Summer is over in Greenland, and the SMB has finished above average once again.
This is the fifth of the last seven years to finish above average:
As always, please read the DMI explanatory note:
When calving and bottom melting are factored in, there is a net loss of ice. However this loss has been taking place since the end of the 19thC, following the Little Ice Age, the coldest era in Greenland since the Ice Age.
The above chart runs to 2021, but I have updated it to include last year, and simplified the chart with a 10 year average:
As can be seen, the rate of loss in the last decade is similar to the 1930s, 50s and 60s. During the 1970s and 80s, Greenland’s climate grew much colder, and the ice mass loss almost stopped completely.
Significantly the rate of loss now is not accelerating, as you may have assumed from what the media have told you. On the contrary, the rate of loss has been slowing down since 2012.
The average annual loss between 2013 and 2022 was 184 Gt, which equates to 0.51mm sea level rise a year.
In short there is nothing alarming or unprecedented about the tiny amount of ice melt in Greenland.
The new era of ‘global boiling’ has brought a return of the much loved climate scare story featuring the imminent demise of the Greenland ice sheet. The Daily Mail recently ran a headline noting the ‘Impact of Global Boiling‘, saying it has “shocking” photos showing how much the ice sheet has melted during the “hottest month ever recorded on Earth”. Snow melt is said to be higher than the 1981-2010 average.
But, alas, those who strive for accuracy in these matters are likely to quibble. The Earth is not “boiling” – that is the unhinged raving of the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres – the claim about July comes from a computer model, while “ever” refers to data of varying quality going back barely 150 years. Furthermore, the surface balance of ice on the Greenland ice sheet is higher than the 1981-2010 average, and could improve on last’s year performance, when there was little or no loss of the surface mass after the brief summer melting season.
If the Mail is “shocked” by how much the Greenland ice sheet has melted this year, it probably didn’t consult the polar portal site run by Danish meteorologists, which updates an accurate record on a daily basis. Both graphs above show the effect of a cold June where the ice loss was considerably lower than the previous year. Warmer weather arrived from the south in late June in time for the peak summer melt season.
As the second graph shows, the accumulation of surface ice on Greenland is more than the 1981-2010 average, and a big improvement on a decade ago. But as the Daily Scepticnoted recently, the current improvement can be seen in an even better light. A number of scientific institutions still use a decadal 1981-2010 average for comparison purposes, despite data to 2020 being available. The cynical might note that the ice sheet lost just 51 gigatonnes a year in the 1980s, compared to an annual loss of 244 gts in the 2010s. Updating the average figure would greatly amplify the recent, and continuing, recovery in the surface ice mass.
The ”shocking” before and after photos revealing how snow melts in the summer, even in Greenland, were taken by NASA satellites over the Frederikshab Glacier running down to the warmer south-west coast. The information and photos came from a NASA blog aimed at educators headed ‘Wasting Away (Again) in Greenland‘. More than halfway through the 2023 melting season, reports NASA, “Greenland has seen a substantial transformation of its snow cover”. This line – if it’s summer in Greenland, the snow melts – is readily taken up by the Mail. “According to scientists, snow falls on the Greenland ice sheet every winter… but experts say hotter summer temperatures are reducing the amount of snow cover.” The NASA blog is heavily quoted: “More than halfway through the 2023 melting season, Greenland has seen a substantial transformation of its snow cover. … Changes are the result of the increasing warmth of summer weather that took hold across the region in late June.”
Hold the front page – snow melts during the summer in Greenland, not many dead.
It is not difficult to find areas of rock in Greenland, especially in the south-west where most of the population of 55,000 live. The climate in this area is characterised as ‘low Arctic’ and temperatures are well above freezing in the warmest months. Ice in the Arctic waxes and wanes on a cyclical basis, while the long-term Greenland temperature is fairly stable. At a time when the planet has seen a gentle period of warming over the last 100 years, Greenland even held back slightly on the general trend. The five-year moving average of -18.57°C in 1929 compares with a measurement in 2021 of –17.96°C. The largest boost, as with other areas of the world, occurred in a short period in the 1980s and 90s, as the World Bank graph below shows. Since that time, as elsewhere, the rate of warming has considerably declined.
The Greenland ice sheet is the alarmist scare story that keeps on giving because water flowing off the land can increase sea levels. The Mail notes that scientists have already warned this year that the Greenland ice sheet is the “hottest it has ever been” and will cause global sea levels to rise by 20 inches by 2100 if it keeps warming at the same pace. In fact this information is linked to an earlier article that referenced a science paper quoting temperatures between 2000-2011. The next paragraph of the current story reports a rise of four feet or 1.2 metres by 2300, “even if we meet the 2015 Paris climate goals, scientists have warned”. Scientists might “warn”, but all these opinions of greatly increased sea level rises are produced by climate models, often assuming outlandish future scenarios.
Again, as we have noted in numerous articles, sea level rises are notoriously difficult to calculate since land rises as huge weights are lifted from it. Many areas in the northern hemisphere show falls in coastal sea levels, and this process is ongoing since the Earth is currently in an interglacial phase. In fact, current rises of 2mm a year are tiny compared with the huge boosts between 12,000 to 4,000 years ago.
Again, hold that front page – shock 2mm annual rise will lead to civilisation being inundated in the next century by a catastrophic seven inch increase in sea levels. Not many expected to die.
Chris Morrison isthe Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
The narrative surrounding climate change often rides the crest of sensationalism. The latest twist in this saga emerges from the high-Arctic in Greenland. A recent report published in Current Biology reveals that prior assumptions about the region’s advancing spring season have now been effectively erased. It seems that the zealousness to attribute everything to climate change has reached an icy impasse.
About a decade and a half ago, scientists claimed that the Arctic spring was coming sooner than ever before – supposedly at some of the fastest rates of change globally. It is instructive to note that despite the passionate rhetoric around these claims, later research seems to have frozen them in their tracks. The alleged ‘earlier and earlier’ arrival of spring has now been supplanted by what the researchers term “extreme year-to-year variation”. Despite these stark differences from the original claims, the climate change narrative somehow still clings on.
Niels Martin Schmidt of Aarhus University in Denmark sums up this curious paradox,
“We looked at previously reported extreme rates of phenological advancements in the Arctic and found that directional advancement is no longer the prevailing pattern. Actually, the previously observed trend has disappeared completely and has been replaced by extreme year-to-year variation in the onset of spring.”
The climatic change phenomenon, that was originally painted in bold, irrefutable strokes, seems to have taken a surprising U-turn.
Supposedly, climate changes are expected to occur faster in the Arctic than lower latitudes. An ecosystem-wide monitoring program launched in 1996 at Zackenberg in Northeast Greenland aimed to track these changes. Early findings, based on the first 10 years of data, indicated a clear pattern of advancement across plants and animals. However, the analysis of the entire data set, now spanning 25 years, reveals an entirely different story.
Analyzing the data from 1996–2020, the researchers report,
“little evidence of directional change in the timing of events even as climate change continues.”
The classic fallback argument, that despite the lack of conclusive evidence, climate change still must be at play. Apparently, the consistent shift from directional change to extreme variability across organisms and the ecosystem’s apparent subjection to varying climatic conditions was indeed surprising. It’s clear that earlier predictions were not as solid as they were initially presented to be.
“Some years have almost no snow in spring, whereas others have snow on the ground way into the summer season,” he says. “This leaves us with a generally warmer but much more unpredictable spring climate—and this is where the second contributor to the observed phenological shift kicks in. Some species appear unable to take advantage of the warmer conditions in spring and appear to have reached the limits of their phenological plasticity.”
The story gets even more fascinating when Schmidt describes the current pattern as being “a lot messier.” Rising temperatures have seemingly stalled, while snow cover varies wildly from year to year. It appears that our understanding of these ecosystems, and how they respond to changing environmental factors, is much less comprehensive than we thought.
In conclusion, this tale of retracting findings and shapeshifting patterns highlights the precariousness of drawing definitive conclusions from limited data sets. The authors here blame climate change for phenomena that their own work indicates have no clear pattern. Perhaps we should focus less on hurriedly attributing every environmental change to climate change and more on understanding these ecosystems’ inherent complexities. After all, nature has a way of surprising us, and the Arctic spring seems to be no exception.
Any actor knows that the time to leave the stage is when the audience starts to laugh at him. With the latest ‘World on Fire’ show collapsing under the weight of fake statistics, crystal ball attributions, scientific deceptions, made-up estimates and Justin Rowlatt airlifted into heat-torn Alicante, it is surely time to pull down the curtain on this increasingly ridiculous show. When the audience sides start to split as the weather maps turn ‘Cerberus’ black, and heat records soar halfway up the tailpipes of Typhoon jets, it is perhaps dawning on the eco-extremists that they need to lift their game. As last week’s U.K. by-election in Uxbridge showed, a few electoral shifts might be all that is needed to wipe out their vision of a collectivist, all-controlling Net Zero Hades.
Running through all the hysterical reporting has been the outrageous use of fake estimates and statistics. Mainstream media were full of reports last week that temperatures would hit 48°C in southern Europe, a steer that seems to have come from the European Space Agency (ESA). It said that many countries were facing a major heatwave including Germany and Poland, while air temperatures were expected to climb to 48°C in Sicily and Sardinia – “potentially the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe”. The temperature in Sicily never went above 35°C, according to the Time and Date website that reports past weather from around the world.
But it turns out the ESA was pulling a fast one. It was not referring to the ‘air’ temperature, the standard measurement made two metres above the ground, but the actual temperature on the surface. This latter measurement of course is going to be many degrees higher. The climate science site No Tricks Zone noted: “By the time the ploy was exposed by careful readers, the news had already gone around the world.” Commenting on the affair, German’s Achtung Reichelt is reported to have called it “the most intense climate lie since temperature recording began”. Calling the ESA’s press release “sloppy and manipulative”, it charged that none of it was true.
The climate narrative is now all about individual ‘extreme’ weather, to the despair of many scientists who note climate change is a measurement of long-term trends. But long-term temperature trends do not tell the correct political story since little global warming has been evident for over two decades.
Meanwhile, Arctic surface sea ice waxes and wanes on a decadal basis, but the recent general recovery has been quietly dropped from the Net Zero-inspired narrative. While Europe and the United States explode with fire and brimstone heat, and the fish are sous-vide in the boiling oceans, sea ice in the Arctic continues with what appears to be a small cyclical recovery. According to the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), the latest summer daily melt was similar to the 1981-2010 average. At July 17th, the ice extent was the 12th lowest in the 44-year satellite record.
The climate investigator Tony Heller recently lifted the lid on the deceptions surrounding Arctic sea ice. “They bury all the older data [pre-1979] and pretend they don’t notice sea ice is increasing again,” he charged. A linear decrease in the end-summer ice extent since 1979 is widely promoted, but Heller points out the minimum is actually higher now than 10 and 15 years ago. Plotting the trend as a moving average shows that the decline in summer sea ice stopped a decade ago.
The Australian climate journalist Jo Nova recently referred to lies that were told by omission, suggesting that the whole climate movement was built on this “active deception”. Last year’s big omission was coral reefs, that have shown spectacular growth on the Great Barrier Reef of late. This year’s missing scare story is the Greenland ice sheet, where a significant, unreported recovery is in progress.
Almost halfway through the short summer, the accumulation of surface ice on Greenland is more than the 1981-2010 average and a big improvement on a decade ago. But the current improvement could be seen in a much better light. Why are the Danish Polar Portal compilers of the below graph using a 1981-2010 average, when data can be included up to 2020? The NSIDC uses a similar average comparison in its Arctic ice graphs. The Greenland ice sheet lost 51 gigatonnes a year in the 1980s and 1990s and 166gts in the 2000s. In the 2010s the loss was around 244gts, a fivefold increase since the 1980s. Obviously if a 1990-2020 average was shown – with a 50gts loss replaced by one of 244gts – it would amplify the recent recovery by raising the baseline. Last year, the Greenland ice sheet was reported to have lost just 50gts, an amount well within a margin of error that could suggest a small actual increase in the overall size.
When dealing with any statistics regarding climate change these days, it is good advice to start counting the spoons. It has always been an irritation to extremists that up to 10 times more people die of the cold than the heat. Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore recently displayed how the Lancet medical journal tried to come to the rescue, with the graph pictured on the left below.
To even up the score, with blue for cold and red for heat, the Lancet used an unequal y-axis – a technique so obviously misleading it is hard to understand how anyone could even think of using it. The graph on the right was produced by the Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg, and it corrects the distorted Lancet image. Dr. Moore tweeted: “This is disgraceful for a supposedly scientific journal.”
It seems that the biggest risk of dying in the current British summer – 19°C and showery at time of writing – is to die laughing.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
Research carried out over the last several years, and most recently updated in the journal Science, shows conclusively that northwestern Greenland, which today is buried beneath a one-mile-thick sheet of ice, was once a flourishing tundra ecosystem that might even have hosted a boreal forest.
Sediments extracted from deep beneath a long-abandoned, Cold War-era U.S. military base in the frigid region reveal tiny twigs and leaves that have been dated to about 416,000 years ago, a period known to scientists by the awkward name of “Marine Isotope Stage 11,” and a time when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than they are today.
Given the fluctuations in the Earth’s climate over the eons, the findings from a couple of University of Vermont researchers should not be that surprising. But in reporting on the story, the Washington Post (July 21) made sure that its readers received the “proper” message.
“The results mean that Greenland once lost a tremendous amount of ice under climate conditions very much like the ones humans have created and are currently living in,” the Post wrote. “They imply that coastlines could soon be submerged under several feet of sea-level rise – unless people stop emitting greenhouse gases and reverse the dangerous warming of the world.”
Prolonged warming is exactly what humans are causing, Andrew Christ, one of the researchers, told the Post. His colleague, Paul Bierman, called the study’s results “frightening.” “If plants were growing in northwest Greenland back then – as the new Science study suggests – the same could happen during a future stretch of prolonged warm conditions… And without a drastic shift in the way we live, humanity is on track to push global average temperatures to 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is well above the highest temperatures reached during Marine Isotope Stage 11,” the Post continued.
Geochemist Bill Balgord, Ph. D., is not overly impressed by the study, much less the Post’s spin on it.
“It does not add much substance to what was already known about the geologic history of Greenland,” he told CFACT in an email. “The time period of 400,000 years BP (before the present) falls within the Pleistocene Period with its multiple, repeated continental glaciations and de-glaciations that took place from about 1 million years BP to about 10,000 years BP.”
“The hyperventilating is typical of researchers in search for more grant money. Journalists fall prey (too often wittingly) to anything they think will advance their climate change agenda,” he added.
“A more recent example of a partial de-icing of Greenland occurred when the Vikings colonized (temporarily) portions of the eastern shore of Greenland, establishing dairy farms around 1,000 AD. As the Medieval Warm Period gave way to the Little Ice Age, the Norsemen were forced to pack up and sail back to Norway,” he pointed out.
Readers of the Post’s story are supposed to believe that the warming the Earth is experiencing is being driven by the buildup of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yet that – slight – warming got underway nearly 200 years ago and signaled a rebound from the cooling experienced in the Little Ice Age. The warming has been natural and – on balance – beneficial, because it contributed to higher atmospheric levels of CO2, which is good for all vegetation, including crops.
The lesson here is an old and simple one: Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT, where he focuses on natural resources, energy, property rights, and geopolitical developments.
Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Busines Daily, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Hill, The Epoch Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers around the country.
He has been interviewed on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, NBC News, NPR, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, N24 (German-language news network), and scores of radio stations in the U.S. and Canada.
He has testified before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Cohen has addressed conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh.
He has a B.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph. D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.
The Met Office was quick to call this even before the month had ended!
June 2023 is on track to be the hottest June on record in a series which goes back to 1884.
While the forecast for the next few days shows an unsettled picture with temperatures closer to average, this won’t be enough to prevent June 2023 being provisionally the UK’s hottest June on record, beating the previous record set in 1940, as well as June 1976 (part of the well-known summer of 1976), which is currently the second warmest June on record.
“Meteorologically, June started with high pressure over the UK bringing often settled and dry conditions with plenty of sunshine. Once that high pressure subsided, warm, humid air took charge over the UK, with 32.2C the highest temperature recorded so far this month and high temperatures for the vast majority of the UK.
Climate change increases the frequency of hotter, drier summer weather and the chances of record-breaking high temperatures for the UK.
Mike continued: “While the UK has always had periods of warm weather, what climate change does is increase the frequency and intensity of these warm weather events, increasing the likelihood of high temperature records being broken.
Why is the Met Office so obsessed with calendar months? They have no statistical significance as such, as weather does not neatly compartmentalise itself in this way. They have no more significance than any other 4-week period. A more telling statistic would be a rolling 4-week average. Calendar months make good news stories of course, but the Met Office is supposed to be a reputable scientific organisation, not a purveyor of propaganda.
The comparison with 1976 is also rather disingenuous. As the CET daily temperature record below shows, the heatwave in 1976 really only got going in the last week of the month, but then carried on till mid July. This year’s heatwave has already ended, and weather forecasts suggest near average temperatures for the next week or so.
Moreover the intensity of the heat in 1976 was much greater. The highest daily maximum last month was 28.6C, whereas in June 1976 the top temperature was 30.3C; there were also 6 days above 28.6C in June 1976 alone, not to mention eight further days in July.
Taking the 1976 heatwave as a whole, it was clearly much longer and intense than this year’s.
The claim that this is somehow linked to climate change is also dishonest. The cause of the warm weather last month was the amount of sunshine, with the month being the sunniest since 1957. As the Met Office themselves admit, the month started with high pressure, and even during the humid spell the weather remained sunny.
And while the UK was basking under high pressure, Greenland was stuck throughout the month with low pressure, which brought snow and lots of it. As a result, the melt season has still barely got going, and the ice cap has grown by 100 gigatonnes during the month when it should normally be losing ice.
June 2023 is on track to be the hottest June on record in a series which goes back to 1884.
What they omitted to mention is that they also have records for Central England going back to 1659; and according to this June 2023 was a long way from being the hottest. It ranks only 5th, behind 1676, 1822, 1826 and 1846, which hardly supports their assertions about global warming.
It is frankly deceitful for them not to mention this.
The Met Office’s press release is all of course part of a very well organised conspiracy to catastrophise summer weather. The Met Office are at the forefront, with the media in full support. Think about all of the silly Heat Alerts we are given nowadays, and how weather maps that used to have sun symbols to denote hot weather are now painted in lurid reds.
Meanwhile the rest of us are happy to just bask in the sun!
Paul Noel ,Former Research Scientist 6 Level 2 UAH (2008–2014) wrote this response. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
I have researched this issue in depth. As a good scientist I have gone deeply and gotten the facts. I have gotten:
the Satellite data on the global profiles,
the weather data.
the storm data and disaster data
the polar ice data.
the historical data.
I have looked in deeply on this issue. I have studied the physics too! I have studied the history too! I have studied the archeology and even the paleo geology and even the ice core data.
This isn’t easy to get because lots of people are producing lies on the topic. So I have worked very hard to get down to the facts. Then the job becomes one which is very hard. If I just tell you the answers I got , it is a case of if you believe me or not. If I tell you the science data it is likely to get way in over your understanding and that is back to if you believe me or not. This is a job of explaining to you very carefully what the data is using things you can see and understand.
So taking this from the top there are 2 ways I can go. One way is to go into the advocates of the topic that are so scaring you deeply and the other is to go into the science.
The explanation of the science is pretty easy and such but explaining to you the motives of people and their actions and methods is much harder. But I am going to start with the people.
Why are they scaring you about the climate?
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.
This is what this is all about. There is no other motive. You may dispense with your worries here if you are worried for the world environment. But I will now switch to the facts and reality on the ground. Remember this alone should pretty much put an end to your worries. You are facing a very large deliberate well funded and most professionally constructed set of lies and propaganda designed to get you scared like you are. This is 5th generational warfare. It is not anything you are used to thinking about. That is why it is effective.
What are the climate facts on the ground?
The fact on the ground are that if the changes you are supposing to see are real they should be obvious. They should be something you can see, feel, hear and touch. That is where we are going right now!
If the world is warming up the paleo-climate data says that the polar regions warm first. That is what you are being told about arctic ice melting and sea level raise. If you go to the Denmark Polar Portal on the web you can get the data.
Greenland Ice Sheet is not Melting Away
Because these people have to comply with the IPCC they put in all kinds of disclaimers trying to keep you scared of melt down etc.. The reality is we are solidly into the melt season and the ice is not melting down more than usual.
Arctic Sea Ice Is Not Going Away
The polar ice is at normal levels. I can go on and on here but the reality is that there is no emergency.
Global Warming is Not Accumulating
The data from UAH which is technical showed from January 1995 to January 2023 the global temperature did not increase at all. And from 2016 actually went down (-0.7C) . That isn’t some melting or Global Warming or some Climate Catastrophe. It just is not.
CO2 Is Rising But Far Below Its Optimum
Is CO2 rising it sure is and it isn’t even to the maximum level that occurred in the last maximum in the last interglacial period of earth. CO2 is not 1% it is 0.042%. The earth has thrived with maximum life at 1% CO2 there are no melt down periods.
Is the climate variable, You bet it is. We have seen in the last 2000 years it go up and down in temperature and we are actually near the bottom of that period. The reality is that we have been up to 10C warmer and guess what that time mankind did his very best. We don’t thrive on cold.
Warming Has Been Beneficial and More Would be a Good Thing
Now let’s look at the trends and in a way you never imagined. I have looked into this matter because Alabama where I live has a cute lovely vacation town called Orange Beach. I highly recommend Orange Beach for a vacation it is beautiful. Orange Beach was named in 1898 when the US Post Office (Now the USPS) opened a new post office there. The unincorporated town’s principal business was raising oranges commercially. Alabama used to raise oranges up to about Evergreen Alabama or almost to Montgomery Alabama the state capitol.
Production of Oranges Limited by Freezing Temperatures in SE US
No commercial orange production exists in Alabama at this time. The reason is simple. The growing season in Orange Beach Alabama went from 365 days a year to 268 days a year. The orange trees froze out. Now they have new varieties that can grow in the colder weather but even they are severely limited in Alabama. The orange trees have frozen out almost to Orlando Florida now.
Orange beach would be right next to North Florida along the Gulf of Mexico. Literally Florida is just across the Perdido River from Orange Beach.
The Gulf Stream Makes Climate Change in the North Atlantic
The reality is the climate from 1898 to the present has gotten colder in the USA. This is significant to the whole earth for a very important reason.
You see the heat from the whole earth gets aimed directly at Alabama! We cool down so is the rest of the world. The whole circulation for the whole earth focuses on the Gulf of Mexico and Alabama.
This by the way is why Greenland has so much ice. You see it is the warm water from the Gulf Stream that generates the steam that freezes and comes down as snow. You have to make the steam to make the ice.
Sea Level Depends on Land Buoyancy, not CO2
Now on to sea level rise. First of all if you believe that the sea level is rising and such it is only reported to be rising in the order of the thickness of 2 US 5 Cent coins per year. So if you believe it is happening it is no emergency and no real problem. It isn’t worthy of losing sleep over. The stories of melting sea ice are silly. First of all even if they melt they will have absolutely no effect on the sea level because they are floating. But there is another thing these people don’t tell you about.
The sea level is not the product of the amount of water in the ocean. It is in fact the product of a large sum of buoyancy issues and the gravity of the earth. The continents are where they are because they have less gravity than the other areas. The seafloor is a zone of higher gravity. Because the continents are floating that means that their level above the sea is determined by the laws of buoyancy. If Greenland were to melt off, the resulting reality would cause the area to buoy up because it would weigh less. At the same time the water added to the oceans would simply sink the sea floor deeper.
Continents Can Sink to Form New Seas
But to illustrate this you must learn about the Great Rift Valley of Africa. That valley is a place where the base continental rocks have spread apart. The land is sinking there and has already sunk to form the Red Sea! A new ocean is forming in Africa. This is what has sunk the continental shelves of the continents. The edge of the continents tinned out and lost the thick granite below that floats on the magma and they sunk. So sea level is not in any way related to ice melting. Sea level is related to this continental buoyancy issue. So nothing in their story not melting ice nor rising seas is happening. But I will show you this in pictures because we have these now.
Many Coastlines Show Water Receding Rather than Rising
Tell me if you see any sea level rise in the past 246 years now. (None!)
[Since we are looking in New England:]
This is just about due south of London–Pevensey Castle.
It was started construction in about 203 AD. It was built right on the sea on a coastal island. Such a fort only has value as far as an archer can shoot an arrow. It guarded the entrance to Pevensey Bay. The bay doesn’t exist it is nearly 30 meters above sea level now. Lots of people just refuse to see them. The fort itself is 110 feet above sea level and 5/8 mile from the sea.
If it isn’t clear yet that you have been hoaxed into a panic I don’t know what I can do. I have shown you that it got colder not warmer. That the ice is not melting. That the seas are not rising. Shall I go on?
CO2 Is Plant Food not a Pollutant
How about the real truth of CO2 and what it is doing on our earth. Look at these pictures carefully they tell the truth beyond any possible doubt.
C3 photosynthesis plants are growing 800% better than they were. Our C4 plants are doing 650% better.
The whole earth is growing better and the forests are growing because of CO2. Sorry this isn’t a “doom and gloom” story here.
Wild fires are down too!
The fact is that in 1960 the world was running out of food because our plants and farms were at their limits. Today we are run over with food and 45% of our crop land has been turned back to the forests. We are not at the limits. This has led to an explosion of wildlife too!
Life is Thriving Not Facing Extinction
There literally is no mass extinction going on. We are in the largest bloom of life on earth that has been seen in the past 10,000 years.
The human race is on the edge of unlimited energy, unlimited food, unlimited technology and we are sitting here in terror of some imaginary doom and gloom hating the very system that is feeding mankind and building him up.
Everything is quite literally the opposite of what you are told!
The only catastrophe would be ill-advised climate policies willfully destroying our energy platform and economic supply processes out of irrational CO2 hysteria.
Jørgen Peder Steffensen, of Denmark’s Niels Bohr Institute, is one of the most experienced experts in ice core analysis, in both Greenland and Antarctica. In this video he explains a coincidence that has misled those alarmed about the warming recovery since the Little Ice Age. And if you skip to 2:25, you will see the huge error we have made and the assumptions and extrapolations based on that error. Transcript below is from closed captions with my bolds and added images. H/T Raymond
What do ice cores tell us about the history of climate change and the present trend?
This ice is from the Viking age around the year one thousand, also called the medieval warm period. We believe that in Greenland the Medieval Warm Period was about one and a half degrees warmer on average than today
NorthGRIP the Greenland ice core project is being reopened to drill the last few meters through the ice sheet to the rock beneath the research station. The ice core over three kilometers in length has been hauled up to the surface piece by piece, and contains important data on the history of the climate of the earth. It bears the fingerprints of climatic conditions over more than 120 thousand years.
When we remove a drilled ice core we leave a hole, and we insert a thermometer in the hole. We are able to map out the temperature through the three kilometer ice sheet. Now that temperature, if we do it precisely enough with a thousandth of a degree accuracy, then the ice has not forgotten how cold or warm it was on the surface at the time the snow fell.
So using those temperatures we have been able to reconstruct the temperatures of the last ten thousand years. Here we have our picture of the temperature reconstructions that we have from Greenland in the graphical form. And if we go back along this axis it’s going back in time. This is the last 8 000 years we have plotted here. On this axis we have the temperatures at the site in Greenland, and we can see that if we go back from now about 4000 years ago, we would have temperatures up here for about 4 000 years in the past that on average were two and a half degrees warmer than today.
Reconstructed temperatures for Greenland ice cores Dye3 and GRIP. (A) The temperature from 8000 BP to present; (B) the temperature from AD 0-2000 (after Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998). The observed difference in amplitude between the two cores is a result of their different geographic location in relation to the variability in atmospheric circulation. Source: Reconstructed-temperatures-for-Greenland-ice-cores-Dye3-and-GRIP-A
Now as we go forward to approach our time, we can see that in the period after four thousand years ago and up to the two thousand years ago (which is actually the Roman Age) the temperatures have been decreasing in Greenland by two and a half degrees. Then temperatures increased gradually up to a maximum point around a thousand years ago, we call it the Medieval Warm Period. And then temperatures declined and go down to minimum around 1650 a.d., before coming back up a little in the 18th century.
And then around 1875 we have right here the lowest point in the last 10,000 years. And that matches exactly the time when meteorological observations started.
Other core samples from elsewhere in Greenland confirmed that the little ice age ended about 140 years ago at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years. The natural pronounced alteration of warm and cold periods back in time has also been confirmed elsewhere in the northern hemisphere. Carbon 14 dating of organic matter from peat bogs and tree rings confirms the pattern. Also the data from stalactite caves in China and measurements from North Africa.
The problem is that we can all agree completely that we have had a global temperature increase in the 20th century. Yes, but an increase from what? It was probably an increase from the lowest point we’ve had for the last 10,000 years. And this means it will be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase of temperature in the 20th century was man-made or it’s a natural variation. That would be very hard because we made ourselves an extremely poor experiment when we started to observe meteorology at the coldest time in the last ten thousand years.
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.