Antarctica was warmer one thousand years ago
By Paul Homewood
Repost from Jo Nova:
Remember when polar amplification was the rage? So much for that theory
Antarctica is twice the size of the US or Australia. Buried 2 km deep under domes of snow, it holds 58 meters of global sea level to ransom. The IPCC have been predicting its demise-by-climate-change for a decade or two.
A new paper looks at 60 sites across Antarctica, considering everything from ice, lake and marine cores to peat and seal skins. They were particularly interested in the Medieval Warm Period, and researched back to 600AD. During medieval times (1000-1200 AD) they estimate Antarctica as a whole was hotter than it is today. Antarctica was even warmer still — during the dark ages circa 700AD.
Credit to the paper authors: Sebastian Lüning, Mariusz Gałka, and Fritz Vahrenholt
Feast your eyes on the decidedly not unprecedented modern tiny spike:
The little jaggy down after 2000 AD is real. While there was rapid warming across Antarctica from 1950-2000, in the last twenty years, that warming has stalled. Just another 14 million square kilometers that the models didn’t predict.
We already knew the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon, thanks to hundreds of proxies, and 6,000 boreholes. But this new paper is a great addition.
Full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.
Warmer than what?
Do you have the inability to interpret graphs? Today, this century, the last several hundred years – take your pick..
Antarctica is cold. Very cold. “Warmer” is a preposterous attribute.
“In Antarctica, the average annual temperature ranges from -76 degrees Fahrenheit at the most elevated parts of the interior to 14 degrees along the coast.”
The fine graph shows a change from damn cold to damn cold. Call it “warmer” if you wish.
So is this why Harlech castle (built after the Norman Conquest and intended to be supplied by sea) is well above sea level now (neglecting geological movements)?
I see the Daily Telegraph today has an article:
“Margaret Thatcher would have supported the government’s efforts to save the planet as she knew we did not have a ‘freehold’ on the earth, says Michael Gove”, asserting that “In the 20th century the oceans rose about 15cm (6in) and the rate of increase has since quickened. Just since 2000, levels have risen around 6cm (2.4in), based on a global-average rise of 3.2mm (1.3in) a year.”
Just where do they get their figures from? And someone clearly failed their GCSE Maths!
If the briefing to the Telegraph was from the government, why didn’t the Telegraph spot the error, or did some junior hack just make it up?
Fake news abounds!
The 3.2mm/Year is the new improved Satellite version with all the very necessary adjustments added.
Of course the Tide Gauges still trundle along at 1.8mm/Year.
Satellites measuring tenths of millimetres of sea level? They’re having a larf.
Margaret Thatcher, after initially falling for the global warming narrative, quickly came to realise that it was nothing more than an unscientific scam providing a backdoor route to global socialism. She would be turning in her grave at the thought of Michael Gove using her as some kind of historical champion for the (non) climate emergency bandwagon.
I have been thinking about sea level rise and am wondering whether it is not so much the harbinger of doom, but is rather part of a system whereby Earth, notwithstanding the bounds of orbit and natural cataclysm, regulates its climate.
Ice melt will occur late in warm periods, not suddenly at the beginning. The effect may well only be experienced when the warm period is over. This would certainly seem to be the case in Europe at the end of the Medieval Warm Period with increased storminess in the North Sea and inundations in Frisia and east/south-east England. But what if all that melting ice is in itself the engine by which the climate flips from warming to cooling? Changing the temperature and salinity of the seas over centuries, influencing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles? A warming earth will thus inevitably become a cooling earth.
More on this subject from Kenneth Richard in a post at https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/15/scientists-find-antarctica-is-rapidly-cooling-and-any-ice-sheet-melt-is-not-due-to-co2-but-natural/
Also another post I think is great from Pierre at the same site on how much greener the earth is now compared to 1982. https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/13/alarmists-red-faced-as-satellite-image-analyses-show-globe-has-greened-markedly-over-past-4-decades/
If the Earth is becoming greener does that mean that more CO2 is being sequestered in biomass? If so, it is being overwhelmed by continued emissions with CO2 at 410 ppm. This makes reaching net-zero by 2050 a little bit harder.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Paul
The satellites are showing a sea level rise of about 3.5 mm per year and land based data about 2.5 mm. I had wondered if this could be due to isostatic effects so that both may be right. When the ice caps melted at the end of the ice age the land under started to rise when the weight was removed. The ice melt caused the sea level to rise, I believe about 100 metres. This would have increased the load on the sea bed causing long term isostatic lowering and presumably the displaced mantle would cause the continents to rise to compensate. Is this a plausible mechanism to explain the discrepancy?
Roger
Satellite numbers include an estimate of 0.3mm a year for GIA.
What this means is that the sea floor is lower by 0.3mm, as you say. But this should not be included in “sea levels”, as these have not risen, and therefore there is a discrepancy between satellite and tidal data.
Actually, that is unfair. The satellite data measures sea levels. What the “scientists” do is to add a theoretical 0.3mm to the satellite data, to arive at 3.5mm, on the basis that sea levels would have been that much higher if the sea bed had not lowered.
The joke being that we know the volume of the ocean basins. We haven’t a clue. We can’t measure it; we can’t know if it has changed. SLR could simply be caused by mid-Atlantic volcanoes. Could be from shift of tectonic plates.
We don’t know; we have no way of knowing.
Attributing SLR, or changes to the rate of SLR, to humans is hilarious.
There is a report on carbon-sense.com showing that sea levels haven’t budged in over 100 years! See https://carbon-sense.com/2019/07/14/sydney-sea-levels/#more-2236
“While there was rapid warming across Antarctica from 1950-2000, in the last twenty years, that warming has stalled …”.
That is not evident in the surface observation record:
Similarly the satellite record:
Thank you Paul for your kind reply to my earlier e-mail. Is the .3 mm drop of the sea bed floor relative to the average level of the continents or from the the previous years level of the sea bed? If the latter is the case and the continents were rising the discrepancy between the satellite and land based measurements would be larger than .3 mm. For consistency should not .3 mm be added to the land based figures!
Roger
This is how CU describe it:
The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle. GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago. Mantle material is still moving from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it
models, models. models; the truth is, as Gamecock said, we haven’t a clue.
And ‘I am not a robot’ above must be having a laugh if he thinks those tampered graphs show anything , least of all any rise in Antartic Temps over the last 20 years.
I note that the new EU commision leader only got her votes by agreeing to ‘carbon neutrality’ by 2050. Probably signed EU’s deathknell given eastern european country’s view about that!
Paul
Thank you for the helpful link.
Roger
See also
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/27/antarctica/
Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.