Over 100,000 years ago? I wonder what caused it then? Obviously we are having an impact but I think there are certainly other factors at play.

Looking back, the world has gone under several changes, with or without humans.

I'm not a denier by any means but damn, the hysteria and the thinking that it's purely the fault of humans is a bit much. I heard a politician (AOC) say that the world will end in 12 years if we don't do something now. It really just distracts from the real issues by saying outrages things like that.

The difference is how fast it happens this time compared to every other time in the history of this planet. That isn't just like a "we may have something to do with it a little bit but most is just changes which this planet has seen plenty of times in the past". No scientist acts as if the world has never seen climate changes before. 

And she didn't mean that the world will end in 12 years but that it will take 12 years more until the damage will be irreversible. She just "quoted" the UN report which basically said that. You can decide for yourself if it means the end of the world if you won't be able to repair the damage you have done. It will obviously not mean that everyone will die from one to the next second but it should be obvious that this wasn't what she meant. 

Lets talk about this for a moment: Why is the sea level decreasing in Sweden? As you seem to be implying, if sea ice was truly melting, we should be seeing an increase in sea levels, not a decrease. As such, it could be assumed that this information would indicate that this is actually not the case.

But would that explanation be accurate, or is there an alternate explanation?

As luck would have it, your first example happened to be from one of the rare countries that are not seeing a sea level increase, so this would imply that there are other factors at work.

So what is it?

Well, actually both Sweden and Finland are in fact experiencing increasing sea level along with the rest of the world, they are just experiencing a rise in the land which is working faster than that sea level rise. The reason for this rise in the land, is called "post-glacial uplift", which is the rebounding of a landmass after the weight of ice is lifted. This has been going on in these areas since the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. As such, this data isn't really evidence of much in regards to whether a loss of ice mass is contributing to sea level rise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also like to note that you should not be making comments about trends without utilizing trend lines. What you refer to as "stagnation" is just a subjective reading of a mass of data. There is a reason we utilize maths to make statements about trends. Maths are better at it than our subjective interpretations and what we feel we see in data.

For an example, look at the Cuxhaven data you posted. Your subjective interpretation told you that there was "stagnation" after about 1970. The definition of stagnation would imply that this would mean that there is no trend in the data, but if we apply a trend line to the data, we see that is not the case:

I trimmed the data from 1980 to the newest data point in 2018 (to give some wiggle room for your estimation of when the sea level stopped rising) and you can see clearly from the included trend line (as calculated by the software), that the sea level actually rose about 110mm over this time frame, which fits very closely with the commonly accepted estimation of a sea level rise of about 1/8inch (or 3.175mm) per year.

So she was basically just missing the context? I'm in Australia so I don't particularity take too much notice of what people say over there. Her comment really stuck out though.

We don't really know how quickly it happened in the past though, do we? I'd like to read more into it actually.

That's my point though. You don't find that stating the world will end in 12 years as a little... sensationalist?

I just find that to be rather distracting from the discussions that needed to be had.

I just saw it as a throw away comment that I didn't bother reading further. I think I misunderstood you typing this, "She, not the UN, said the world will end in 12 years" from your previous post.

Too late for apologies. I'm now a climate denier and a flat earther who has now fully devoted themselves to Pastafarianism.

The issue stems from the rate of change that we are experiencing.

Prior climatic changes in Earths history tended to occur over longer time scales, thus allowing for flora and fauna to adapt to the changing conditions or thrive in specific geographical areas.

That isn't occurring this time around, we are able to count the rate of change on decade-long time scales rather than millenia-long time scales.
For example the last time we had global warming of 5-7'C, that took about 5,000 years.

The current rate of change is occurring 10-20x faster than what has occurred historically.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

We are currently at 400~ ppm of CO2.

At about 1,000-1,500 ppm of CO2 we start to feel drowsiness. - We should hit that in the next 100~ years. (Frequently experience this level of CO2 as it's a normal environment when dealing with structural firefighting and confined spaces, some individuals will feel the effects sooner, especially with compromised breathing already.)
At 2,000 ppm we start to get headaches, sleepiness, poor concentration, increased heartrate, nausia and more.

It is also resulting in a mass extinction on an unprecedented level.
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/timeline-of-a-mass-extinction/

Yes we do.
Sience is pretty empirical on this point actually.

Welcome to the club. I like to go with what I call the Valhalla and Midgard model. We sit on a giant tree (probably made of pasta, the perfect substance: similar but not identical to God) and await the final battle at the end of time between the giants and gods, or updated to match current language: angels and devils.

So, creation: In the midst of the gap between the primordial realms of Niflheim - a land of ice - and Muspelheim - a land of fire - a great giant formed, and with him, millions of ice and fire giants who owned the lands. Scientists who uncovered ancient bones cake up with a conspiracy to call them the dinosaurs! These giants obviously needed food, and so they all drank from the utter of a giant cow: thus proving the dairy industry must stay. Anyway, global warming happened from the milk drinking and Niflheim shrank more, but this created more living space and the god Buri was born. He had children and grandchildren, among them the god Odin and his two brothers Vili and Ve (Or Willie and Wes in the modern Engel tongue).

Ymir was king of the ice giants. Odin decided to war upon said ice giants, and as his army he chose his two brothers, Willie and Wes. While was busy drinking milk out of a giant cow utter, and the trio of gods slowly butchered him mercilessly! His blood SPILLED upon the world! DROWNING IT! KILLING THE DINOSAUR GIANTS!

WHEN IT WAS DONE, HE TOOK THE MUSCLE OF YMIR AND MADE THE EARTH! HIS BRAINS THE CLOUDS! His skull the dome of the firmament.

Odin CRUSHED his enemies! And the proof is that no more ice or fire giants exist in the land. Neither Atheists nor agnostics can explain this.

Their only argument against this theory “Why the giants were so stupid as to allow the gods to survive several generations and then destroy them?” Easily answered, their brains were nothing clouds. Argument SMASHED like the straw stuffed scarecrow that it is!

The evidence is all there. Also ICP made me believe in miracles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/05/17/glacier-national-park-may-need-to-be-renamed-will-soon-have-no-glaciers/#c1ffb4a7b7b0

numberwang seems to claim the USA was warmer in the 1930s

So whats making all the glaciers in the USA disappear, Let me guess, its the nasa people with flamethrowers. These same ones that are guarding the Antarctic so we dont discover the earth is flat.

Oddly there is a high coloration between people that believe the earth is flat and those that don't believe in global change.

Arguing with these people is a lost cause, facts don't matter