The most hilarious thing about this piece of research, as is often the case, is how a non-hysteric set of findings can be turned to the hysteric cause, with no supporting logic. I think for most journals, buying into climate hysteria must be in the research writeup or it won’t get published. The researchers used coastal human dwelling sites in England to track sea level. Obviously at the time studied there was no significant human-caused CO2 change. The authors claim, and I have to say I am dubious about the accuracy of this, as no other research seems to support it, that in 70 years, from AD 430 to 500, sea level rose 4 meters or over 13 feet. That is absurd. It then fell extremely quickly by a similar amount, equally absurd. That is a lot of ice melting and then refreezing. The authors say this likely was caused by the sun (what, the sun drives climate, I thought it was all CO2) causing Arctic melting and warmer Arctic waters eventually reaching Antarctica and causing ice shelf collapse. I don’t recall any Antarctica research showing any such thing occurring.
The authors then say their findings portend an “imminent” similar rise in our time. That is just dumb. But it will certainly get picked up by the media, who are totally bought into the hysteric movement. And the media will not discuss how that rise could have occurred earlier without today’s levels of CO2 and why today’s CO2 levels should cause that magnitude of sea level rise. I am tempted to think this is a spoof article, maybe something someone did with AI. If true, the big takeaway should be the dominance of natural processes in climate and the failure of high CO2 levels to cause anything like this rise of sea level. (BioOne Article)
Agreed. Suggest your detractors pack a glass with ice cubes. Next fill it with water to the brim. Leave it on the kitchen counter over night. In the morning, they will discover a glass of water with no spillage. Why? Water EXPANDS when frozen and SHRINKS when it melts. Shrinking ice caps should result in LOWER sea levels, not HIGHER.
true except for the fact that the ice that is melting is generally on land so not affecting sea level unless and until it melts and runs into the ocean
I am not going to agree or to disagree with the study – just noting two points
A – The study used some carbon dating. While carbon dating gives a general time line, it remains difficult to nail down time with the accuracy reflected in the article
B – contemporaneous written records started to become fairly common around -0- AD (time of Christ). The lack of written records or lore for such large sea level rise would give me qualms about the accuracy of the study.
One thing that strikes me as even more questionable about the study is the alleged link between what happened circa 400AD with the alleged high probability that a similar occurrence is imminent.
I don’t think there’s even a transport mechanism to move water from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Which currents appreciably cross over the equator?
Several, if you google you can find maps of the ocean currents