collapsing under warming of up to 20 °F in less than a century. To get these huge SLRs would require melting of an immense amount of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet. The average winter temperature in Antarctica is about –55 °F and temperatures have reached as low as 135 °F, so any significant melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would require 55° + 32° = 87 °F of warming just to get to the freezing point plus another 10 degrees or so to melt much ice. So Antarctica would have to warm up by 90–100 °F to melt enough ice to substantially raise sea level.”
“Hazard prediction is important, but the essence of science is the testing of predictions by comparison with observational facts. Without that validation, predictions are really just idle speculations. The future sea level values given by Garner et al. [2017] are deeply flawed and therefore misleading for coastal planning. They must be rejected as nonsense. Sea level research has its own well established means of recording past and present sea level changes and from those data to estimate likely sea level changes in the future. There are also physical frames to consider, some of which are absolute and must not be violated. … [T]he values given by Garner et al. [2017] violate not only physical laws but also accepted scientific knowledge of glaciology. Therefore, their values must not be considered in coastal planning. We also question the reviewing process.”
“Is Greenland warming and the ice sheet melting away? Chylek et al. [2004] analyzed temperature histories of coastal stations in southern and central Greenland having almost uninterrupted temperature records between 1950 and 2000 and found that coastal Greenland’s peak temperatures occurred between 1930 and 1940, after which subsequent decrease in temperature was so substantial and sustained that current coastal temperatures are about 1°C below their 1940 values.” At the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of measurements in 1987. Two weather stations, Godthab Nuu and Angmagssalik, on opposite coasts of Greenland, have the longest records, dating back more than a century. Both show similar annual temperature patterns–strong warming in the 1920 and 1930s followed by cooling from 1950 to 1980 and warming from 1980 to 2005. The significance of these recent temperature records is that they show that temperatures in the past several decades have not exceeded those of the 1930s and Greenland temperatures have fluctuated normally in step with global temperatures changes [Easterbrook, 2016].”
Satellite and surface temperature records and sea surface temperatures show that both the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are cooling, not warming. Satellite and surface temperature measurements show that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is cooling, not warming, and glacial ice is increasing, not melting. Satellite and surface temperature measurements of the southern polar area show no warming over the past 37 years. Growth of the Antarctic ice sheets means sea level rise is not being caused by melting of polar ice and, in fact, is slightly lowering the rate of rise. Satellite Antarctic temperature records show 0.02 °C/decade cooling since 1979. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica has been getting sharply colder since 2006. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, reaching all-time highs. Surface temperatures at 13 stations show the Antarctic Peninsula has been sharply cooling since 2000. This indicates that the hypothetical “enhanced Antarctic Ice Sheet contribution” of Garner et al. [2017] is a serious mistake (Fig. 1) not anchored in facts.”

2. Ice melt from Greenland, Antarctica added just 1.5 cm to sea levels since 1958 

“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1for the sum of contributors.” (Frederikse et al.,2018)


3. Ice mass gains in the rapidly-cooling Antarctic Peninsula since 2009  

Two small glaciers on James Ross Island, the north-eastern Antarctic Peninsula, experienced surface mass gain between 2009 and 2015 as revealed by field measurements. A positive cumulative surface mass balance of 0.57 ± 0.67 and 0.11 ± 0.37 m w.e. was observed during the 2009–2015 period on Whisky Glacier and Davies Dome, respectively. …  Ambrožová and Láska (2016) reported a significant decrease (0.03–0.15°C a−1 [-0.3 to -1.5°C per decade]) in the temperature along the AP [Antarctic Peninsula] over the 2005–15 period with the most prominent cooling at the Bibby Hill station on JRI [James Ross Island]. … The cumulative mass gain of the glaciers around the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula] indicates a regional change from a predominantly negative surface mass balance in the first decade of the 21st century to a positive balance over the 2009–15 period. The change in the glacier mass balance follows a significant decrease in the warming rates reported from the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula] since the end of the 20th century. The mass gain is also consistent with the regional trend of climate cooling on the eastern side of the AP [Antarctic Peninsula].”   (Engel et al., 2018)

4. Collapse of Larsen C glaciers would add 0.25 to 0.42 of a cm to sea levels

“Here we apply numerical ice-sheet models of varying complexity to show that the centennial sea-level commitment of Larsen C embayment glaciers following immediate shelf collapse is low ( < 2.5 mm to 2100,  < 4.2 mm to 2300) [0.25 to 0.42 of a cm added to sea levels by 2100/2300 with Larsen C collapse]. Despite its large size, Larsen C does not provide strong buttressing forces to upstream basins and its collapse does not result in large additional discharge from its tributary glaciers in any of our model scenarios. In contrast, the response of inland glaciers to a collapse of the George VI Ice Shelf may add up to 8mm to global sea levels by 2100 and 22mm by 2300 [0.8 cm to 2.2 cm] due in part to the mechanism of marine ice sheet instability. Our results demonstrate the varying and relative importance to sea level of the large Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves considered to present a risk of collapse.” (Schannwell et al., 2018)

5. East Antarctica is gaining mass – it takes “millions of years” for “even partial retreat” 

The East Antarctic ice sheet may be gaining mass in the current, warming climate. The palaeoclimate record shows, however, that it has retreated during previous episodes of prolonged warmth. … In terms of immediate sea-level rise, it is reassuring that it seems to require prolonged periods of lasting hundreds of thousands to millions of years to induce even partial retreat.” (Nature Geoscience, 2018)

6. No glacier-melt trend for Antarctica’s largest sea level rise contributor in 70 years

Pine Island Glacier is the largest current Antarctic contributor to sea level rise. Its ice loss has substantially increased over the last 25 years through thinning, acceleration and grounding line retreat. However, the calving line positions of the stabilizing ice shelf did not show any trend within the observational record (last 70 years) until calving in 2015 led to unprecedented retreat and changed alignment of the calving front. … Despite the thinning and flow acceleration of PIG [Pine Island Glacier], and sustained, rapid thinning of the ice shelf over at least the past 25 years the position of the ice front had not shown any clear trend over 68 years of observations prior to 2015 (Bindschadler, 2002;MacGregor et al., 2012;Rignot, 2002).”  (Arndt et al., 2018)

7. East Antarctica gaining mass…projections due to ice sheet melt “overestimated”

East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) mass balance is largely driven by snowfall. Recently, increased snowfall in Queen Maud Land led to years of EAIS mass gain. It is difficult to determine whether these years of enhanced snowfall are anomalous or part of a longer-term trend, reducing our ability to assess the mitigating impact of snowfall on sea-level rise. We determine that the recent snowfall increases in western Queen Maud Land (QML) are part of a long-term trend (+5.2±3.7% decade-1) and are unprecedented over the past two millennia. Warming between 1998 and 2016 is significant and rapid (+1.1±0.7 °C decade-1). Using these observations, we determine that the current accumulation and temperature increases in QML from an ensemble of global climate simulations are too low, which suggests that projections of the QML [Queen Maud Land] contribution to sea-level rise are potentially overestimated with a reduced mitigating impact of enhanced snowfall in a warming world.”  (Medley et al., 2018)

8. Globally, 73.1% of island coasts are stable, 15.5% are growing, and 11.4% are shrinking 

“This review first confirms that over the past decades to century, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization by sea-level rise. The global sample considered in this paper, which includes 30 atolls and 709 islands, reveals that atolls did not lose land area, and that 73.1% of islands were stable in land area, including most settled islands, while 15.5% of islands increased and 11.4% decreased in size. Atoll and island areal stability can therefore be considered as a global trend. Importantly, islands located in ocean regions affected by rapid sea-level rise showed neither contraction nor marked shoreline retreat, which indicates that they may not be affected yet by the presumably negative, that is, erosive, impact of sea-level rise. .. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise. Tuvaluan atolls affected by rapid sea-level rise (5.1 mm/yr; Becker et al., 2012) did not exhibit a distinct behavior compared to atolls located in areas showing lower sea-level rise rates, for example, the Federated States of Micronesia or Tuamotu atolls.”  (Duvat et al., 2018)

9. Since 1984, 48% of the globe’s shorelines have been stable, 28% are growing, and 24% are shrinking

“The application of an automated shoreline detection method to the sandy shorelines thus identified resulted in a global dataset of shoreline change rates for the 33 year period 1984–2016Analysis of the satellite derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, while 28% are accreting and 48% are stable. …. Erosion rates exceed 5 m/yr along 4% of the sandy shoreline and are greater than 10 m/yr for 2% of the global sandy shoreline. On the other hand, about 8% of the world’s sandy beaches experience significant accretion (>3 m/yr), while 6% (3%) are accreting more than 5 m/yr (10 m/yr). … Taking a continental perspective, Australia and Africa are the only continents for which net erosion (−0.20 m/yr and −0.07 m/yr respectively) is found, with all other continents showing net accretion.”  (Luijendijk et al., 2018)

10. “Despite sea-level rise” there has been a “land area increase in eight of nine atolls” since 1971

“We specifically examine spatial differences in island behaviour, of all 101 islands in Tuvalu, over the past four decades (1971–2014), a period in which local sea level has risen at twice the global average (Supplementary Note 2). Surprisingly, we show that all islands have changed and that the dominant mode of change has been island expansion, which has increased the land area of the nation. … Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average [<2 mm/yr-1] (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls.”  (Kench et al., 2018)

11. Bangladesh coastal land area has expanded by 7.9 kmper year during 1985-2015

“This paper draws upon the application of GIS and remote sensing techniques to investigate the dynamic nature and management aspects of land in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. … This research reveals that the rate of accretion [coastal land growth] in the study area is slightly higher than the rate of erosion. Overall land dynamics indicate a net gain of 237 km2 (7.9 km2annual average) of land in the area for the whole period from 1985 to 2015.”  (Ahmed et al., 2018)

12. 54% of ‘vulnerable’ SW Pacific Islands studied had shorelines that expanded from 2005-2015

“Summary: Atoll islands are low-lying accumulations of reef-derived sediment that provide the only habitable land in Tuvalu, and are considered vulnerable to the myriad possible impacts of climate change, especially sea-level rise. This study examines the shoreline change of twenty-eight islands in Funafuti Atoll between 2005 and 2015 … Most of the islands remained stable, experiencing slight accretion or erosion or a combination of both over time. The total net land area of the islands increased by 1.55 ha (0.55%) between 2005 and 2010, and it has decreased by 1.90 ha (0.68%) between 2010 and 2015, resulting in a net decrease by 0.35 ha (0.13%). … Results indicate a 0.13% (0.35 ha) decrease in net island area over the study time period, with 13 islands decreasing in area and 15 islands increasing in area.  Substantial decreases in island area occurred on the islands of Fuagea, Tefala and Vasafua, which coincides with the timing of Cyclone Pam in March, 2015.”  (Hisabayashi et al., 2018 )

31 responses to “Climate Alarmism Dies In 2018 As Modern Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise Has No Net Impact On World’s Coasts”

  1. Bill Butler

    Morner is a joke when it comes to measuring sea level. A few years ago he was saying that sea level hadn’t risen at all since 1970.
    Original source of the above graph can be seen at:

    1. Kurt in Switzerland

      Bill Butler –

      Are you trying to take Seb’s role, aka resident troll?

      I agree, the graph you posted is sloppy. The text indicates data through 1960, but doesn’t reference the source of the post-1960 curve.

      But the statement, “Mörner is a joke when it comes to measuring sea level” sounds like an ill-advised rant. Are you aware of his credentials and experience? His CV indicates that he may know a thing or two more about sea level rise than Bill Butler / Durango Bill. / sarc off.

      The article you referenced in fact covers measured data from several locations which have experienced scant sea level rise over the past few decades.

      1. Yonason

        Butler shows up periodically, not to give us any useful information, but to berate and insult.

        I’m guessing his comment above is referring to this document.

        Note that just as with temperature data, so with sea level rise. They can’t seem to find it without adjust the data by adding it in by hand.

        Funny how he doesn’t bother to show exactly why he thinks that Mörner is wrong. I guess someone of his towering intellect just can’t be bothered explaining anything to the rabble who don’t share his sacred beliefs. I mean, it surely can’t because he’s incapable of doing so, ….can it? //sarc//

        ASIDE – Oh, look at how the rising ocean has destroyed the economy of the Maldives!

        Just how is it that science and public policy got hijacked by scam artists and religious fanatics?

      2. SebastianH

        Kurt, I have the feeling you are trying to go the spike55 route here …

        The fun part in this is that you skeptics always seem to argue that people like me argue from authority, but here we are and one of you brings up the CV of a guy to support his argument. Just great 😉

        1. Kurt in Switzerland

          OK Seb,

          Give us a coherent argument challenging Mörner’s scientific publications.

      3. Yonason


        Butler doesn’t attack the data, or show what’s wrong with it. He attacks the source of that data by calling him “a joke,” and the only “evidence” Butler brings as proof is that 1) his conclusions were different from those of warmists, and 2) his work was featured in an SPPI publication. Talk about ironclad reasoning.

        You present evidence that he’s not “a joke,” but is, at the very least, the equal of any of their “experts.”

        The house troll then accuses you of appealing to authority, which wasn’t what you were doing at all.

        Funny how when the they appeal to authority, it’s always an imaginary one like the perenially wrong IPCC; even though they aren’t real authorities, but slimy bureaucratic trolls in high places who tell us lies about what the real scientists say.

        It’s like when they pushed their phony 97% consensus, and one skeptical scientist started a petition that was signed by tens of thousands of scientists, to show that there was no consensus in support of the warming scam. I repeat, it was not an appeal to imaginary authority, but merely a proof that there was no warming consensus.

        See also here, here and here.

        So, given the evidence, warmists belong more on the bottom of movie theater seats than in positions of power and influence.

        So nice of the troll to give me an excuse to vent on this topic. 😉

        1. Kurt in Switzerland

          Well put.

  2. Skeptik

    There is little room for doubt that the earth has warmed considerably over recent years and, as far as we can tell, is continuing to do so. What this means for melting ice and sea levels is much less clear.

    The real issue that ought to concern us is how much of this warming is down to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. If, as I suspect, much of the warming has other causes, then the climate alarmism is unjustified

    1. SebastianH

      Why should concern about the rather rapid climate change be unjustified when we can’t do anything about it, e.g. if it should turn out that skeptics perception of the laws of physics have been correct all along and there is no such thing as a CO2 GHE?

      When will skeptics apply some skepticism towards their own heroes and claims?

    2. Matthew Bruha

      I have definitely noticed the 0.02C change in the past 30 years

      1. skeptik

        I don’t know what you are talking about – and neither, I suspect, do you.

        If you take the annual trends over the last 30 years, (1988-2017) and multiply by 30, then you get the following results for the temperature rises: HCT4 =0.55; GISS =0.46; NOAA =0.51; UAHv6.0 =0.39 and RSSv4.0 =0.64 degrees centigrade.

        1. Yonason


          I could be wrong, but I took Matthew’s comment to be sarcasm, as in “Oh my, look how hot it’s getting!”

          I mean, come on. You can’t even read tenths of a degree, let alone hundredths. How are you going to feel it?

  3. Bitter&twisted

    Don’t you just love IPCC “settled science”🤮

  4. rah

    To heck with all this peripheral argument. The fact is that for decades now I have heard the dreaded Greenland ice sheet is melting and coming to drown all of us anywhere near a low lying coast. And for decades it hasn’t happened. The Maldives were all supposed to be underwater by now. Not a single one is. The examples of failed predictions go on and on.

    Where is the water? Global SLR is not accelerating. Put up or shut up already because a whole lot of people are tired of this broken disaster record being played over and over and over and over again. At least try to come up with some new type of disaster to harp on because listening to the same old one has gotten about as interesting and alarming as watching paint dry.

    1. SebastianH

      The fact is that for decades now I have heard the dreaded Greenland ice sheet is melting and coming to drown all of us anywhere near a low lying coast. And for decades it hasn’t happened.

      You haven’t noticed that Greenland lost thousands of gigatonnes of ice mass since the start of this century? Hmm …

      The Maldives were all supposed to be underwater by now. Not a single one is. The examples of failed predictions go on and on.

      Really? What else was predicted in the 80s that hasn’t happened by now? Or better, what else has been predicted just 10 years ago and hasn’t happened? Remember those skeptics “the coming ice age is near” claims from that time? 😉

      Where is the water? Global SLR is not accelerating.

      Yes it is. Kenneth likes to link to the Frederikse et al., 2018 paper all the time. The acceleration is there even though he likes to only point to the perceived small average of around 1.5 mm/yr, the current rate is around 3 to 4 mm/yr and still accelerating.

      Put up or shut up already because a whole lot of people are tired of this broken disaster record being played over and over and over and over again.

      Rest assured, those outside of your bubble are very tired of hearing the same flawed “arguments” from your side over and over as well. Maybe it is time you guys came up with something substantial? It should be easy to disprove a theory. Just find one example where it doesn’t work … can’t be that hard 😉

      1. rah

        Tell me Seb. When will the west side highway in Manhattan be submerged and the windows taped up in NYC? Battery Park shows no SLR. The only problem they have right now is with the frozen water just as DC is having right now.

        So where is the SLR rate increase? Let me guess! Only in the middle of the ocean and not near stable tide gauges with a long record?

        What has been predicted to have happened has not and there are no indications in the real, non adjusted, observable world that it is going to.

        In Boston, where they are in the midst of their snowiest decade on record, the ends of the big dig are just a far above SL as they were then the tunnel was finished.

        1. Yonason


          A simple way to settle this is to ask how much the observed rise in the oceans corresponds to loss of Greenland ice.

          According to Dr Moerner, a realistic estimate of sea level rise is 0.7 mm per year. Given that if all Greenland ice melted the seas would rise 7 meters, we find that 7000mm/0.7mm per year = 10,000 years.

          If we take what Moerner calls a less realistic estimate of 1.3mm per year, we find that 7000mm/1.3mm per year = 5,385 years.

          Put another way, the “massive” amounts of ice melting from Greenland every year amount to no more than 0.01 to 0.02 percent of it’s total.

          And if you consider that they claim that other ice is also rapidly melting, then the contribution from Greenland must be even less.

          Unless sea level rise is accelerating, which it only is in the demented paranoid minds of warmists, there is NOTHING to worry about.

          As Moerner points out, dramatic sea level rise was the result of adding a fudge factor to the data.

          Just as they are now caught tampering with temperatures,…

          …so they tamper with any data that doesn’t give them the answer they want.

          Once again the troll is about as wrong as can be. Yeah, I’m as surprised as you are. (rolls eyes)

  5. Climate Alarmism Dies In 2018 As Modern Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise Has No Net Impact On World’s Coasts – Truth is difficult but essential; to find, to understand, to accept

    […] No Tricks Zone – Climate Alarmism Dies In 2018 As Modern Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise Has No Net I… […]

  6. Climate Alarmism Dies In 2018 As Modern Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise Has No Net Impact On World's Coasts | Un hobby...

    […] by Kenneth Richard, November 15, 2018 in NoTricksZone […]

  7. dennisambler

    You haven’t noticed that Greenland lost thousands of gigatonnes of ice mass since the start of this century?

    And replaced much of it. This is not a one way process. How come there was so much less ice around Greenland in previous millennia?

    From an official history (Danish) of Greenland:
    “Until around 4500 BC, the remains of the mighty ice cap which had been left over from the last ice age covered parts of Arctic Canada and blocked the way to Greenland. The first people arrived in the northernmost part of Greenland in around 2500 BC, and in the course of a few hundred years the ice-free part of the island became home to an Arctic tribe of hunters known as the Palaeo-Eskimos. The warmer climate which appeared once the ice had gone allowed the
    population to increase rapidly. The Arctic hunters followed the roaming herds of musk oxen and reindeer, and tools made of bone and stones found in the area from Alaska to Greenland show clear signs of cultural homogeneity.

    The Dorset culture developed independently from around 500 BC until c. 1200, and the people became especially adapted to sealing and caribou hunting. An abundance of artefacts and carvings have been found from this period. Towards the end of the 10th century the climate became warmer, and
    the change affected all those living in the northern hemisphere. Much of the ice in the seas around the Canadian archipelago disappeared, and baleen whales moved into the area to search for food. Eskimo whalers from northern Alaska sailed east in their large, skin-covered boats and reached Greenland in the 12th century.”

  8. Ice Melt And Sea Level Rise Refute Alarmist Predictions. Again | PSI Intl

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

  9. Ice Melt And Sea Level Rise Refute Alarmist Predictions. Again – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

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

  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #336 | Watts Up With That?

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