A new study reminds us that, 8200 years ago, near-global sea levels rose 6.5 meters in a span of just 140 years. This is 470 centimeters per century, 4.7 centimeters per year, during a period when CO2 levels were alleged to be a “safe” and stagnant 260 ppm.
Image Source: Nunn et al., 2024
To put this change rate in perspective, global sea levels rose at a rate of 1.56 millimeters per year from 1900 to 2018, including 1.5 mm per year rate during the more recent period from 1958-2014 (Frederikse et al., 2020, Frederikse et al., 2018). This is just under 16 centimeters per century or sixteen tenths of a centimeter (0.16 cm) per year.
Image Source: Frederikse et al., 2020 and Frederikse et al., 2018
The net melt of the Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is thought to have been the largest contributor to sea level rise in recent decades. But, to put the GIS change in context, the entire ice sheet melt contribution to sea level rise was just 1.2 total centimeters from 1992-2020 (Simonsen et al., 2021).
Image Source: Simonsen et al., 2021
The Earth’s natural range of sea level rise rates, periodically reaching 4.7 cm per year, is thus 30 times greater in magnitude than the modern period’s (1900-2018) “anthropogenic” rate, which is 0.156 cm per year.
“8200 years ago, near-global sea levels rose 6.5 meters in a span of just 140 years.”
K RICHARD
That claim is complete nonsense
The “study” is wrong
K. Richards is a hack writer
If there is a very questionable “study” he will find it. Most of the time he is a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter
And so you should be able to show where the serious error arises in the study. Shoot the science, not the messenger. 😉
When a writer makes an extraorinary false statement he has the responsibility to provide evidence to support his conclusion
A global temperature increase of just one degree Celsius would have a direct impact on sea levels. It has been estimated that it would cause those levels to gradually rise by 10 to 20 centimeters.
There was a temperature spike of up to 2 degree C. during the Holocene Climate Optimum about 8000 year ago.
That could be associated with a 20 to 40 cm sea level rise if the temperature increase was global.
The study is claiming a 650 centimeter sea level rise when the correct number is probably in the 20 to 40 centimeter range.
The study is junk science nonsense.
I don’t think one can be confident that sea level changes would be so limited for a one or two degree temperature change.
A great deal would depend on the distribution of the ice and the length of time the change in temperature goes on for.
Observations do show very large changes in sea levels at the end of ice ages.
Yes – for the very simple reason being that it is the mass of ice that melts that contributes to sea level rise. A large mass of ice exposed to a given air temperature will produce more meltwater and SLR than a small mass of ice.
Here is an estimate of Holocene Climate Optimum temperatures. Look carefully for the peak at 8000 years ago. This chart shows +1.5 degrees C. … I have seen up to +2 degrees C. on other charts.
After 20,000 years ago, Earth started to warm, and the Laurentide Ice Sheet began to disappear. By 8,000 years ago, the Laurentide Ice Sheet was already a fraction of its original size, confined mostly to modern day Quebec and Labrador, a size and latitude broadly similar to that of the modern Greenland Ice Sheet.
Estimate…. published by???
But not in the past few centuries… Odd that…
This statement shows a sever lack of literary comprehension.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I did leave out a “d” the first time I typed extraordinary. You caught me.
Yet you continually make stupid claims with zero evidence.!
You have presented absolutely nothing to counter the first article in the link.
A complete FAIL, yet again.
Nope. Still don’t get it.
Lol.
Do that then.
“When a writer makes an extraorinary false statement”
You should look in the mirror.. since you do it all the time.
Many studies exist showing Holocene optimum was several degrees warming
Why do you keep denying science, just because it goes against your brain-washed AGW cultism ??
Your comment is absolutely anti-science and ignorant JUNK. !
“Many studies exist showing Holocene optimum was several degrees warming”
BENASTY
I wrote +2 degrees at the 8000 year peak
That would meet the definition of “several”
You just love to complain.
You don’t even need that, if the temperature change at the ice sheet-tundra boundary changes far more radically. The melting of the ice depends only on the temperature change where the ice is found, not overall temperatures including those at the equator.
Hubert Lamb pointed to data showing a 10C change in temperature, averaged over a decade, just 20 years apart, at measuring stations aroiund 80N. That was in the first half of the 20th century.
So it’s entirely possible that warming at high latitudes where the ice melts can be considerably greater than the average change in temperature across the globe.
However, sea level changes are only affected by land-based ice melting – the sea ice melts are entirely irrelevant. Indeed, several authors have suggested that eras have existed with far less Arctic sea ice than at present, just as claims have been made that glaciers in the Alps 4000 years ago were far smaller than they are today, despite nearly 200 years of glacial retreat from the maximum in the 1700s.
It’s a shame that policy makers seem so shamefully ignorant about the evidence of very significant natural climate change over the past 100,000 years, not to mention the ‘Holocene Climatic Optimum’ following the exit of the last ice age being considerably warmer than today.
We are not in extraordinary climate times right now, not in any way whatosever. We may have built enormous settlements right by the sea, right by rivers which have a tendency to flood. But that’s just a lack of human foresight, nothing to do with climate, which has changed in all kinds of directions for over a billion years.
After all, ‘primitive people’ who moved their settlements on horseback were never helplessly susceptible to the vicissitudes of nature, because they could easily move to safer ground without having millions invested in unmovable bricks n mortar. Sure, they had to eat, sure if their crops failed they might have problems.
OMG… +2 is not “several”
English comprehension issues as well as a distinct lack of any sanity or scientific anything.
Global average temperature is not the only factor affecting sea level rise. The volume and mass of ice melt has a role too. I don’t know what the data show about the mass of ice globally was 8,200 years ago, but I expect it was far larger than the mass of ice today. As recently as 10,000-12,000 years ago the so-called land bridge between Asia and North America still existed (submergence only began 13,000 years ago). So presumably there was a much larger mass of ice melting across the northern hemispheric continents than could possibly melt today.
So please submit your alternative data showing sea level vs. time over the last 13,000 years, and show us why your data and analysis are better than the author’s data and analysis.
Instead of just engaging in a smear as you did in your comment.
Science isn’t smearing – it’s debate over data, facts, timing, and causes.
Science is not speculative claims of a 6.5 meter sea level rise from no more than a +2 degree C. temporary peak in estimated average temperature, with no scientific consensus.
Meltwater pulse 1A (MWP1a) is the name used by Quaternary geologists, paleoclimatologists, and oceanographers for a period of rapid post-glacial sea level rise, between 13,500 and 14,700 calendar years ago, during which the global sea level rose between 16 meters (52 ft) and 25 meters (82 ft) in about 400–500 years,
Meltwater pulse 1B occurred between 11,500 and 11,200 calendar years ago, a 300-calendar year interval, during which sea level rose 13 meters (43 ft) from −58 meters (−190 ft) to −45 meters (−148 ft), giving a mean annual rate of around 40mm/yr
A surge of rapid sea level rise about 8,000 years ago, called “meltwater pulse 1C” has been proposed, but is speculation, with no consensus. It is the subject of this article. One cherry picked “study” is not a consensus and is not fair and balanced reporting.
What did Michael Chrichton say about consensus?
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
I found several references to 5m/century around the 8200 years ago.
Which is about.. as the article says 6.5m in 140 years.
You have failed, yet again.
I know Wikipedia is not necessarily a source to be taken with blind trust, but this is what they say:
Looks pretty solid to me.
You appear to be assuming that the “speculative claim” was based on estimates of the concurrent temperature change. Modeling it is rather complex. However, I suspect that most of the evidence is geological, such as wave-cut platforms and datable fossils.
I think this is a key point, sea level rise was not always gradual, land ice and melt water were significant contributors. As the northern hemisphere glaciers retreated there were periods with very large glacial lakes in North America. Look up glacial lake Agassiz for example, 8200 years ago it was the largest lake in the world, larger than the great lakes combined. Some of these lakes were contained by geology but many by unmelted portions of the ice sheet itself as a sort of ice dam. As the ice sheet melted further and the pressure of the water reservoir increased these ice dams would give way and a massive flood of fresh water would make it’s way to the ocean, a large contribution to sea level rise with only a moderate rise in temperature. The beach head shorelines and spillways of these former glacial lakes are well documented in North America.
This page points out features of glacial lake Agassiz that can be found using google earth.
The key word in your second paragraph is “estimated”. Those darn models.
This writer is reporting on a paper that he was not a co-author.
All you are doing is shooting the messenger because you do not like the message.
I read the paper. Did you?
Don’t point fingers at the author of this article – go look at the papers referenced and judge from there.
The first paper I found (The early Holocene sea level rise – D.E. Smith et. al.) is behind a paywall, but the site displays parts of it.
The early Holocene sea level rise – ScienceDirect
From the introduction:
In one of the referenced papers I found this:
Apparently, the rapid rise is well-accepted in the scientific community. Multiple papers are listed that discuss it, so this is definitely not a single cherry-picked study. So go criticize the peer-reviewed papers, not the article summarizing them.
Who makes the call as to whether something is extraordinary or not? Just because you disagree does not shift the burden of proof.
I believe the event being cited is meltwater pulses during the 8.2kyr event related to the collapse of the Laurentide ice sheet. This was a catastrophic event, and certainly does show how tipping points can be reached that dramatically increase the rate of GMSLR.
What were the causes of this so called tipping point?
I’m hardly an expert in this area, so anyone can correct me where I’m wrong, but I think current understanding is that the event was triggered by meltwater pulses from the final collapse of the Laurentide ice sheet, with these pulses triggered by proglacial lakes catastrophically draining and moving massive meltwater into the North Atlantic. The breaking point for at least one of these lakes is believed to have been a weakening ice dam.
Kind of the very definition of a tipping point, and these would have been biblically catastrophic flood events for any creature experiencing them.
Shoot the science? Well, for one trivial one just check the Maldives. It is spending its Paris Agreement money on building five new airports at near beach level and STILL has no sign of being overwhelmed. Why do we not see our money (for that is what it is) being returned with interest?
The graph he supplied suggests Richard Greene is the hack writer…
Have that brilliant comment printed, framed and send a copy to your mother.
And you can have your brilliant comeback tattooed on your butt, but don’t show your mother!
You have never made a brilliant comment.
The twisted and depraved AGW-cultism that drives your tiny mind makes it incapable of doing so.
The court jester of WUWT speaks up!
And as you speak, I cover my ears.
Yep, you are yapping your head off. !!
A true clown act.
An unfounded claim (repeated) and two ad hominem attacks. Classy.
Greene is a self important, legend in his own mind kind of fool with stunning lack of self awareness which is obvious to all will never be resolved.
Well said, Mike. 🙂
Glad others can see the real RG. !
Well said, Mike. 🙂
Glad others can see the real RG. !
Many times RG makes points and presents data that are interesting enough to contemplate. Unfortunately, RG with his personal attacks diverts attention and for me that is enough to stop reading.
Jeez Dick, go to a charm school
I am a graduate of the Don Rickles Charm School.
Why don’t you go to a science school so you can include some science in your comments?
Why don’t you learn to be an adult human being?
There is no science in any of your comments, that is for sure.
Seems you never attended.
Well, checking out perplexity.ai to find out what the consensus on this is, and its not too far off. The amount is about right, the timescale off. On the consensus account, I have not read the paper Richard refers to.
Early Holocene Sea Level Rise
Definition
Causes
Effects
The statement “8200 years ago, near-global sea levels rose 6.5 meters in a span of just 140 years” is partially accurate, but requires some clarification and context.
Meltwater Pulse 1C
Significant sea level rises in short periods are possible, and have happened, on the consensus view. Its also clear that the present slow rise is nothing like them.
The real question however isn’t so much this one. The real question is whether human CO2 emissions will cause another rise like the ones referred to, and whether, if it will, moving electricity generation in the West to wind and solar will stop it. I don’t find either of these remotely plausible, but we shall doubtless find out together, those of us that live long enough.
Remember that ‘consensus’ has no bearing on science. Refer (especially) to Einstein and Fineman.
Just trying to find out if the post is as off the wall as Richard Greene says it is. I’m not trying to argue the consensus is either right or wrong.
And the answer seems to be that no, the paper does not seem to be claiming anything particularly novel. Is it right? Is the consensus right? Don’t know.
I’m puzzled by RG’s reaction. He is usually a great one for following the consensus.
There is great disagreement on meltwater pulse 1c. Cherry picking ONE “study” evades the contrary opinions. That is the Ken Richards style.
Yapping mindlessly with zero evidence is RG’s style.
Richard please stop digging
A consensus based on evidence, especially one that has withstood the test of time, is far more useful than ‘No one knows”. The fact that A SCIETIFIC DOES NOT MEAN A CONSENSUS IS ALWAYS WRONG.
Yep , lots of references to 5m/century.. ie about 6.5m in 140 years.
Evidence that you are wrong. !
Since it is the mass of ice that melts that drives sea level rise due to global warming, it is not physically possible to replicate the rate of ice melt from the end of the last glaciation, because there simply isn’t that much ice left to melt, as compared to 8-10 thousand years ago.
Most important is that an increase of CO2 has no warming effect no most of Antarctica, due to a permanent temperature inversion.
Antarctica holds 90% of the land base ice on Earth and only a tiny amount melts during the current interglacial: Two ice shelves and the tiny peninsula.
Conservatives should mention the negative greenhouse effect over most of Antarctica a lot more often.
Anti-greenhouse effect – Wikipedia
Other than a reference to Wikipedia, a relevant post.
There is no consensus on meltwater pulse 1C unlike meltwater pulses 1A and 1B
One cherry picked study does not create a consensus.
Using historical estimates with ZERO manmade CO2 emissions to spout com conclusions about effects of manmade CO2 emissions, is a logical fallacy … but very common among conservatives.
It is not a cherry picked study.
It is an interesting study. You should read it before you continue to disparage it.
Lots of other studies mention 5m/century…. ie around 6.5m in 140 years.
You have presented zero studies to counter the first study mentioned in the article.
You just keep digging
The claim is actually correct .
It is you that is a scientifically ignorant hack.
What does CO2 to apart from enhancing plant growth.
Give empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2..
Or beclown yourself as usual.
…a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter…
You can quite reasonably hold that CO2 increases do nothing long term.
You cannot reasonably argue they do not have a forcing effect, they do.
But whether this forcing effect translates into long term global warming is another matter. You can reasonably argue that the consequent feedbacks in the climate system act to neutralize the forcing effect – that the mechanism responds to forcings and there is a regression to the mean.
I don’t think Richards denies the forcing effect. He may well deny the long term effects, but that, while it may be wrong, is not a position which deserves to be called a nutter.
Dr. Happer, an expert on the atmosphere, says that a doubling of CO2 would only amount to about a 0.3C temperature increase (using IPCC numbers).
So yes, CO2 is a forcing, but doesn’t amount to much, and that’s not even including negative feedbacks.
CO2 is much ado about nothing.
“Dr. Happer, an expert on the atmosphere, says that a doubling of CO2 would only amount to about a 0.3C temperature increase (using IPCC numbers).”
Nope he didn’t……
From: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
“Doubling the CO2 concentration will cause a temperature decrease of the upper atmosphere of about 10 K as shown in Fig. 11 to restore hypothetical radiative-convective equilibrium. For the case of fixed absolute humidity, the surface warms by 1.4 K which agrees very well with other work as shown in Table 5. The surface warming increases significantly for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity. Our result of 2.3 K is within 0.1 K of values obtained by two other groups as well as a separate calculation where we used the Manabe water vapor profile given by (87). For the case of fixed relative humidity and a pseudoadiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere, we obtain a climate sensitivity of 2.2 K. The corresponding climate sensitivities determined by other groups differ by about 10% which can be expected using slightly differing temperature and water vapor profiles. The issue of water feedback would undoubtedly be greatly clarified if additional observations of water vapor concentration as a function of altitude were available.”
Happer’s estimate is no more likely to be right than any other estimate. But he is not wild guessing the effects of various feedbacks like other people do. The lab spectroscopy estimates for CO2 alone is about +0.75 degrees C. warming per CO2 x 2 which is about what Happer has been saying recently.
There is some evidence of a water vapor feedback but the absolute humidity data are not accurate. The 1980 to 2000 rise of AH is contradicted by the steady AH from 2000 to 2020. No one knows is the right answer.
And yet still no empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
So sad.
8000 years ago there was a place called Doggerland, in the North Sea. It was possible to walk from northern England to the continent.
Yes, Joe Biden did that walk back then, and only wearing house slippers.
No joke.
😂😂😂😂
There was also a place between Wales and Ireland called ‘Cantre’r Gwaelod’ with legends about its flooding. Nowadays at low tides following a storm the remains of a forest can be seen. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/ancient-sunken-forest-wales
I remember seeing a programme about that. Many years ago.
The Blue “line” is generally about 5 meters high and 1500 years wide….plus nobody was actually there with tide gauges….and various proxies give different numbers, hence the width of the blue line….so really what someone might interpret happened over “140 years” is very, very speculative….
I think its a +1 for RG in this case….
When it is known from hard evidence of forests that grew under existing glaciers, that it had to have been at least 10c warmer in those cold areas in various periods during the Holocene, the melting ice required for that to happen would have raised sea levels by at least that amount.
All good, except 0.16 cm is 16 hundredths, or 16%, of a cm, not 16 tenths.
Perhaps an AI was used to determine the description of the values.
9.11 is greater than 9.9 according to recent articles
The apparent low and stable level of atmospheric CO2 at a time of sea levels rising faster than today provides further evidence that the ice core records are failing to capture large natural ocean driven variations in atmospheric CO2.
Since CO2 lags temperature we would have expected to see higher CO2 at a time of faster rising sea levels because it must have been warmer at that time.
This was very likely a crossing of a tipping point, a thing you deniers can’t usually comprehend. Scientists don’t know the details, they are still solving the puzzle but what happened that time looks really sudden and catastrophic. Furthermore, if it really was a tipping point, then we can’t claim this was just variability in the strict sense of the word. That was the time of a slow warming that had a sudden, non-gradual effect. The likely reasons are collapse of various ice sheets with glacial lake outbursts.
Very good. “Scientists don’t know”, “If it was a tipping point “. Sounds like a lot of waffle just to say scientists don’t know. That should be where you stopped. 😉
They don’t know the details. There is lot of evidence for multiple extreme floods so this is a plausible hypothesis.
You don’t know anything, you actively fight against “knowing”
And the supposedly doomed Maldives are using their (our) Paris funding to build five new airports at near beach level. Odd that.
Is this supposed to be a counterargument for “tipping points”? 😉
He meant Guam.. It apparently has tipping point. 😉
When is the next “tipping point”? oh great slithering AGW-apostle !!
Tipping points do not occur when the planet is only a degree or so above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
The tipping points are all in the TOTALLY UNBALANCED minds of AGW-apologists and cultsist.
They have apparently just described one.
OMG, your comprehension level is way below ZERO !!
You are apparently one of those AGW-clowns with a totally unbalanced mind.
But a tipping point doesn’t have to imply the end of the world.
So, you understand rapid changes in climate can occur without humans causing it.
And, whatever changes happening now don’t have to be occurring because of human causes. They might to some degree, but that degree is unknown.
What’s stupid is the idea that driving our ICE cars and heating our homes with oil or NG is going to cause an EMERGENCY.
Is this an implicit admission that tipping points may exist? ‘Cos this is usually denied here. Furthermore, this one looked kinda catastrophic. So maybe not the end of the world but…
But that doesn’t mean human cannot cause rapid changes. Furthermore, here the cause was a (slow) warming. Now there’s a much rapid warming (whether it is antropogenic or not is almost irrelevant). I think even you can add 1 and 1 together.
So, we can conclude that tipping points (without a clear definition of that term) can occur in geologic time- and that humans COULD possibly influence the climate- then we can conclude that currently there is no proof that humans ARE causing a “climate emergency”- ergo, we shouldn’t be urgently trying to get to net zero which will be a tipping point in the health of our civilization.
Well, I wouldn’t bet on that but anyway…
Well, nothing what you said above supports this conclusion, that’s for sure. And taken as it is (from “currently”) this sentence is certainly false, literally the entire output of climate science is either directly or indirectly giving that proof.
As currently practiced by rent-seeking academics there is no climate science. All we have is pandering to Leftist political narratives.
“giving that proof.”
And FAILING absolutely and completely.
we can conclude that
currentlythere is no proof at all that humans ARE causing a “climate emergency”Fantasy conjectures and fairy-tales are not proof.
Neither are computer games.
Tipping points do exist.
My tipping point starts when the server asks if I’d like another drink just as I’m finishing the one I’ve been working on.
Thereafter, what point the tip reaches depends on whether the first tipping point reached continues apace.
It can get very expensive.
Just another reason to avoid the gay bar. Don’t waste your money there.
Speaking from your personal habits, Nyolci?
Oops, you tried to reverse the situation but you failed 😉
You obviously have experience in gay bars..
.. not even the “boys” want you.. so sad.
Much rapid warming…. uhhuh.
Should’ve been “much more rapid”, sorry.
Which is garbage either way. !
You need to scientifically describe your “tipping points.” And I don’t mean CliSciFi speculation.
You need to scientifically describe your “tipping points.”
I don’t have to do anything. They’ve been already described in science. Check out eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_theory
You aren’t CAPABLE of doing anything.. is what you really mean.
A totally irrelevant link is just stupidity.
“ I think even you can add 1 and 1 together.”
And you, being a climate apologist,.. would get some arbitrary fake number.
“Tipping point” is one of the many concocted phrases used to create a perception of credibility and expertise.
Control the language, control the ideas.
— K. Marx
Tipping point – the point at which people begin to perceive noise as signal.
Tipping point – a critical juncture at which unstoppable change takes place
Tipping point – the point at which a series of small changes or incidents becomes significant enough to cause a larger, more important change
This phenomenon is extremely characteristic of you deniers here, and a good indication as to the quality of your arguments. Of course Marx never said that, and this is profoundly non-Marxist. They would find it ridiculous if someone really thought this.
Your knowledge about these things are just as good as your knowledge about science, some half assed rumors from here or there. Eg. Orwell, who you very likely haven’t read but just heard about. BTW Orwell is a very bad source, he had a very superficial understanding of both theory and the reality in the Eastern Bloc.
Well that was a waste of space.. 7 lines of empty meaningless irrelevant garbage.
I have read Orwell, and given the events in the latter half of the 20th century he had a very prescient understanding of the lunacy in the Eastern Bloc, an entity that no longer exists.
I first read Orwell when I was young, in the 80s. I have first hand knowledge of how the Eastern Bloc looked like, I grew up there. Even then, when we celebrated the slow but steady decay of it I noticed how off Orwell was in quite a few things. It was obvious to me that he didn’t know theory at all (Goldstein’s writings are widely believed to convey his ideas). The description of the situation of proles, how they are kept in near illiteracy and poverty is the polar opposite what the Eastern Bloc had done. Even for the young me Orwell’s sexual misery was apparent, the use of sexuality to rule the Outer Party (essentially, the intelligentsia) he described was completely alien to the realities. In hindsight he was even worse. His description of the war was entirely bogus, now we know that the Cold War was “real” and it wasn’t pursued for keeping the domestic masses down. The thought policing thing sounds ridiculous now. We had propaganda and agitation but nothing similar to what he described, and that propaganda and agitation pales in comparison to what we have today in the West. This was the most sobering aspect of my reevaluation of Orwell. Etc-etc.
We actually learnt Marxist theory. We dismissed it, found it ridiculous, etc. Of course we didn’t really understand it that time. Later on it was frightening to me to see how right it was and how well it described capitalism. BTW what you know about Communism or Marxism here in the West is not even a caricature of that ‘cos a caricature should get the broad strokes right.
Good lord you are an idiot.
Why? I just pointed out that Sparta’s quote from Marx is not from Marx. I also pointed out that Orwell’s Newspeak is the source of much of this, and that was incorrect, there was nothing like that (and besides, Orwell is a very poor source here in general). Orwell partly based this Newspeak thing on what he perceived strange and alien in the language of the Left (which is not the same as today’s Left). Especially the word “contradiction” is perplexing to most people. Well, this is the language of Continental (and especially German) philosophy of the 19th century, it’s not even specifically Left, and while it has its idiosyncrasies, you can get familiar with it easily. Orwell obviously didn’t understand this, he used some superficial observations in his work.
Most importantly, the choice of the words “tipping point” conjures up an image of a tree or tower falling over, never to be upright again.
Yep. There’s no easy way back. That’s why we should avoid these.
What “tipping point”? That is a meaningless phrase repeated by warmunists that has no physical meaning in the real world. Climate doesn’t “tip”. It changes at varying but relatively stable rates. The global climate is not something that flips upside down.
A thing that looks suspiciously like a crossing of a tipping point has been just described above, and it had a sudden onset, with very high rates of change. Actually, those glacial outbursts that very likely caused these lasted for only a short time (months – a few years), discharging (much) more water to the ocean than the combined volume of the Great Lakes. There’s evidence for multiple such events in the geological record. The 140 years are just a bracket from dating.
Bsing about terminology won’t get you far. BTW, the name “tipping” is very expressive in this context.
It only looks that way to the fevered biased minds of warmunists. Equilibrium shifts, but it is not a “flood”, in the way that warmunists attempt to portray it in order to scare ignorant people.
Besides, as I made the point several times above in this thread, the rate of sea level rise due to ice melt is at least roughly proportional to the available mass of ice that can melt. There is vastly less land ice today than 8,200 years ago.
It was actually a flood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz The evidence is very strong here for multiple giant floods. A bit further to the west you have this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods This was smaller (still extremely large) but here the evidence is exceptionally good.
Do we have any giant Missoula-type lakes held in check by ice sheets? If not, this is not a justification for assuming tipping points in general or otherwise.
Could we necessarily only have the exact same type of tipping points? If not, this is not a justification for rejecting tipping points in general or otherwise.
We can reject it because there are no climate tipping points anywhere except in AGW fantasy computer games and fantasies.
Actually, a breaking dam creates a different imagery from a falling tree. More importantly, the ice dam responsible for the Channeled Scablands probably formed and failed several times, so it isn’t a good analogy for a ‘tipping point.’
The common thing is that there’s no easy way back.
Yep. And each time there was a sudden change in sea level, temperature etc. The pattern of oceanic currents got disturbed at least for years. In the Lake Agassiz case the AMOC collapsed, for example.
Very difficult to have tipping points in a self-regulating energy system that is never in equilibrium.
An energy system doesn’t have to be in equilibrium for crossing a tipping point.
Tipping point, as abused, means crossing some undefined threshold leading to catastrophe.
If there were such things as tipping points leading to apocalypse, we would not be sitting here typing.
Well, you’re definitely not here typing, I can’t see you /s
Back to business, a future event can only have a very indirect effect on your current typing habits.
What a load of irrelevant gibberish..
Which is it?
This was very likely a crossing of a tipping point
Furthermore, if it really was a tipping point
Either.
NEITHER. .. It is just fake imaginary nonsense.
You use dreamtime Australian aborigine stories at your own risk.
It is not plausible that a story was passed verbally from generation to generation for 6,700 years.
I do not know of any non-aborigine material that has survived a similar passage of time.
Remember the old teaching aid “I am going to a dance. Send three and fourpence” that was the verbal outcome of a word-of-mouth military transmission originally “I am going to advance. Send reinforcements.”
The theme of this story, a walk from one place to another, surely is not so memorable as to cause its inclusion in verbal history .
Remember, there are no written records of the dreamtime.
..
I am starting to call for an Australian government register of aboriginal culture and tradition in two volumes.
The first is material whihc is authentic and recorded accurately from aboriginal source to the written record essentially verbatim.
The second register contains the majority of the record, which is the aboriginal culture and tradition recorded with input from the the non-aboriginal recorder, typically an academic anthropologist.
….
If the rest of Australians are to be subjected to acts and regulations to recognise the dreamtime, then it is not correct to incorporate elements invented by the non-aboriginal recorders.
Geoff S
Geoff, how about starting with a sit-down with Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley, who crafted the ancient and now-ubiquitous “Welcome To Country” performance in 1976.
But the woke want us to embrace indigenous science in favor of math and scientific method!
Isn’t “indigenous science” an oxymoron?
Current Sea Level Rise is much ado about nothing.
This also applies to coral reef bleaching.
Climate Alarmists constantly try to promote these things as being significant. They are not.
The intent is to terrify people.
You are correct.
well, to the fellas in the ad-hominate comments section, thanks for the late morning chuckle.
I like Javier Vinos’s hypothesis on the energy balance of the planet. He thinks it’s the oceans that determine the ice age conditions. Since there is very little water vapor at the poles, heat that arrives at the poles via ocean currents can escape directly to space with very little reradiation back to earth. It’s a counter intuitive concept where warming waters at the poles creates a net energy loss for the planet. It’s unclear to me how the tipping point arrives where the planet is returned to ice age conditions but I do like this conservation of energy concept to explain earth’s thermometer.
The variation on solar energy inputting the earth’s system based on orbital mechanics is key. I do not remember the study, but it was not a major reduction in sunlight that causes the earth to resume the ice age. Milankovitch cycles as an example.
I have always read that glacial melt occurs principally through the direct absorption of sunlight. The key variables being cloud cover and snow cover