By Jo Nova
Twelve thousand years ago sea levels around Africa rose much faster than today
It’s another totally solid, non-controversial paper that will never be mentioned in the media or by 50 shades of climate experts.
In extraordinary detail, Vecchi et al look at 347 datapoints up and down the west coast of Africa and find that, like everywhere else, sea levels were a blockbuster 125m lower at the depths of the ice age 25,000 years ago. Then seas rose in rapid bursts as the vast Laurentide and Eurasian ice sheets melted, until they finally stopped rising 8,000 years ago. It must have been twelve thousand years of mayhem for corals, mangroves and beach-side cave-dwellers.
In the northern Gulf of Guinea seas were recorded as rising at up to 25 mm per year about 12,000 years ago — eight times faster than anything we see today. And given the difficulty of knowing sea levels 15,000 years ago, there were probably many short episodes of faster shifts that got washed away, never to be recorded.
All our panic about the current crisis of a pitiful 3mm-a-year rise allegedly “due to man-made CO2” pales to nothing compared to what Monster Nature does. This study and hundreds like it, are like a stake through the heart of the vampire. For if the children understood the seismic shifts of the past, they would know that they were being sold a lie that the world had a stable and perfect climate or that current beaches have some sacred right to exist in perpetuity. Obviously, as commenters* pointed out, the Torres Strait Islanders ought to have a cultural memory of massive inundation, reefs shifting and the beaches being washed away. Like everywhere else in the world, Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years.
Thanks to Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone who wrote that Africa’s Atlantic Coast Sea Levels Were Still 1 Meter Higher Than Today 2000 Years Ago.
Click to enlarge | Nature | NB: The authors must be left-handers and run their graphs right to left — so in graph C, the present is on the left.
And if natural rises can be eight times faster than what we see today, then how do we know the current rise is not partially or wholly natural? All we have are climate simulations…
Sea levels have fallen by 1 to 4 meters in last 5,000 years
Imagine the amount of work to collect all these data points from so many locations?
There were some sharp falls in sea level in the last 2,000 years.
Click to enlarge. The timeline reads backwards. The distant past is on the right hand side.
From the paper:
These data represent the first Atlantic Ocean evidence of the sea-level lowering trend during the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum]. Previously, the Barbados record, was the single LGM dataset available for the Atlantic Ocean2,8,10 but its accuracy in defining the timing and magnitude of the LGM was debated for possible tectonic influence8 as well as for the potential presence of allochthonous dated material from downslope transportation of the coral sea-level indicators29. …
Rates of sea-level rise during the main phase of deglaciation
A major phase of deglaciation and consequent increase in global mean sea level occurred between ∼16.5 ka and ∼7.0 ka BP24 from a reduction of land-based ice volume of ∼45 × 106 km3.
From the Abstract:
From ~15 ka to ~7.5 ka BP, RSL shows phases of major accelerations up to ~25 mm a−1 and a significant RSL deceleration by ~8 ka BP. In the mid to late Holocene, data indicate the emergence of a sea-level highstand, which varied in magnitude (0.8 ± 0.8 m to 4.0 ± 2.4 m above present mean sea level) and timing (5.0 ± 1.0 to 1.7 ± 1.0 ka BP).
The Results
In the northern Gulf of Guinea, RSL was stable at −61.6 ± 3.0 m between 14.0 ka and 13.0 ka BP (Fig. 3c). RSL rose to −44.9 ± 4.0 m at 12.0 ± 0.2 ka BP and to −37.2 ± 3.0 m at 11 ± 0.2 ka BP. Younger SLIPs indicate RSL rose to −6.1 ± 0.2 m at 8.0 ± 0.2 ka BP and finally to −1.6 ± 0.7 m at 7.0 ± 0.2 ka BP. The 9 SLIPs indicate two phases of major acceleration with rates of rise up to 25.2 ± 11 mm a−1 between 12.6 ka and 12.1 ka BP and up to 11.6 ± 11 mm a−1 between 10.0 ka and 8.0 ka BP (Fig. 3d). After 8.0 ka BP, RSL rates were <7.0 ± 2 mm a−1 at 7.5 ka BP.
In Congo, RSL rose from −70.7 ± 3.9 m to −24.7 ± 1.7 m between 13.3 ± 0.2 ka and 10.0 ± 0.2 ka BP (Fig. 3e). Younger SLIPs indicate RSL rose to −4.3 ± 2.0 m at 8.0 ± 0.2 ka BP and reached present sea-level at 7.0 ka BP. The 9 SLIPs show sea-level rose at rates from 13.4 ± 3.4 mm a−1 at 13.0 ka BP to 14.8 ± 1.8 mm a−1 at 11.4 ± 0.2 ka BP (Fig. 3). This was followed by progressive decrease in rising rates from 10.3 ± 1.4 mm a−1 after 9.0 ka BP to 6.0 ± 1.0 mm a−1 after 8.0 ka BP, respectively (Fig. 3f).
Sea levels were higher in the Holocene, all over the world
Like giant oysters that used to live in the streets of Taiwan 7,000 years ago. Hundreds of Pacific Islands appeared out of the sea in the last 5,000 years as the seas receded, and these islands didn’t exist during the Holocene peak. 50 million years ago New Zealand was as big as India, then the ocean swallowed Zealandia. (So careless, they lost a whole continent.)
The fact is, according to 1000 tide gauges, spread all over the globe, sea levels are rising slowly at around 1 sole mm a year. And a nerd-level intense study of 60 beaches in Northern Europe showed a similar rise. By a strange coincidence the Topex/Poseidon satellite sea-level data set also showed the same tiny rates of sea level change in the 1990s — right up until they tortured the data to fit climate models. (We hear they calibrated the satellites to one sinking gauge in Hong Kong).
Other posts on Sea Levels
- Sea level rise less than 1mm for last 125 years in Kattegatt, Europe — Nils-Axel Morner
- Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seas
- Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustments (Envisat data is also adjusted up).
- It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800
- 10% of sea level rise is due to land rising too. Got that?
- South Pacific sea levels – Best records show little or no rise?!
- Mass carbon emissions, yet Australian sea levels rise at similar speed as 1920 – 1950
- Climate change creates free real estate in Tuvalu: “climate refugees” can all go home
- Rising sea-levels in the Indian Ocean due to man-made “adjustments” not CO2
- Kiribati sinking “like Titanic” but 59 million times slower
- Asian sea levels changed rapidly 6,000 years ago — natural sea level rise “unprecedented”
h/t El Gordo, NoTricksZone
*Ice age cultural remarks by David Maddison, MrGrimNasty,
REFERENCES
Vacchi, M., Shaw, T.A., Anthony, E.J. et al (2025) . Sea level since the Last Glacial Maximum from the Atlantic coast of Africa. Nat Commun 16, 1486 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56721-0
Aha! Best evidence yet of a previous civilisation. Wiped out by the global warming they caused. Science.
261
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/C5WNd45Mrw0?feature=share
An asteroid hit is obviously caused by man-made climate change. Man called God. God was annoyed so he sent a message. CO2 is not something to worry about.
Such hits would have caused massive ocean rises. No doubt we will spend billions looking into it as such events changed the climate and we “need to know” so we can grift more billions.
60
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CNa-hPgRpOw?feature=share
00
Warmists and the Left have a staticist view of the world and think the earth system is static and unchanging. They are unlikely to know about the Milankovitch Cycles, periodic glaciation, the Sun as a variable star, variations in cosmic ray impingement as the solar systems moves through the galactic arm causing changes in cloud formation, natural changes in ecology, etc..
They simply don’t understand that the earth is constantly changing and remaking itself. Hence they are alarmed at any change, real or imagined.
280
I understand that the science underpinning climate change is unacceptable to you, but in this example, you can add C02 values and see the relationship. Further, you can examine current levels of this gas, and see how it is rising like it was back then. Finally you can find the attributed sources of C02, which answers the why. All of this is in the Epstein files, which is why the us President will not release them
157
Who’s denying climate change? See my post above.
It happens all the time and right throughout the entire history of the earth of which humans have been around only about 0.0066% of that period.
371
The science is contested although that part of it eludes you – the point of attribution namely, which doesn’t satisfy the “why” bit. Trump you might be right about.
410
yes it does and all the models like temp and CO2 – what is your point?
122
So Peter, we can all see you start with petty insults, and the lie you have to tell yourself: “I understand that the science underpinning climate change is unacceptable to you”. You hope to fool people that “The Science” means The Scientific Method, but we all know it just means “UN approved ‘sciencey’ opinions”.
It’s your cover for not being able to find any observational evidence in all the years we’ve asked you for it. But it’s a bore.
The evidence has been there for 20 years that CO2 follows temperature hundreds of years later. Petit 1999, Fischer 1999, Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001, Caillon 2003. Some models might pretend that sometimes (why not all the time) CO2 amplifies the warming, but right there in the ice cores is the bare truth that CO2 can be higher but temperatures fall regardless. Eg. from 127,000BC to 112,000 BC. That’s 15,000 years of CO2 being irrelevant.
Or in the study in this paper by Vacchi — CO2 supposedly stayed the same from 8000 years ago til 1800AD but temperatures (and sea levels) all over the world fell.
210
Do you want the Basic https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-basic.htm
Intermediate: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
or Advanced explanation: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-advanced.htm
My climate change denial bingo card is getting full today.
09
I want your answer Simon, but you have no idea. You just cut n paste links you don’t understand like a fanatical believer.
170
Very very simply, the cause is feedbacks. One example: Something (e.g. Milankovitch cycles) causes a little bit of warming, warmer oceans outgas CO2, temperatures rise further, more CO2 enters the atmosphere from the ocean. There are other feedbacks and forcings as well.
14
Sure. As imagined by desperate climate modelers. Except there’s no empirical evidence those feedbacks are real. The hot spot is still missing. Temps still fall even though CO2 is higher. It’s all a fantasy.
120
Simon #3.1.2.1.1 – I tested that hypothesis a long time ago. It failed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-3/
30
FWIW
“1910 Fruitgum Company – Simon says (1968)”
https://youtu.be/TKZ1ey-HBqg
00
You deny that warming oceans outgas CO2? That’s a very simple thing to test, you can even use a glass of Coca-Cola. This is basic science that has been well understood for over 150 years.
11
Simon,
Jo didn’t say warming Oceans don’t or do outgas CO2.
It’s irrelevant whether they do or don’t unless you can demonstrate that if they do then it is or would be a real feedback that creates additional warming.
If warming begats warming and particularly due to CO2, then you’ll have to explain why when CO2 rises after warming per the lag (it seemingly wasn’t the cause) then why the following cooling with such high CO2 if CO2 perpetuates more warming and more CO2 and more warming.
Coca-Cola emitting CO2 is not empirical evidence of CO2 causing warming or being a positive feedback for more.
40
Again, quoting the discredited Skeptical Science. Find some credible sources Simon. As for your comment yesterday that Cook’s paper was out of date, Skeptical Science still uses it. So much for credibility. They also quote the 99% Lynas paper like you did yesterday. To repeat what I also posted –
I read the Lynas 99% paper and that was an even bigger load of excrement than the Cook paper. How you get a 99% consensus from 3036 papers that stated
Explicit quantitive support – 19
Explicit non quantitive support – 413
Implicit support – 460
No position or uncertainty – 2140
Implicit rejection – 2
Explicit rejection without quantitative support – 1
Explicit rejection with quantitative support – 1
The only way you get a 99% consensus from that is to include “No position or uncertainty” as supporting the AGW hypothesis, and that is fraudulent.
So quoting Skeptical Science only goes to show just how gullible and uneducated you are. They clearly support deliberate manipulation of data, are misanthropic having wished all white people over 50 would die from Covid and have a real problem with very basic maths. As I posted yesterday, wake up and smell what you are shovelling.
80
Every climate scientist agrees that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration causes temperature to rise. The position that Curry, Christy, Spencer etc take is that clouds are a bigger negative feedback than currently assumed.
01
So what. Doesn’t justify Lynas dredging a 99% consensus from what was, at best, 29%. The science is so settled, it needs lies and data manipulation to support it.
30
PF we know that in the ice core data temperature increases or decreases first and then co2 follows after hundreds and sometimes thousands of years.
BTW during the last glaciation co2 levels dropped to 180 ppm or just above the death of most plant life.
210
Had CO2 levels kept on dropping we would have faced a mass extinction event. We barely missed one.
Fortunately nature corrected itself and CO2 started increasing.
At 400ppm+ we still don’t have a healthy margin over the 150-200ppm at which plant life is extinguished (depending on its photosynthesis pathway).
Hopefully it will settle around 800 to 1000ppm in the near future.
340
Can you show the workings of your model?
025
Are you claiming plants don’t need CO2 and atmospheric CO2 levels dropping waa not an issue?
180
so exactly what is the lower limit for CO2 and plant growth, and for plants using the C4 pathway have a limit much lower? Even at its lowest CO2 did not fall to levels which would inhibit plant growth.
014
Excellent written flatulence. Just look up basic biology. Over the last 400,000 years, according to NASA, CO2 levels have dropped as low as 180 ppm on 4 seperate occasions. Whilst C4 plants (mainly grasses) can survive at this level, they certainly do not thrive and would have real problems recovering from grazing animals. C3 plants struggle to grow and reproduce at 180 to 200 ppm. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x
Don’t come back until you learn some real science and how not to talk from your ar*e.
100
Not a model, but based on historical data and the fact that since CO2 has increased, the planet has greened by an extra 15%, equivalent to the size of the continental U.S. Facts and data, not models…
80
Peter Fitzroy:
A strange comment by you. Certainly there was minor change in CO2 levels but nothing like those since 1900. This was when there was rapid ice melting and sea levels rising over Africa (and elsewhere). Since then CO2 was somewhat stable for about 8,000 years yet sea levels dropped (in Africa as in Europe as we know from historical records).
From this I assume that you expect massive sea level rises right now, even though various places e.g. The Maldives haven’t been inundated as predicted in 1988 and later. Also Florida (including Trump’s home) which must be annoying for you.
And recently Epstein’s lawyer announced that his client hadn’t kept any files. So Trump cannot release non existing files, but gets criticised for not doing so.
200
So in your model, there was a minor change in CO2. But that is not what is described in most reconstructions
Of course since yo don’t define the word ‘minor’. Stable CO2, can you provide a link? I could not find any CO2 reconstructions which match that statement. Who predicted that the Maldives would be inundated .
In relation to Epstein’s files they were on Pam Bondi’s desK in March as quoted by President Trump
121
You have a ‘convenient’ memory PF. I remember those silly pictures of Guterrez (on the cover of Time magazine) looking gormless standing in shallow sea and the Maldives leaders holding a meeting under the sea!
What I did note was that the panic re. climate change didn’t put them off building new airports to cope with tourism there.
250
This is a classic case of PUPA– Post Unrealised Prediction Amnesia.
60
TIME Magazine has documented the Maldives’ struggle for survival, emphasizing the urgency of addressing climate change to protect the nation’s future. The magazine has also highlighted the innovative solutions being explored, such as the Maldives Floating City, while emphasizing the need for global cooperation to tackle the climate crisis. are you referring to another mag with the same title?
016
Even the command-centre of Lefty Agitprop — The New York Times has admitted (six years after the paper was published) that the Maldives are not sinking.
The Times, which you cite, documents nothing that the WEF and the Bankers don’t want you to know.
If only you read my site, you’d know in 2018 satellite photos showed 90% of 700 Pacific Islands were not sinking either. There is not a single inhabited island that is getting smaller.
If you read my site, you’d know that Kench et al drilled the heck out of one island in the Maldives and discovered that islands are churned and rebuilt by the sea all the time, which is why they keep up with most sea level changes just fine. Here’s that graph of Kandahalagalaa for you again.
150
And since then, the Maldives has continued to add airports and more resorts, all at near sea level. Doesn’t appear that they are really concerned about any sea level increases, despite continuing to ask for more money.
90
The key word is “reconstructions”. They are models of what might have happened. Like all models, they are mathematical versions of the biases of those who commission the model.
One of the more amusing elements of this farce is the regular bleats from the Klimate Krew that the measurements must be wrong, because they do not match the modem.
100
so your view (unsupported and with spelling mistakes) must also be based on a model, so it is equally invalid
016
No his opinion is based on facts ie the Maldives are not sinking and their area is increasing.
No model necessary but just unbiased eyes – try it sometime.
70
Peter Fitzroy:
A minor change in CO2 back when the ice was melting. The CO2 (according to scientists) was close to 280-300 p.p.m. for 7000 years with climate changing fairly commonly, even to the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming and the Dark ages & Little Ice Age.
As for The Maldives becoming submerged that was in 1988 by various people including James Hansen (climate adviser to Al Gore). This was widely publicised although I am not sure if it was included in the original IPCC Report.
The then Govt. Council of The Maldives heard an underwater meeting to highlight the coming flooding (about 2007 I think). The new Govt. Changed tack and built 7 runways for those with lots of money to holiday in The Seychelles during the European winters.
30
So, what you’re saying is that man made climate change is a conspiracy theory. Finally , well done mate !! Did you take one of those red pills?
190
All of this is in the Epstein files, which is why the us President will not release them.
Peter Fitzroy – a sense of humour? A sense of the ridiculous – definitely, congrats.
Graham Chubb
30
Mr Fitzroy, we have to face scientific reality, the Younger Dryas was universal.
‘During this period, southern Australia became cold and windy. … … The Younger Dryas (YD) climatic reversal is a period between 12.8 ka and 11.6 ka that experienced a return to cold and dry climatic conditions reminiscent of the LGM.’ (ResearchGate)
Sea level bounced back from this cold spell at an acceleration greater than anything CO2 could have accomplished.
101
Please look at my references, temp and CO2 are in step. Artificially raising CO2 will generate warming. or lowing CO2 will cause cooliing
016
Bollocks. https://www.pitchstonewaters.com/climate-scientists-say-we-should-embrace-higher-co2-levels-2/ Geological timescales show no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Again, more written flatulence from you Mr Fitzroy.
60
When you have climate change, CO2, rising sea levels and the Epstein Files all in the same paragraph, what are we to think.
100
Instead of trying to beat nature lets just gradually adjust. Go with the flow!
220
The 25mm per year quoted for the time ( 12,0000 years) should have been no problem as far as adaptation is concerned. Generations of coastal inhabitants would hardly detect any difference.
120
There is less scope for grift in adaptation and going “with the flow”.
20
All hail mighty Atlantis, lost beneath the waves… and lest we forget, the lost continent of Mu / Lemuria in the Pacific, or was it the Indian Ocean?
Not that I speak Greek, allochthonous is one of my favourite geological terms as it describes the blocks of land directly under my feet: a series of once-seabed chunks of mud & sand uplifted, then shunted southwards as more blocks rose and slid down this way, creating the Northland Allochthon [other earth: originating somewhere else, not indigenous] the long skinny peninsula making up the top-third of the North Island of NZ.
When climate fragiles fret over a beach losing some sand or when a cliff slides into the ocean, introduce them to this wonderful mouthful of a word, allochthon, so they may begin to understand what real change looked like. Remember Atlantis!
160
Or in most recent times, Port Royal the wickedest city in the World that was swept into the sea.
10
Why are so many obsessed with the magic of CO2?
Peter, if you listed all the known factors that cause significant warming or cooling where would CO2 fit on your list?
On my list it would be close to the bottom of the page.
160
Changes in sea levels are non-linear and localised changes can be much much larger than the global average. Both are very good reasons for not radically changing the climate.
128
Nobody is changing the climate, Simon.
It does that all by itself.
We can’t make it happen or stop it happening.
320
You mean the changes in the ridiculous SLR “measurements” from satellites whizzing by, over 1300 kms up, trying to measure wave heights to millimetre accuracy, when the satellites themselves have specs that confirm they cannot measure that accurately? And the false increases in SLR produced by wrong splicing of three different sets of satellite data, which of course has to be adjusted every time in a futile effort to match reality?
261
There were no satellites 12,000 years ago. SLR is determined using other methods.
011
Umm, yes, I’m aware that SLR is measured by far more accurate methods, including tidal gauges. For all the money that’s been wasted on SLR satellites, they haven’t added anything worthwhile to the measurements.
51
Simon because of fossil fuels we’re now living in the safest period in Human history, just look up the data.
And this happened very quickly or during the last 0.1% of Human history or since Britain started the Industrial Revolution. Think and wake up.
260
‘ … localised changes can be much much larger …’
A strong El Nino raises sea level in the east Pacific and falls in the west, causing coral bleaching, but that is not climate.
‘The best evidence is that global sea level has fallen by at least 2 metres since the the Holocene high stand about 4,000 BC; that is about 6,000 years ago, a time known as the Minoan warm period.
‘The evidence in rocks and cliff faces all along the Australian east coast is that sea level was about 1m higher in the Roman warm period (year 0), and about 0.5m higher in the Medieval warm period (1,000 AD).’ (Jennifer Marohasy)
81
“Changes in sea levels are non-linear and localised changes can be much much larger than the global average”
Utter piffle, a liquid finds its own level and is only affected by prevailing winds and atmospheric pressure.
41
Neither are good reasons to lop all the trees off the top of the Great Dividing Range for wind turbines. Landslides are also a problem that we should not encourage.
40
Thanks Jo for trying to educate our silly blog donkeys, but alas we know you’re probably wasting your time.
Then again like you the younger Dr Matt Ridley was once a true believer but changed his mind after he carefully studied the data and realized he had been misled by the fanatics and con merchants.
240
Dear Neville, don’t think for a minute I am trying to reach Mr Fitzroy. I’m speaking to the silent fence sitters, the invisible journalists, and the MPs and staffers who read the site.
160
Much of the early history of mankind is buried in the now-flooded coastal plains where humans liked to live.
For example, Mesolithic artefacts like stone and bone tools and spearpoints are regularly brought up in fishing nets from Doggerland near Europe.
It would be interesting to explore the flooded coastal plains of Australia for similar artefacts but that would be prohibited. (You can’t even explore for oil or gas in most places e.g. https://www.echo.net.au/2024/03/nsw-bans-offshore-mining-and-exploration-for-gas-and-oil/ . And archeology that doesn’t conform to the Official Narrative is certain prohibited e.g. Mungo Man, Kow Swamp Man.)
170
The UN told us that the oceans are boiling! So unless the boiling stops ,the oceans , like my kettle will soon be dry. So therefore ocean levels will fall.
Don’t blame me for the nonsense. I didn’t say that the oceans are boiling. Just wondering what our politicians are addicted to. That means all our politicians!!
70
Even their clueless ABC has admitted that SLs on our east coast were 1.5 metres higher about 4,000 years ago.
See the facts at 2 minutes on the Catalyst video link. They’ve also recently had to surrender to Andrew Bolt’s relentless pressure and admit that most Coral islands are increasing in size or are unchanged. See Dr Kench etc studies.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=narraben+man%2c+sea+level&mid=06035FFE63EBB62E4DD906035FFE63EBB62E4DD9&FORM=VIRE
200
I can confidently predict that the polar bears are just fine. That we aren’t experiencing a greater number of cyclones/ hurricanes. Nor that those cyclones are any more stronger than previous. The alarmist predictions of SLR were always garbage and very simply contradicted by photos of beaches 100 years apart. The oceans aren’t going acidic, they’re buffered to stay within an alkaline range. That alkalinity just varies a bit. They sure as hell ain’t boiling. All I know is my electricity bill has increased greatly over the last 20 years and my local area has become uglified by the presence of wind turbines. In that last observation, correlation is DEFINITELY causation.
230
Ken Stewart links to many SL studies and obviously temperatures were much higher in the early Holocene climate optimum and of course higher temperatures meant higher SLs during the early Holocene.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-worlds-biggest-thermometer/
70
Thanks Neville! My No. 1 indisputable evidence that temperatures were higher 7,000 years ago ( and other studies show they were much higher 125,000 years ago).
40
The Eemian temperatures were much higher than our Holocene, Here’s the summary from the Co2 Coalition scientists article.
“Recent research by the Niels Bohr Institute (Dahl-Jensen 2013) was the first to target ice accumulated in Greenland during the previous interglacial period, known as the Eemian. The results revealed that the Eemian interglacial warm period, between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, was much warmer than previously thought. In fact, it was, 8°C (14.4°F) warmer than today. The implications are enormous. Even though the temperatures during the Eemian were 2.5°C (4.5°F) higher than even the most aggressive IPCC predictions, the Greenland ice sheet lost only a quarter of its mass. While 25% is significant, it is far less than the predictions of total ice elimination in response to far less warming. Also, polar bears evolved about 150,000 years ago and survived the Eemian warm period even though there was seldom any polar ice”.
The polar bears survived. Greenland didn’t melt.
Source(s): Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Inst, http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past
Source(s):
90
OWI Data uses UN etc data and here’s another way we can be very grateful for the changes over the last 50 years.
The period from 1970 to 1990 experienced almost all their extreme weather deaths from storms, floods and droughts.
Since 1990 deaths have dropped because poor countries now have more warnings and can move to safer areas and thus save many hundreds of thousands of deaths from a single extreme weather event.
The world today is very safe and a huge drop in deaths from extreme weather.
Death rates are very low today and were much higher from 1970 when population was only 3.7 billion, compared to 8.2 billion today.
Here’s the facts from the UN and note nearly all extreme weather deaths from 1970 to 1990 were from droughts, storms and floods.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897
50
I learned a new word today –
allochthonous
Thanks Jo. No idea how to pronounce it. Just can’t get my lips and tongue around the adjacent ch and th. Being a Scot I pronounce ch as in loch, with a glottal stop (which Poms can’t do) , and that helps.
40
Peter that’s about right probably some Scott kept it going.
50
One of the big problems with any ice age theory is “how did the earth warm up”. The best theory I ever came across was when the CO2:levels dropped so low plants began to die (shock horror Simon).When the plants died dust levels in the atmosphere began to climb and fell on the ice causing the ice to melt. This released WV and the rest is history.
If Simon does not accept this theory of plant die off due to low CO2 levels and dust levels maybe they can provide an alternative solution to ending an ice age?
20
The land has an ice carving limit. The glaciers continually carve into the ocean. More glaciers equals mope calving.
Where the land masses are now situated, Antarctica retains its ice through the orbit precession. Greenland retains most of its ice during most precession cycles but has lost it as recently as 400ka due to taking two precession cycles to pull out of glaciation back then.
At the limit, the glacier calving cools the oceans so much that the snowfall declines and melt wins. Once the melt is dominant, it accelerate because ice shelves start breaking off due to their increasing buoyancy with rising sea level and forming massive icebergs that wander the oceans to keep it cool.
Current glaciation is near stable in the Southern Hemisphere with Antarctica permanently ice bound while the NH has significant variation. The current warming trend that dates back to 1700 due to solar forcing is warming the oceans and increasing snowfall. Greenland is already gaining altitude and permanent ice extent. Some of the northern mountain faces near the Arctic coast are also gaining permanent ice. The current cycle of glaciation effectively started in 1700. The sea level will be falling quite fast by the end of the current millennium. I know this because it is history repeating itself:
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-57.png?ssl=1
Solar forcing in the NH is almost identical to what it was 400ka, And the land is mostly ice free but Greenalmlnd currently has more ice than it had 400ka and sea level was a few metres higher than present.
40
Anyone who mentions “greenhouse gasses” as anything to do with climate have no clue about climate on Earth.
The average effective radiating temperature of Earth is generally well known to be 255K. the H2O molecule is by far the dominant source of long wave emissions to space. When H2O is emitting OLR at 255K you know it will b cooling and solidifying to ice. Ice dominates over any gas by orders of magnitude and that includes water vapour. So the notion of “greenhouse gasses” is pure bunkum.
If you take any day of the year and look at the radiating power over any location above the oceans you will find there is no where radiating above 273K. And just 1mm of ice will produce 90% of the emissions. 2mm will produce 99% of emissions. The role of any gas, other than H2O as a source of ice, is negligible.
41
On the islands of Vanuatu and in the Noosa National park there is evidence of the ocean being much higher in the Past.
00