Claim: 'Post Glacial Rebound is a Myth'

WUWT??? Artificial land reclamation and harbours silting up does not a receding sea level make. Link to reference is also broken…

The link seems broken

Richard,
You need to take some courses in Geophysics, specifically gravimmetry.

I know absolutely nothing about this subject except that since a little boy I learned that the south of the UK was going down and the more northern regions were going up because of post glacial bounce. If this is not the case could you say what is the cause?

Speed: “And just where is this water going?”
AGW Members said it all went to Australia. And got lost on the way to the ocean.
“Puzzled oceanographers who wondered where the sea level rise went for 18 months now have their answer. It went to Australia. Rainwater normally runs swiftly off continental mountain ranges, pours down rivers, collects in aquifers and lakes and then winds across floodplains into the sea. But Australia, as any Australian will proudly claim, is different. Rain that falls in the outback of the largest island – also the smallest continent – tends to dribble away into inland waterways and seemingly get lost, without ever making it to the coast, or to collect in shallow inland seas and stay there till it evaporates.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/08/30/australias-floods-caused-sea-levels-to-drop-7mm“

Far-fetched. Repeating that Isostatic Rebound does not occur does not make it any the less fanciful. The amount of water on earth – including that bound up in rocks in the deep mantle – has probably been constant for a few billion years. The total amount of water is not going anywhere..

So we have been hiding the decline of sea levels. Cool.
Does Mikey Mann know about this? Hiding declines is one area in which he actually has expertise.

I read somewhere that the colliding tectonic plates suck in large amount of water, but here in Northern-Norway post glacial rebound is pretty much self-evident. The water have ‘receded’ over 30 feet since Neolithic times. The rest of the world should have experienced something similar if rebound is a myth

ktwop says:
August 31, 2013 at 12:38 pm
“The amount of water on earth – including that bound up in rocks in the deep mantle – has probably been constant for a few billion years. The total amount of water is not going anywhere..”
Earth constantly loses atmospheric molecules to space due to solar wind etc, so why do you assume constancy? Makes no sense.
Water bound in the mantle is no longer water. Do you count all the H and O atoms to arrive at how much water there is? Again, nonsensical.
Water loss to the mantle, and a model about the development of the total water in the oceans appear near the end of this Willie Soon lecture which mostly talks about errors in satellite altimetry:

milodonharlani:
So, Britain is “tipping”… how long before (makes rotating hand gesture) it tips right over?
(reference to Congressman Hank Johnson, D-GA, worrying about Guam)

Not sure if serious. I thought it was pure sarcasm

But the ocean is rising at 3.2mm/yr. Not much, nothing to be worried about, but…’tis rising. Thats alot more water than the Great Lakes.
sealevel.colorado.edu

I’m sorry but this is the first article on WUWT that I have flat-out disagreed with on first reading.

This article is … bizarre is probably the best word for it. The continents float on the magma below. Load them as Greenland is now loaded and they sink down. How else do you think that river valley they have just found buried under the Greenland ice ended up below sea level. Unload the continents and they float up. Despite your repeated assertions that this idea is false you have neglected to explain what is wrong with it, ignored all the evidence that supports it, supplied no real evidence to refute it, and have given us no viable alternative. As a skeptic I need a much better argument than that to persuade me of anything. If repeated assertion worked for me as a persuasive method I’d be an ardent CAGW supporter by now.

Richard;
Isostacy not iostacy. Good grief…. not only is your theory “iffy” you can’t spell.

Perhaps you might want to check glacier rebound earthquakes in Quebec region a few years ago. That was not imagination.

A myth?
Welcome to the Baltic Sea basin. In 2004 we had (in North Poland) a 5.3 Magnitude (Richter Scale) earthquake in non-seismic zone, with epicenter near Sambia Peninsula (Russia).
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trz%C4%99sienia_ziemi_na_ziemiach_polskich

utter rubbish

Hmm, April Fools’ Day has come a little early!

Alberta Slim says:
August 31, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Richard;
Isostacy not iostacy. Good grief…. not only is your theory “iffy” you can’t spell.
Isostasy, not isostacy. The word comes ffrom greek “isos” equal and “stasis” standstill

Let me speak in support of Richard Guy’s argument that both the Great Lakes and the Seas are receding.
At the tip of the Bruce Peninsula, the land that separates Lake Huron (one of the five Great Lakes) from the Georgian Bay is Five Fathom Park, a cluster of Islands including Flower Pot Island. Walking Flower Pot Island, one comes to a number of wave action formed caves, more than 75 feet above the water level. These wave eroded caves are mimicked at various levels down to water level if one circumnavigates Flower Pot Island. A little Southward on the Bruce Peninsula at Cyprus Lake Provincial Park one can climb down from the dolomite cap into the water and swim at depths in the “Grotto”, a water level wave action formed cave.
Indeed, there are many wave action formed caves along the Georgian Bay side of this section of the Niagara Escarpment. The Niagara Escarpment itself was formed by differential erosion as best observed by Niagara Falls itself. The Great Lakes were much higher than at present. Indeed, the fossil record shows that the present land masses was part of a shallow and warm sea bed.
We needn’t harken back to prehistoric times to observe the retreat of the seas. On a journey to Turkey, in search for the legendary city of Troy made famous by Homer in the Iliad, Troy can be found and its remains are 3 miles from the coast. The City of Troy at one time stood on the shores of the Aegean exacting tribute from passing merchants. 3 miles the sea has retreated in the last 4,500 years.
The two observations are supportive of the claim of sea levels retreating.
As for the claim of the earth expanding? I have heard no such arguments. Seas water locked up in polar and Greenland ice caps? at least in part true but understandable in the light of a cooling earth. Warmer times and higher sea levels? maybe. Why there would be a retreating sea in the face of a warming world doesn’t seem to make sense unless water is being lost to space and water is not being made to make up for the loss.
Speculation.

This is the unabridged version of my article on sea level variations from the Holocene to the Romans, of which a large part deals with Britain
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
On page four is a link to an academic study by Durham university describing the rebound or depression round each part of britains coast caused by glacial action, deposition, subsidence etc.
There are many aspects of climate science we Should query but this is not one of them
Satellites do not measure sea levels around coasts and it is not always realised consequently that because of the land movements some places are actually seeing sea level fall whilst in others the rise is Exaggerated.
I do not agree with this authors basic premise at all
Tonyb

there was an article recently about a Roman port discovered in England. it was 2 miles from the closest shore…

Aside from the spelling problem (it’s isostasy, not iostacy), there is a whole lot wrong with this story. For openers, the author needs to do some reading about the evidence for isostatic rebound which comes not just from the Great Lakes but from all over the world where large Pleistocene ice sheets developed. For example (one among many), in every area in the world where ice sheets thousands of feet of ice thick have occurred, we can observe post-ice sheet uplift which is directly proportional to the thickness of the ice. In Sweden, post-glacial shorelines rise northward and are still rising at a rate of about 1 meter per century. In Stockholm, a notch was chiseled in rock in 1704 with a historic document telling where sea level was relative to the notch. Now that notch is 300 years old and the Baltic is 3 meters lower there. The same kind of story is repeated again and again, always the same–old shorelines have not just risen, they have risen progressively higher as you go in the direction of thicker ice. The coincidence is well beyond random probability.
A lot of other evidence of isostatic rebound is also relevant and may be found in the published geologic literature. My suggestion would be read this evidence before postulating the tossing out of a well established process.

It’s obvious. The seas are draining….off the edge of the earth.

So, the globe is expanding and draining all the land-water into the oceans. The AGW crowd has Al Gore and we get Richard. Every family inherits the occasional “crazy uncle”. What can I say? Genetics is a crap-shoot.

“geology theology” … whew. I guess geology is soooo dogmatic, they let a crazy arsed idea that put everyone on their heels in the 1960’s (Plate Tectonics), but they are otherwise a theology. How could you have this on a blog supposedly noted for its “good” science???
REPLY: How could you miss the caveat at the bottom? I moved it up top for the reading challenged – Anthony

Post glacial rebound is not a myth. I recall reading a couple of years ago (and searching in vain for the reference now) that the Norwegian coast is still rising, rebounding from the Scandinavian ice sheet. The evidence I read about was that a camp of hunters, dated to about 6,000 years ago, had been found about 70 feet above sea level. Evidence also showed that the camp, when occupied back in the day, was on the sea coast (sand and shells? don’t remember the specifics any more).
Don’t forget that in the 6,000 years, sea levels have risen, albeit slowly, but the Norwegian coast has been rising more quickly.

“”””””……Ric Werme says:
August 31, 2013 at 2:11 pm
M Courtney says:
August 31, 2013 at 1:44 pm
This is the worst article I’ve read here since “CO2 will condense out of the atmosphere in the Polar Night”.
Antarctic!
I’ve been avoiding that episode for years. And you didn’t even help out! Grr. 🙂
Finally, here is a post that I wouldn’t mind seeing hijacked into a CO2 frost discussion. It’s actually worthwhile for people who weren’t here then to read some of the posts and commentary. You really don’t have to comment on it though!……””””””
Pure ignorance was entirely responsible for sucking me into that CO2 snow fiasco; I’ll blame it on my lack of a good CO2 phase diagram (now corrected).
Fortunately Phil (the real Phil) ‘splained it all to my satisfaction, before I had dug myself all the way to China.
As I often preach; ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it.
George
PS I really did encounter a “polar scientist” decked out in his foulies , including Antarctica boots, in the YMCA hotel, in Christchurch NZ (in the elevator actually), who claimed to have walked in those very boots on CO2 snow at the South Pole. He is probably still getting grants funded !

I think ISO Stacy might have something to say about the standard of this article.
Amusing read though.

The idea of the ‘expanding earth’ is (or was) a semi-respectable theory. The great Arthur Holmes treated it seriously in various editions of his textbook, and Anthony Hallam thought it was a possible explanation for an apparent very-long-term trend for the land surface area of the earth to increase. But of course earth expansion at the rate postulated by its advocates would be far too slow to account for the observed local changes in land/sea level on a time scale of a few thousand years.

What can you say about an article in which even the title is wrong for starters? Long before GPS, isostatic rebound has been measured for more than half a century in North America and Europe. For example, older shorelines of the Great Lakes were surveyed and found to be tilted due to greater uplift to the north toward the center of the Laurentide ice sheet where the ice was thickest. The author has a muddled understanding of even the rudiments of geophysics, geology, and coastal geomorphology, especially the role of rivers and sedimentation.
The article appears to be advertising for his book, which would be a great addition to a space on my bookshelves devoted to amusing crackpot drivel.

Does posting bad science get more clicks?

Stephan Rasey says: “several thought it humerous.
Well put, I too would keep it at arm’s length. : > )

Guy’s hypothesis explains the missing heat. It’s in the center of the Earth causing the planet to expand like blowing up a balloon. Better stop all that deep drilling for fracking or we just might deflate the whole planet.
(satire alert)

I don’t see how silting can explain the difference in relative levels between the port of Ostia Antica and the sea. The same can be said of Ephesus. Perhaps sea levels were higher during the Roman warm period?

But it raises an interesting point. Global warming deniers almost unanimously defending the consensus.

Huh? I thought everyone knew the “lost” water was building up as ice over the Antarctica continent. At some point the growing mass will rupture the crust (the crust can only deform into the relative spherical-ness of the mantle so far) yielding a massive magma release. Then the “lost” water is liberated, the Great Lakes refill, etc.
Of course the rupture eventually closes up. Antarctica ice will build again, etc.
Just another long geological cycle people are mistaking for something else. Possibly because the continents will move and disrupt the pattern before a full and complete cycle occurs, but still…

Everybody is entitled to their view, but what is it with earth science/climate variation where anybody can write a “scientific hypothesis”? Richard Guy has no formal training in geology or geophysics, and it shows.
Not only does he not understand the historical and current theories on geological climate, glaciation and isostasy, but he also rejects plate tectonics.
A far better explanation of his “evidence” of stranded ports around the globe is the Holocene sea level maximum of 2-3m above present levels, at about 4-5,000 BC. Much simpler!

Isn`t this just the new scare, ” Waterchange” , the last one is losing legs, so we better reduce water usage ASAP and they will help us with some nice new tax`s.

“With all due respect, I submit that the above article is below the high standards achieved by WUWT.”
Not wanting to be rude to Anthony by putting words in his mouth, but I think you misunderstand what this (and other reputable climate realist blogs) are about. The idea is not to do peer review, but to let ideas be seen and their merit revealed by the free and fearless discussion in the comments. Personally, I never judge an idea by whether we “all know” it to be ludicrous – I give it a chance. This one made claims without evidence, so my default stance remains unmodified. Perhaps the author will come back with more evidence next time.
By demonstrating to me that new ideas (but stopping short of invisible pink unicorns) can be seen and considered, this article, IMHO, adds to the high standards of WUWT, even if the article is below the standards of other articles.

Speed wrote:

“Anthony Watts insulted his readers while demonstrating how challenging clear writing can be when he typed,
… I moved my original caveat up to the the top, and placed a second new one at the bottom for the reading challenged.
I doubt that the reading challenged will see the “second new one at the bottom” which was placed there for them.”

No, he insulted those readers who posted replies without bothering to read what they were criticising, and they deserve to be insulted.

From the Guy post:

It is time that we outlaw this false concept of Glacial Rebound and release a new era of exiting discoveries which have remained hidden by this mistaken premise.

[+emphasis]
Seems to me that, not only is this guy Guy bonkers, but he wants to “outlaw” anyone who thinks differently. Smacks of the same sentiments expressed by the CAGW crowd about non-believers in the Holy CO2 sacrament.

So if this place is all about the inclusion of all views regardless of merit, does that mean the sky dragons are coming back?

I Like This.
An open discussion of a very interesting phenomenon and the difficulties of measuring the phenomenon and then the difficulties of how the phenomenon impact now or will impact future activities of societies.
In regard of measurement, one must first establish a reference frame that does not change in space and time, i.e. stable. With such a reference frame we then make our measurements, what ever they are, relative to the reference frame and from those we have The Measures, the numbers we are hunting, and their anomalies irrespective of psychological ruminations of a “Climatological Period” which does not exist, nor does the psychological manifestation of “Climate” exist. “Climate”, “Climate Change”, Global Warming” and “Global Cooling” are examples of Phantasms within a realm of Phantasmagoria that exist only within the Human psyche and no where else.

Looks like History channel pee peed in the CAGW cheerios bowl by running the documentary How The Earth Was Made. They actually attribute the falling water level in the Great Lakes to post glacial contentinental rebound and not to AGW. I’m sure someone at the History channel lost their job over that blunder.

I’m not sure you could use GPS to monitor isostatic rebound or glacial rebound. In order to get accurate measurements (e.g. mm) you need accurately measured ground stations. So if these are moving in some unknown way….

Did I ever mention that I have discovered the reason as to why it rains? No? Well, here it is – it rains because people use umbrellas. Rain is anthropogenic by nature. If we stopped using umbrellas, it would never rain ever again on the earth. Have you never noticed that when it is raining, people have their umbrellas up? That is absolute proof that my theory is correct. So keep raising those brellas, eh? Otherwise, everything on the earth will die, because we need the rain.
(I have been looking for the right article under which the above comment should be made… think I found it, eh?)

Edit: of exiting discoveries exciting

About the “Expanding Earth” theory. In a discussion on the history Plate Tectonics I found out that in the period of about 1956-1962 and Expanding Earth was a serious concept by some researchers, like Bruce Heezen (Columbia U.) Interpretations of continental paleomagnetic data and mid-ocean rifting had rejuvenated Wegners Continental Drift theory. It seemed clear that new ocean crust was being made in the rifts, so the earth had to expand to account for it.
Henry H. Hess (Princeton & Off of Naval Research) in 1959-1962 and Bob Dietz (Scripts) in 1961 put forward the mechanism of subduction, the destruction of crust, to obviate the need for an expanding earth. Hess in his 1960 and 1962 papers devoted a page to the expanding earth theory and the advantages of a theory of sea floor destruction in the “jaw crusher of the descending limb”.

“If the earth is expanding then soon there will be evidence.”
We’ve already got a You Tube. What more do you need?

Now let’s get back to the Timecube
http://www.timecube.com/

Pah.
Being wrong is fine.
But there’s no excuse for poor spelling.

To save Great Lakes:
1. Drain off water;
2. Line lakes with giant plastic sheets up to desired level;
3. Fill lakes again.
Works for garden ponds. 😉

Apart from the rest the history is rubbish as well, there was no Roman Emperor called Articus

Richard.—- Isostatic adjustment can be measured. Empirical data.
Go back and rethink your theory please.

Geoff Sherrington-
Everest, part of the Himalaya Mountain chain, was thrust up when the Indian tectonic plate collided with the Asian plate. Marine sediments were caught up with this and some ended up on top of Everest. It is still building because the northward movement of India has yet to stop. Isostacy is occurring at the same time but the build is overcoming this at the moment since it is happening at a faster rate.
The Earth cannot expand but it has been estimated that continental crust is made magmatically at the rate of 1Km^3 per year. This is from subduction conversion of oceanic crust into continental crust by differental melting enrichment with silica.
Thought you might be interested.

@dbstealey. I’ll try and think out of the box. Sediments are water saturated but eventually become impermeable due to compaction at greater depth. I don’t think we need steam pressure to keep water in our lakes and oceans. As some have pointed out there is a lot of water in the mantle as well so things do leak (there are several pulled plugs).
Someone at Ohio State wants to measure the rate of isostatic rebound in Antarctica to better estimate ice loss. I can’t imagine a tougher place to conduct a multi-year project. Also, if we don’t know this information already I wonder how we can accurately estimate ice loss/gain.
http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/TerryWilson/research_polenet.htm

Another group using GPS to measure glacial rebound. They claim a repeatability of 1 mm and vertical movement up to 2 cm / yr.
http://www.dna.gov.ar/CIENCIA/SANTAR04/CD/PDF/103GH.PDF

Planet expands?!? Stopped there.

Next to come: the anti-subduction guy… What a waste.

isostasy: from the Greek iso+stasy “condition of standing” from histanal “to cause to stand”… 2. general equilibrium in the earth’s crust maintained by a yielding flow of rock material beneath the surface under gravitative stress (based on relative densities of materials)
Sure, less dense granite floats/floated to the top where it can/could. Also on History Channel, they said there was a bowl of a magnesium-containing variant of lime-stone (they called it calcium-magnesium-carbonate, but my chem books are mum on such a thing, so maybe it’s geologist-speak for some mixture) which is much more resistant to acids, underlying the Great Lakes, and underneath which we have operating salt mines (under both the lakes and the bowl).
OTOH, there’s the Salton Sea, Sea of the Plain/Salt Sea in the Jordan river, Colorado river, and recently, easily observable and much complained about receding levels of lakes in Florida, sink-holes, etc.
There’s a lake in Tallahasee that goes through an irregular cycle of draining through sink-holes and re-filling. But then the Florida peninsula and a goodly part of the adjacent coastal area is like a big calcium-carbonate sponge. Also in northern Florida there are natural pipes you can walk through that run for 8 miles or more (not just bits of moisture in capillary micro-cracks). There are also fresh-water springs a few miles out into the Gulf which appear to come through such pipes, fed by local rain-fall on the land (based on radiometric profiling).
One of the cave diving books I read many moons ago suggested possible former Gulf of Mexico levels as much as 200 feet below current, based on off-shore fossilized tree-stumps, and cave floor levels (with fire pits which were excavated by archaeologists).

@Alan Bale
“there was no Roman Emperor called Articus”
I’m pretty sure there was. He lived deep under the sea, so we haven’t really seen him yet.