Claim: 'Post Glacial Rebound is a Myth'

English: Modeled post-glacial rebound based on...
English: Modeled post-glacial rebound based on data from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites. These models are used to remove the post-glacial rebound signal from the GRACE data. They are given in a change in mass over change in time, in millimeters of water-density-equivalent (1000 kg/m^3) per year. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NOTE: (I had this at the bottom of the post some people missed it so I moved it up to the top) I’m not convinced that this idea has any merit whatsoever, as I see more conventional reasons (like silting) for land recovery such as at Rome’s original harbor and in New York, but thought it was worth posting for the discussion that would ensue. Even bad science deserves to be discussed/disproven. See also a note below.  – Anthony

Isostacy is a major Geological error.

Guest essay by Richard Guy

The Governments of the United States and Canada are concerned about the ebbing water levels in the Great Lakes. For years the water levels in the great lakes and other lakes have been declining without any signs of ever returning to previous levels. The best news is that there is no hope that the water levels will ever return. The bad news is that we have our heads stuck in the sand dunes which have been created on the shores of the great lakes as they recede.

What we have also failed to notice is that the process is speeding up faster than our ability to grasp the reality. The fact is that this process of ebbing lake and water levels has been going on since pre history but we are just becoming aware of it as more and more shoreline inhabitants observe the phenomenon. 

Another major deterrent to our overall realization is that our  thought processes are hampered, among other things, by the media hype of rising sea levels and Post Glacial Rebound. Post Glacial Rebound is a geological error which has been foisted on us for a long time. 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.

Isostatic Rebound was introduced into Geological theology over one hundred years ago and it has lead us astray. This theory of Iostacy was based on an original error in deduction. The error in deduction was that the land rose from the sea. This original error was compounded when the theory of Post Glacial Rebound was built on it. This led us even further away from the truth.

We will never solve the disappearing water problem until we face the reality that we have been mislead by Iostacy.  We have to face this reality because this reality is now facing us: we are losing water all over the planet while we continue to harp on rising seas levels.

Once we abandon Isostatic Rebound we will see the reality of receding seas. This path will also lead us to other interesting discoveries such as why the seas recede.?  Once we accept that seas are receding that acceptance will automatically eliminate Post Glacial Rebound. There is no time to waste because our survival depends on this acceptance.

What is really occurring is that the sea levels have been falling from pre historic times. Rivers have been draining the land and the lakes since pre-historic times. As Sea levels fall lower and lower the draining process moves faster and faster and we lose our wetlands as more and more land is left behind by the receding seas. Sand dunes now line the shores of the great lakes where people used to swim and boats used to be moored. Many marinas have been deserted leaving boats stranded on sand bars.  This is also a cause of the amount of arid land which is increasing worldwide.


Graph from:

So it is wise at this stage to give the lie to rising sea levels and accept receding sea levels. This will not stop the water loss but it will make us understand what we have to do in order to preserve what little water we do have left.

New York is learning about receding seas because the marshes in Jamaica Bay are disappearing and drying up. New Jersey is dealing with the receding sea by selling off the new land left by the sea to Donald Trump and Playboy Hotels and Casinos. Donald Trump built his Taj Mahal Casino on these lands left by the receding sea.

Now that The State of New Jersey has discovered the land bonanza they are gaining as the sea recedes they have been looking over old survey maps to find out where the sea was back in 1776. They are proposing to claim retroactive taxes from landowners who have occupied these lands back to those historical times. They estimate that they have accumulated 830000 acres of land from the sea since 1776.  The State of New York can make a similar claim as it includes long Island the Sounds and Brooklyn Shorelines. An exhibition by the New York Library in 2010 showed the mapping of the New York shoreline over three hundred years. The entire New York coastline has gained a quarter mile of land over that period.

So when we see the water levels falling in the Great lakes that is only the tip of the iceberg. Those levels have been falling for a very long time and will continue to do so. If we want to get  a picture of what our earth will eventually look like just look at the face of the Planet Mars.

The first order of business is to get rid of the Isostatic Rebound theory and accept that our seas are receding as our planet expands. The sea is not rising. We will then see why our lakes are going dry. We will also understand that the only thing we can do about it is to keep dredging our waterways harbours and lakes to keep things moving.  That was all three Emperors of Rome could do to keep the Harbour at Ostia open: they were finally defeated. It took Nero, Trajan and Articus one hundred years of dredging before they gave up the fight against the receding sea. Today Ostia is three miles from the sea and twenty feet above sea level.

The Port Authority in New York is having to blast bedrock, for the first time, to keep the harbour channels open. The sea keeps getting shallower and the seagoing vessels keep getting larger. Ships keep demanding deeper depths.

Our Planet Earth is dynamic. It is a masterful creation not unlike other planets in the Cosmos.  The earth does not reveal her secrets readily and her secrets are often presented to us as a mirror image of what is really happening. So when we observe that land is rising it may just be a mirror image: our seas are receding.


Richard Guy is a Structural Engineer. P.Eng, Mse, West London University. He has worked in several countries worldwide. He has written three books on Receding Seas and allied Phenomena. He lectures, writes and does radio and TV interviews. He has built Airports, Refineries, Highways on lands left behind by the receding sea

See: The Mysterious Receding Seas on Amazon


UPDATE: for those who never read past the first few paragraphs to see my caveat, I’ve now moved it up top for better visibility.

Some people asked why I should publish “rubbish science” like this. The reason is the same that I often publish some “rubbish science”from climatology; it deserves ridicule for the ridiculous premise of the idea.

At some point, when the next ice age kicks in, we will start to see the seas recede. We are nowhere close to that.

File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png

The new land that Mr. Guy sees is from silting deposition. For example the delta of the Mississippi river continues to grow each year for that reason.

Plus, with GPS enabled altimetry systems, we can now actually measure isotasy changes. – Anthony


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 31, 2013 12:19 pm

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

August 31, 2013 12:21 pm

You need to take some courses in geophysics, especially in gravimmetry.

Richard Sharpe
August 31, 2013 12:23 pm

The link seems broken

John Robertson
August 31, 2013 12:24 pm

Is it April 1st already?

August 31, 2013 12:24 pm

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

August 31, 2013 12:24 pm

I’m sorry, sir, but glacial isostatic adjustment is not only evident from a variety of geological observations, but can be directly measured by GPS. Were it not for the weight of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, for instance, Hudson’s Bay would not exist.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your argument.

August 31, 2013 12:25 pm

” … we are losing water all over the planet while we continue to harp on rising seas levels.”
And just where is this water going?

August 31, 2013 12:29 pm

Interesting thesis ‘accept that our seas are receding as our planet expands’.
Not sure where the evidence is for that expansion.
More generally, do not the tidal records around the world show a consistent modest sea level rise?
The decline in the water levels of the Great Lakes is adequately explained afaik by the deepening of the waterways for navigation, which has had the side effect of increasing the outflow from the lakes. Likewise, the silting of the areas around major population centers from erosion and marshland drainage is not a mystery that requires an expanding earth to explain.

August 31, 2013 12:32 pm

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?

August 31, 2013 12:35 pm

Funnily enough, after all the rain we’ve had this summer, I was looking for info on lake levels as, yet again, it was raining cats and dogs in many parts of Ontario yesterday.

August 31, 2013 12:38 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 12:38 pm

This article made no sense. Having a drink?…

August 31, 2013 12:38 pm

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..

August 31, 2013 12:40 pm

This looks like spam to get us to buy the book! No facts, just statements. Here is an excerpt of a review on Amazon:
“The author’s scientific errors begin on the first page, where he misses the very basics of the scientific approach. He expresses faith that GPS will one day show the seas are dropping. Faith is not appropriate in science- especially when GPS currently show the seas are rising. Guy points out that what he is saying is not speculation, for it is in the Bible. Guy acts as if Genesis 1-11 were literally true, referring to Nineveh as being founded by Nimrod. (But evidently the more recent Sinbad is fiction.) Even his exegesis is poor, as he seeks to interpret Revelations literally or find scientific explanations from the poetry of the Psalms.”

August 31, 2013 12:42 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 12:45 pm

Paul says:
August 31, 2013 at 12:32 pm
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?
Britain is indubitably behaving as you describe the situation. The formerly iced over north is rising & the unglaciated south is falling.

August 31, 2013 12:47 pm

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

Julian in Wales
August 31, 2013 12:51 pm

Good News For Venice

August 31, 2013 12:56 pm

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:

El Draque
August 31, 2013 12:58 pm

If the earth is expanding then soon there will be evidence. The telegraph wires along railways will snap.

August 31, 2013 1:00 pm

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)

August 31, 2013 1:02 pm

This theory together with Trenberth revives AGW. The missing heat is evaporating the seas into space!

Skeptic Tank
August 31, 2013 1:07 pm

Not sure if serious. I thought it was pure sarcasm

August 31, 2013 1:09 pm

Whoa, first this starts with the Great Lakes, and everything I know about recent history points to rainfall, e.g. more water in Lake Erie means more water can flow to Lake Ontario. I sure don’t see much longish term change in Lake Erie, just the upstream lakes that I’m not as familiar with.
Glacial rebound in the Lake Erie area will also lift the Niagra River and falls. There are other areas that show glacial rebound much better.
Then you talk about Iostacy, but that appears to be a twice used typo.
Then you start talking about sea level, but that couples into all sort of other stuff. Melting glaciers have no direct (or much indirect) effect on water levels in the Great Lakes.
I’ll pass….

August 31, 2013 1:10 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 1:15 pm

Geeze, my guest post submission must have been really, really, really bad 🙂

Jonathan Abbott
August 31, 2013 1:21 pm

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

August 31, 2013 1:21 pm

“Note: I’m not convinced that this idea has any merit, as I see more conventional reasons ”
That and I thought Lake Michigan was dropping was because we are sucking more water out than what’s being put back in.
Interesting discussion though.

August 31, 2013 1:21 pm

CodeTech says:
August 31, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Rep. Johnson needn’t be concerned about Britain’s tipping over as he apparently genuinely worried in the case of Marines capsizing Guam. The ice is liable to return to the north before that can happen, restoring balance. Or maybe he couldn’t care less about Britain, unless it made a tsunami when it upended.

August 31, 2013 1:25 pm

What, pray tell, is the proposed mechanism for the Earth to expand?
Here we have an article with few observations, no scientific research, and no proposed mechanisms. How on Earth did it get published?

August 31, 2013 1:29 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 1:32 pm

I had to check my calender to make sure it wasn’t the 1st of April.
Isostacy is a major Geological error.
Did he mean that:
Isostacy is a major spelling error.
Isostasy is basically akin to buoyancy on a global scale, it is well established and makes accurate predictions that can be tested by examining changes in gravitational anomalies and the stratigraphic record.

Doug Huffman
August 31, 2013 1:33 pm

Xlibris is a self-publishing, print on demand service. The word that I recognize is isostacy.

August 31, 2013 1:34 pm

My husband and I watched a series on the Discovery Channel last year called “Drain the Great Lakes” and this documentary went into great detail about how the lakes were dry as recently as 4,000 to 7,000 years ago. Using sonar imaging, they found the remains of several settlements on the floor bed of Lake Huron up around Tobermory (I think it was) and land bridges connecting Ontario to Michigan. So I’m a bit confused by this article stating that if the lakes go down, they won’t be coming back up again.

Alberta Slim
August 31, 2013 1:35 pm

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

August 31, 2013 1:36 pm

This taking the proverbial right? Please tell us this is a spoof.

August 31, 2013 1:37 pm

Why post this absolute junk science, Anthony? You must have geophysicists in your network?
REPLY: Note the caveat at the end, the best way to sort out bad science is to do it in the open. I thought it was worth discussing to show the gaping holes in the idea. – Anthony

August 31, 2013 1:40 pm

At first I thought:
“Two beers or not two beers, that’s no question.” Hamlet
Then I went to the fridge for two beers……

August 31, 2013 1:41 pm

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

August 31, 2013 1:41 pm

I am pretty sure this is tongue-in-cheek, especially as the guy is an engineer.
When I lived in northern Scotland it was pretty clear the land had risen, as you could see all the geological signs of a wave cut beach, only it was forty feet above the highest tide. However in the Gulf of New Mexico it is plain the seas have risen, as there are cypress stumps under fifty feet of ocean.
My personal view is that the seas have risen 300-400 feet since the last ice age, however in some places that were oppressed by the weight of ice, the land has risen faster than the seas have.
One totally cool study by a Scandinavian geologist proposed that as a glacier moves down a valley, it actually reduces the total weight of that land, (Rock plus ice,) because it is constantly scouring away rock to sand and even a powder as fine as flour, which can be washed miles out to sea. Then, because the land is lighter, it rises, even as the glacier scours downwards, which means that even as the glacier digs down the sides of the valley are rising up, until you get the awesome landscapes of fjords, with their unbelievably steep sides.

August 31, 2013 1:42 pm

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).

August 31, 2013 1:43 pm

In central Sweden the coastline of 10000 years ago is now about 1000 feet above sea-level and the sea is still receding about 3 feet per century. I wonder if Richard Guy would care to explain where all that water went according to his theory, and why we have apparently been losing a lot more than anyone else. The ocean must be getting pretty uneven by now….

Berényi Péter
August 31, 2013 1:43 pm

utter rubbish

M Courtney
August 31, 2013 1:44 pm

The first order of business is to get rid of the Isostatic Rebound theory and accept that our seas are receding as our planet expands.</blockquote.
Why would the planet be expanding, anyway?
I mean, there are lots of observations that support Isostatic Rebound but.. why doubt it?
Surely, as the Earth's core cools and the day lengthens we should expect the Earth to shrink.
Are we expecting all the water to escape to space? He should say that as, at least that is worthy of consideration.
But he doesn't.
This is the worst article I've read here since "CO2 will condense out of the atmosphere in the Polar Night".
And “Iostacy” is not a word.

Adam Gallon
August 31, 2013 1:44 pm

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

M Courtney
August 31, 2013 1:44 pm

Sorry for poor formatting.
I was peeved.

August 31, 2013 1:47 pm

Alberta Slim says:
August 31, 2013 at 1:35 pm
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

August 31, 2013 1:49 pm

I actually found what I was looking for, which is a rare event in my current state of chronic disorganization. In any case, here is a link to to the cool geological study on how glaciers make land rise even before the glaciers melt:

August 31, 2013 1:52 pm

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.

David Riser
August 31, 2013 1:55 pm

Well this article is pretty easy to disprove. If you step over to NOAA and look at the lake levels over the last 150 years there really isn’t a significant downward trend; or just look at the graph he posted, take a close look at the scale and you will realize his evidence is not what he thinks it is. I have spent a significant amount of time on the lakes and don’t ever remember seeing any abandoned marina’s or sand dunes, except in a few unique spots. Of course maybe he spent the night here: which is a pretty cool place but I am pretty sure its not representative of the entire great lakes shore line.

August 31, 2013 1:55 pm

I read your explanation for posting the above article; i.e.

Even bad science deserves to be discussed/disproven.

OK, but the article contains no science; it merely makes an assertion (repeatedly).
And discussion of an assertion is difficult, especially when the assertion is daft. Refutation is all that can be achieved by reason and evidence. A good scientist needs to keep an open mind, but not so open that his brains fall out.
WUWT is your blog and you can choose to publish whatever you want. But the best science blog on the web has to maintain standards if it is to retain the deserved respect and credibility which you have earned for it.
With all due respect, I submit that the above article is below the high standards achieved by WUWT.

August 31, 2013 2:00 pm

“a new era of exiting discoveries”
Hard to exited over your ideas with that level of proof reading.

August 31, 2013 2:01 pm

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
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

August 31, 2013 2:03 pm

Well, the expanding Earth “theory” seems to have a few actual believers, as shown at
To quote: “The evidence is obvious, unmistakable and irrefutable!”
The site is worth visiting as a good example of bad ideas (and old-school web design)

August 31, 2013 2:05 pm

This is a test isn’t it?

August 31, 2013 2:06 pm

As an aside, besides earth losing water to outer space we are constantly bombarded by bits of crumbled comets, and that adds water every day. I’ll leave it up to younger fellows, with more time on their hands, to figure out if the planet is gaining or losing water. (While they are at it, maybe they can figure out where all the water on Mars went, and whether Jupiter grabbed it all, or whether Earth got any.) As for me, I have enough of a problem figuring out where my money goes, and likely shouldn’t concern myself unduly with sea levels.

August 31, 2013 2:09 pm

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

August 31, 2013 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”.
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!
The final post is , it has links to earlier posts.

Don J. Easterbrook
August 31, 2013 2:12 pm

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.

Steve Garcia
August 31, 2013 2:13 pm

Sharpe at 12:23 pm:
“The link seems broken”
ALL the Great Lakes GRERL NOAA links that show up on Google don’t work. Maybe the server is down.
…I am not sold on isostatic rebound still existing myself, so I began reading this with some interest as to what evidence might be in the post.
Unfortunately, this is sloppy thinking in the extreme. He misunderstands and conflates from the start. Assertions from start to finish, with nothing to back them up.
He doesn’t even seem to know that isostatic rebound and post-glacial rebound are one and the same thing.

i·sos·ta·sy. n. Equilibrium in the earth’s crust such that the forces tending to elevate landmasses balance the forces tending to depress landmasses.
This is basic Newtonian physics. If a mass has forces acting on it up and down (which continental masses do have) and if that mass is essentially static, then the forces must essentially be in equilibrium. “An object in motion tends to… unless acted on by an unbalanced external force.” Isostasy is simply this Law presented in geological terms.
Isostatic REBOUND is the idea that the removal of the weight of the ice sheets has resulted in an unbalancing of the vertical forces and that the upward forces became ascendant. While that unbalancing would certainly lift the areas formerly “weighed down”, my logic argues that it probably ended long ago – especially when mantle plumes create other force which will tend to accelerate any upward “settling”.
In addition, the weight of the ice sheets did not begin with the full removal of the ice sheets. It would begin as soon as the ice sheets began melting. So much of the rebound would have been before the ground surface was exposed.

Near the end of the cycle, beginning about 26,000 years ago, the glacier began its advance into Wisconsin. It expanded for 10,000 years before temperatures warmed again and it began to melt back. It took another 6,500 years before the ice finally retreated from northern Wisconsin.

So, for 6500 years the rebound was already happening. That makes for a total of 17,500 years of rebounding. At some point the rebounding will stop. I would argue that it should have already stopped. The consensus does say it is still going on. I suspect that they are misreading the evidence, having jumped to a conclusion and then interpreting the evidence to fit the hypothesis. Not unlike global warming. But that is based on a simple mechanical engineer’s take on how long rebound would continue. I could be wrong. But I think some day we may see a valid paper showing that rebound finished a long time ago.
Back to his idea:
—Even the graph – who the hell would combine Lakes Michigan and Huron in one graph while the other three Great Lakes are separate?
I went looking for somewhere where Anthony points out how bozo this article is. I give him credit for being open-minded. I also give the commenters here credit for lambasting it.
This guy certainly doesn’t have any answers. I’d go into detailed rebuttal, but the presentation isn’t worth it.
Sorry, dude. You didn’t win me over at all – and I was an easy audience.
On a scale of 0 to 10, I give this conjecture a 0.1.

August 31, 2013 2:14 pm

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

Roger Dewhurst
August 31, 2013 2:14 pm

The article is utter garbage. The evidence for glacial rebound in Fennoscandia is overwhelming. Without isostacy there would be no mountain ranges.

August 31, 2013 2:15 pm

My pants are shrinking.
Thats it.

August 31, 2013 2:19 pm

I think I’ll go with glacial rebound. If you dump trillions of tons of ice onto a landmass, that land mass will sink – on that scale, rock is an elastic solid, it compresses. When the ice is removed, it rebounds. There are ice age shorelines which are now hundreds of feet above the sea, because of glacial rebound.
The only argument with this concept could surely be about the rate of rebound, and whether it is still occurring, 10,000 years after the ice was removed.

Gary Pearse
August 31, 2013 2:20 pm
Since the beginning of the holocene, rebound has totaled over 935 ft centred on Hudson’s Bay. It has slowed to about 4 feet a century in recent times. Moreover, rebound has been greater in some places than others resulting in warping of strand lines left by Lake Agassiz after its draining. Moreover, 18th Century Hudson’s Bay Company personnel engraved their names on shore out crops in harbours where they traded for furs. These bays no longer can accommodate ships of the same draft of those early shallow draft boats. Isostasy is alive and well.
Besides it didn’t come be a theory because people thought land just rose out of the sea. I was discovered by surveyors (Pratt and Airy) who when they were surveying in India couldn’t close a long survey loop within acceptable error. This and follow-up gave rise to the theory that there was a deficit in mass beneath the Himalayas that caused the plumb bob to swing slightly away from the mountain range. This indicated that the the high mountains had a deep root like a glacier sticking out the water – the lighter continental rocks “floating” in the heavier ferromagnesian rocks beneath causing a deficit of mass enough to deflect the plumb bob weight.
“In the simplest example, isostasy is the principle of buoyancy where an object immersed in a liquid is buoyed with a force equal to the weight of the displaced liquid. On a geological scale, isostasy can be observed where the Earth’s strong lithosphere exerts stress on the weaker asthenosphere which, over geological time flows laterally such that the load of the lithosphere is accommodated by height adjustments.”

August 31, 2013 2:22 pm

Interesting stories but here is an explanation for some of the observations in Jamaica Bay;
While some other notions are noted here;
New Jersey has a riparian rights law and mapping. In many areas, the landowners(RR’s), filled in the old embayments along the Hudson River as an example and paid for the right to do so. It was originally called the School House Act.(1870’s?) Much of Manhattan like other areas near navigable water was made land. As far as the C.of E. rock project in the Kill van Kull, two problems exist the first is channel bottom depth and the second, the Bayonne Bridge clearance at low tide. The first is a short term job. The bridge, well that might be a few years away.

Claude Harvey
August 31, 2013 2:24 pm

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.

Roger Dewhurst
August 31, 2013 2:24 pm

It is conceivable, in a billion or more years, that the earth’s core will have cooled enough to reduce the flow which cause the earth’s tectonic plates to separate or collide. This will reduce the mountain building forces which operate, mainly, near continental margins. The topography worldwide will gradually flatten and apparent sea level will rise as lithic material eroded from the continents will be deposited on ever expanding continental shelves.

August 31, 2013 2:25 pm

“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

Robert Austin
August 31, 2013 2:25 pm

RiHo08 says:
August 31, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Firstly, the Great Lakes are not “seas”. as big as they are, they miniscule compared to the oceans of the world. The history of the formation and evolution of the Great Lakes since the last ice age is complex and would not be a good choice in trying to defend Guy’s hypothesis.
Secondly, using the historical Mediterranean, other than the fact that it connects to the Atlantic Ocean through a narrow channel, is also dubious due to its active tectonic nature.
Guy poorly presents his hypothesis with weak arguments and little in the way of scientific citations. I think I will stick with isostatic rebound and slowly rising seas since the last ice age for the present.

August 31, 2013 2:28 pm

Hans Erren says:
August 31, 2013 at 2:05 pm
This is a test isn’t it?

That’s my thought too.

george e. smith
August 31, 2013 2:29 pm

“””””……Rain that falls in the outback of the largest island – also the smallest continent –…….””””””
How can that possibly be true ??
Australia either is, or it is not, larger than Antarctica; but it cannot be both.
Well maybe this author is Australian; that would explain everything !!

August 31, 2013 2:36 pm

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.

Henry BowmN
August 31, 2013 2:37 pm

Wow….I haven’t been a regular reader of WUWT for more than 6-8 months, but this guest essay is positively embarrassing, especially because it is written by someone who should know a thing or two about (visco)-elasticity. Of course, glacial rebound is a separate, though related, field compared to isostasy (which the author consistently misspells, at least in its American variant)., but glacial rebound is one of the better-supported theories in the past 50-80 years. It’s hard to believe that some idiot would deny such.
Mr. Watt, if WUWT is to remain a reliable source of scientific information, wackos should not be permitted to espouse their (literally crazy) ideas.
REPLY: Why is it that nobody seems to be able to read the caveat I placed with the article? Just like some of the most ridiculous ideas from climate science this one deserves ridicule too. – Anthony

August 31, 2013 2:41 pm

Earth should start to lose water in a big way in around 1.1 billion years, when the sun is about 10% more luminous than now, leading to a moist greenhouse atmosphere. We’re a slow-motion Mars, thanks to our moon, greater mass & magnetosphere.
But before that, maybe some 600 million years hence, increased solar radiation will cause drastically lowered CO2 levels, leading to loss of C3 photosynthesis, which means no trees & many other plants. C4 & CAM carbon fixation can occur at concentrations as low as ten ppm.
And of course, after that, ~7.5 billion years from now, the sun will go red giant, probably engulfing earth, even if then in a more distant orbit due to lowered solar mass. Mars will be spared that fate.

NZ Willy
August 31, 2013 2:41 pm

The article’s bad not-even-science is disconcerting, but it’s true that “isostatic rebound” is exaggerated. The defining feature of rock is that it’s uncompressible. Therefore isostatic rebound has to work convectively, where solid materials re-arrange themselves, but that doesn’t feature in any isostatic rebound model. Today the notion of “isostatic rebound” is abused to where it’s modelled to be contributing to global sea level rises, where no rise is measured, because the sea beds are supposedly “isostatically” expanding due to increased water weight. Good reason to throw the bathwater out with no need to check first for babies, etc.

george e. smith
August 31, 2013 2:44 pm

“”””””……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”.
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.
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 !

August 31, 2013 2:45 pm

“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.”
The upper atmosphere contains virtually no H2O molecules for any significant water to be lost. by leakage into space.
As for the deep mantle try this This is water as water (hydrates) and not just its component elements. Water is continuously – but slowly – released and absorbed from the deep mantle by volcanic and tectonic activity at unknown rates.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the quantity of water – as water substance (in all its phases) on earth is largely constant and has been for a very long time. In any event the balance between liquid water and ice means that sea levels will rise until this interglacial ends and then drop with the approach of the next glacial. And levels will rise again with the next interglacial..
In any event Guy’s theory remains illogical and far-fetched..

Another Gareth
August 31, 2013 2:46 pm

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

August 31, 2013 2:46 pm

but thought it was worth posting for the discussion that would ensue.
Perhaps Anthony was seeing if any would bite?
In two hours, 51 comments, Not one believed it credible, most found it rubbish and badly spelled, several thought it humerous. One offered some observational support, but found the theory unsupported. Not a bad response from a bunch of skeptics.
I was looking through the USGCS website. NOAA doesn’t make it easy to search online for historical records of USCGS benchmark measurements. But there is a CORS network of stations.
Here is the long-term record from station USNO (US Naval Observatory, near Wash. D.C,
1997-2011 (why it doesn’t continue to 2013 is a question unanswered.)
And an short term record about 12 weeks of 2013.
Oddly the short term is in units of cm and the long term in units of mm.
It is not long enough to show Isostacy, but plenty of seasonal and earth tide movement.

george e. smith
August 31, 2013 2:49 pm

“””””…..NZ Willy says:
August 31, 2013 at 2:41 pm
The article’s bad not-even-science is disconcerting, but it’s true that “isostatic rebound” is exaggerated. The defining feature of rock is that it’s uncompressible. …..”””””
Careful there Willie, nothing; not even diamond, is incompressible, or uncompressible, or ancompressible, or encompressible, or even oncompressible !

August 31, 2013 2:50 pm

First the “Greenland ice sheet is only 650 years old” and now this? Is this supposed to some sort of bad science freak show?

August 31, 2013 2:54 pm

Henry BowmN says:
August 31, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Actually post-glacial rebound (now called glacial isostatic adjustment) has been around & increasingly well supported since the 18th century, thanks initially to no less a figure than Anders Celsius. While of course not originally attributed to glaciation, the phenomenon was observed in Sweden.
Previously, it appeared that sea level in Sweden was falling. Celsius made marks in rock on different locations along the Swedish coast. By 1765, after his death, it could be concluded that sea levels weren’t falling but the land rising unevenly.
A century later, Thomas Jamieson proposed the theory that rising land was caused by the end of the ice age, known since the 1830s to have occurred thousands of years earlier. Gerard De Geer’s study of old shorelines in Scandinavia confirmed his theory in 1890.

August 31, 2013 2:55 pm

I have to say the “rainfall in Australia caused sea levels to drop” seems as dumb to me as the “no such thing as isostatic rebound” theory.

August 31, 2013 2:56 pm

Several points (in no particular order):
This all should be really rather easy to check – GPS measurements from space taken from a reasonably consistent altitude above the surface should provide the ‘objective’ perspective to assess what’s moving in relation to what. Plenty easy to tell if the land is rising or the water level falling from the right perspective. If one is measuring from the coast of a rising land mass AND a falling water level it’s tougher to say with certainty what’s happening.
Those people suggesting that water is ‘lost’ to subduction at tectonic plate margins are forgetting that such losses are part of a cycle and that eventually, a significant portion of the water ‘lost’ during subduction is ‘recovered’ during volcanic activity. It may take a million years, but the water will be recovered.
Water is lost to space, but it is also constantly recovered through space objects striking the atmosphere, burning up and giving up whatever water they held internally.
As with most theories one hears about this calamity and that disaster, I saw no attempt to define these events temporally – just that it’s happening ‘faster’ and there’s a strongly implied sense of ‘soon’. If Earth is losing its water and it’s going to be gone in a thousand years, that’s a big deal problem. If Earth is going to lose it over the next five billion years, it’s probably not all that important. A comet or asteroid strike, a gamma ray burst, a Siberian Traps scale volcanic cataclysm, a re-reunification of the land masses, or death of Sol will have probably happened long before our water is gone. In fact, from most descriptions one reads about the death of a star like Sol, the expansion to red giant will probably boil our water off entirely anyway. The author makes the point that we’re just now able to see the nature of the problem, from which I infer that this is a process that been happening all along, but we just hadn’t noticed. If that’s the case, and it’s taken 4.5 billion years for it to become noticeable, then doesn’t that sort of imply we’ve got some time left?

August 31, 2013 3:01 pm

Guy should visit Troy. This thriving port of several thousand years ago is now 14 kilometers from the sea. Imagine how that fact would improve his thesis!

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 3:02 pm

Re: Marcos at 2:09pm
Then, there’s Palermo, Italy (for just one of many such examples), founded in 800 B.C. …
LOL, that the folks at E. Britannica ask at the bottom of the above page:

What made you want to look up “Palermo”? Please share what surprised you most…

I just could not bring myself to write: “That it is still right beside the Mediterranean. (See (cite above article with a LOL)).”
BTW, Marcos, such discoveries as you cited are, indeed, helpful, for they prove that sloooowly rising sea levels will never be a crisis for humans.

August 31, 2013 3:03 pm

re; REPLY: How could you miss the caveat at the bottom? I moved it up top for the reading challenged – Anthony
Oh thanks a lot! I do like your blog …. but,
I am afraid if you are “empirically based”, you will have to admit that in this case the post’s writer was more likely “writing challenged” than the reader “reading challenged”. What if we come to read this blog now, rather than hoping to read some good or controversial science point by a guest author b, we need to read all the minutiae. I like your blog and have read it a bunch as I get both sides I am a geologist who is a skeptic) … but in this case I would have to say you were “writing challenged”.

August 31, 2013 3:04 pm

Fed-up says:
August 31, 2013 at 2:56 pm
An article on water subduction which might be of interest to you:
Science knows so little about the subduction/volcanic water cycle that it can’t even say how much water may lie under the continents & oceans. It does appear however that water lubricates plate tectonic activity.

August 31, 2013 3:05 pm

Mr. Guy has told us more than he knows.

August 31, 2013 3:07 pm

Oh yes … and any grammar/spelling/editing mistakes were intentional … to make a sarcastic point about “writing challenged”. Haha!

Gunga Din
August 31, 2013 3:07 pm

Steve says:
August 31, 2013 at 1:25 pm
What, pray tell, is the proposed mechanism for the Earth to expand?
Here we have an article with few observations, no scientific research, and no proposed mechanisms. How on Earth did it get published?

There are those who see their hypothesis’ about tree rings as not just having the ring of truth but actually being the truth. What their minds produced is the center of all. Being the center of all, as their heads expand so does the Earth.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 3:10 pm

GREAT POST, ANTHONY! It elicited much excellent discussion and promoted truth (no thanks to Mr. Guy, I’m afraid).

August 31, 2013 3:10 pm

Anthony Watts says:
August 31, 2013 at 2:55 pm
@Stephen Rasey,
I thought a lot of people would point out to Mr. Guy just how silly his premise is. Instead what happened is many people never read past the first few paragraphs, completely missed my caveat, and started flaming me for posting ‘bad science”. Well that was the idea. Just like when we call out bad climate science claims, so did this one need to be called out. I moved my original caveat up to the the top, and placed a second new one at the bottom for the reading challenged.
I twigged on as soon as I read the header.
Claim: ‘Post Glacial Rebound is a Myth’

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 3:12 pm

D.P. 3:05 — bahdah — bing — bahdah — boom. Nice one.

Tim Ball
August 31, 2013 3:14 pm

Raise funds to send this idiot to North Dakota so he can walk the Herman Beach
ridge north into Manitoba. It is the highest beach of Glacial Lake Agassiz and was level when formed some 12,000 years ago. It is now over 300m higher at the northern end. We also provide him with a book explaining isostasy and eustasy that he can read in his tent at night as he escapes the mosquitos and black fly.

David B
August 31, 2013 3:15 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 3:20 pm

“UPDATE: for those who never read past the first few paragraphs to see my caveat, I’ve now moved it up top for better visibility.
Some people asked why I should publish “rubbish science” like this. The reason is the same that I often publish some “rubbish science”from climatology; it deserves ridicule for the ridiculous premise of the idea.
At some point, when the next ice age kicks in, we will start to see the seas recede. We are nowhere close to that.”
Related question. If mile or two of ice on continent depresses/deformed the surface, does the 140 meter addition of ocean sea level, depress ocean floor?
So Greenland is 2.166 million square km and kilometers high ice.
South Pacific: 165.2 million km square km having added 140 meter over last 10,000 years.
So 80 times more area.
Or if removed 140 meters of water from South Pacific should there be more rebound as compared to remove all ice from Greenland.
And having such large areas with less vertical weight but greater total weight, would tend create more lateral direction- tend to push continents up and/or cause more tectonic plate movement, but also have a vertical component.

August 31, 2013 3:20 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 3:21 pm

ktwop says:
August 31, 2013 at 2:45 pm
“As for the deep mantle try this

Thanks; very interesting idea!

August 31, 2013 3:29 pm

Does posting bad science get more clicks?

August 31, 2013 3:33 pm

gbaikie says:
August 31, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Some CACA scare mongers have suggested that rising sea levels, supposedly due to man-made GHGs, could trigger earthquakes & tsunamis as a result of the greater weight of water over depressed, thin oceanic crust.

August 31, 2013 3:33 pm

We have a “baby and the bathwater” problem here.
Also the Unique Solution Syndrome in evidence: the inistence of a one-only solution to a perceived problem.
There are multiple reasons, as many writers noted above, for sea levels to change relative to shorelines. But on a geological time frame of tens of thousands or millions of years, some strange recurrent, signficant sea level rises and falls have occurred. All geologists who work the interior stratigraphic succession have seen shallow and deep patterns – and not just facies/environmental changes due to processes swingling back and forth along the coastline (like the lateral movement of the Mississippi delta). There are repeated, small erosional surface all through the rock record. Even back in the Devonian, a time of world-wide carbonate reefs on the submerged cratons, there are these minor unconformities – actually called “disconformities” as they are near-to-parallel to bedding planes. There was relative uplift on firmly anchored, massive carbonates that brought beds that were formerly severeal meters below the sea surface to above the surface over huge areas. The North American intereior seaway shows these through the Cretaceous right to the Tertiary boundary in coal beds that advance and then retreat seaward.
With the Cretaceous, it is easy to arm-wave about mountain-building – in pulses, of course, which then begs the question (why do mountains build episodically?). The seas both rose and fell (relative to the coastline) several meters at a time and suddenly. But during non-mountain building events, i.e. during quiet times when continents and oceanic plates weren’t smacking into each other, these pulses were also present.
The idea of a “breathing” Earth has been a theory for a long time. Certainly it makes sense for a cooling Earth: if the mantle cools, there is a necessary contraction of the planet. If our core warms through a long-since stabilized centre of uranium and other fissile material (plus tidal flexing), then this energy must fade through time and the planet cool as a body. Theories exist, however, that the uraniferous material is recirculated by internal conventions and all this circulation cools in cycles (due to inertial forces of the moving mantle and threshold effects that keep the cooling going longer than one would expect, and heat the core longer on the rebound than one would expect). Even if these warming and cooling events are tiny to the point of non-observation (but I’m sure Trenberth and Hansen could find the evidence if they used enough computers and models) it would not take much to expand or contract the planetary surface sufficient to create a sea-level movement of 10m.
The other way, of course, is not to change the radius of the planet at all, but change the density of the upper mantle on which the continents float. Were the upper mantle to cool enough, the continental granites would float higher. In the same vein, a more vigoursly churning, hotter upper mantle could push the continents higher – and lead to more vulcanism. Which we see at times.
At the end of this consideration, there is probably a case for up and down movements of the continents outside of glacial loading and unloading. I’ve been to the shores of Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean, and I can say from personal experience that the lands in both places used to be signficantly lower relative to the sea shore than now: something like 26m on Banks Island in the north. The land between Hudson Bay and Winnipeg is measurably rising. Hudson Bay and Labrador was a center of extremely thick continental glaciers only 15,000 years ago. Glacial eustastic movement is clear, and it is clear (from the Hudson Bay relict shorelines) that the process has been episodic, with periods of stability. But we do not need to find one solution for similar situations, just as the police do not need to look for a shooter every time they find a dead body.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 3:34 pm

Comic relief (sort of):
“… the Sun is made of, uh, blobs of matter, whatever… .”
Earth is Expanding — NOT! (by Turbo Cpt. 1)

August 31, 2013 3:35 pm

OT maybe, but picking up on sunshinehours1 comment above, referring to Fasullo’s paper on the Australian 2010-11 weather events swallowing the water:
I missed this first time around. Like this article, also likely to be bunk.
The major flooding Fasullo refers to was the result of rain falling WEST of the Great Dividing Range flowing EAST back into the Pacific. Like it has done numerous times in the past and will continue to do in the future. Fasullo needs to enlarge his mapping a bit, and pick up all the catchments, not just Georgina and Diamantina. Start with the Burdekin, then go south.

August 31, 2013 3:35 pm

claimsguy says:
August 31, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Does posting bad science get more clicks?

Ask Lew

juan slayton
August 31, 2013 3:49 pm

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

August 31, 2013 3:52 pm

From his website, here are his two ideas about how this globe is expanding: (the caps are his)

Jonathan DuHamel
August 31, 2013 3:53 pm

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)

August 31, 2013 3:57 pm

The sea level rise has remained on the same long term trend line:
It goes up; it goes down.
For more than a hundreed years, La Jolla, California has had no discernable rise or fall. [it’s a gif: give it time to load]
Also, the Great Lakes are not steadily losing water; their levels are cyclical.
So I don’t think the planet is losing water. John Daly also made a very strong case that sea levels are not rising as fast as the UoC claims, either. Before the Envisat satellite data was “adjusted” to fit the ‘rising sea level’ narrative, it showed declining sea levels. And of course, the models were wrong, as usual.
This is all part of the natural ebb and flow of our planet. But for those who have a need to be scared, sea levels work as well as anything, I suppose.

William Abbott
August 31, 2013 4:05 pm

milodonharlani – subduction, is it water under the plates or methane hydrates?

August 31, 2013 4:21 pm

I’ve been wondering why Mars is so arid all over, but with past geologic evidence of flowing water.
This is speculation: could Mars’ interior have cooled off enough to allow liquid water to descend? The earth has oceans because of its molten core. Water turns to steam, thus keeping the water from percolating down into the mantle. Oceans are held up by steam pressure.
But if a planet’s interior was cool enough, then the water would remain liquid, and gravity would pull it down leaving the surface dry as a bone.
I realize Venus has a hot interior and it is also dry. But as stated, I’m just speculating. It’s not any crazier than this article.☺

August 31, 2013 4:25 pm

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?

Steve from Rockwood
August 31, 2013 4:29 pm

Where do you start to discredit his thesis without appearing insulting? I would start with the Great Lakes. You would have to know the rate of emptying and the rate of filling to say anything about lake levels. Then move on to ocean levels. Why are levels increasing in some areas and decreasing in others? I can’t see this observation being supported under this gentlemen’s thesis.
The Earth should be contracting as it loses heat. Assuming there is no net loss in water (how do we even know this) then it will cover a great surface over time (rising levels). Oh, then there is the climate but we know that isn’t changing…

Steve from Rockwood
August 31, 2013 4:35 pm

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

Steve from Rockwood
August 31, 2013 4:38 pm

dbstealey says:
August 31, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Your thesis is just as crazy. The oceans are held up by steam pressure? I always thought they were held up by impermeable sediments.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 31, 2013 4:39 pm

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…

August 31, 2013 4:41 pm

” milodonharlani says:
August 31, 2013 at 3:33 pm
gbaikie says:
August 31, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Some CACA scare mongers have suggested that rising sea levels, supposedly due to man-made GHGs, could trigger earthquakes & tsunamis as a result of the greater weight of water over depressed, thin oceanic crust.”
And adding some CO2 to atmosphere could cause some warming.
But we aren’t going to have a 10 meter rise in sea level in next 1000 year.
And we had 100 meter rise in sea level in last 10,000 years.
So unless you imagine cavemen affecting climate [some do], it seems
more likely the 100 meter rise caused by Mother Nature has been and is triggering
such things as the possible earthquakes & tsunamis. And the human influence is some
number near zero.
It seems because humans have divided the world [with words] between Man vs Nature,
that as a consequence some suppose humans are unnatural and alien to this world.
Which is quite strange considering most who tend to do this, are atheists. And broadly speaking believe in relativism.
My wish is that people would understand what they actually believe in.
Know thy self.

August 31, 2013 4:43 pm

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!

August 31, 2013 4:51 pm

If you want people to read something, put it at the top.
Anthony Watts wrote,
… Instead what happened is many people never read past the first few paragraphs, completely missed my caveat …
After six paragraphs, it was clear to this reader that this was no more than a poorly written series of assertions and that reading further would be a waste of time.
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.

August 31, 2013 4:57 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 5:07 pm

claimsguy says:
August 31, 2013 at 3:29 pm
> Does posting bad science get more clicks?
No, but it does get more comments.
From my USENET days I noticed that the more complete and accurate a post was, the fewer comments it would get. If there were mistakes that people could fix, there would be lots of comments.

August 31, 2013 5:12 pm

“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.

August 31, 2013 5:14 pm

Hehe, see what happens when you leave the /SARC tag off!
This is clearly a joke essay probably for submission at a warmie site to attempt to get them to agree with him before turning the tables and coming clean. The clue is the incessant repetition in the body of the post. His name also is a giveaway – Richard Guy, aka Dick … Dick Guy, really!
The fact that he goes straight for the Great Lakes area is also telling. Recall from Wikipedia

… “The Great Lakes of North America lie approximately on the ‘pivot’ line between rising and sinking land. Lake Superior was formerly part of a much larger lake together with Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, but post-glacial rebound raised land dividing the three lakes about 2100 years ago.[9] Today, southern shorelines of the lakes continue to experience rising water levels while northern shorelines see falling levels.”

The continents are floating on the mantle, which is viscous enough so as to let them drift around the Earth at their leisure, crashing into each and building mountains and changing water currents. Naturally if you take a huge chunk of that water like say 120 meters of sea level and deposit it on land in the polar regions the continents at those locations will sink deeper into the mantle.
The only way it could be more obvious that this is a joke piece is if he denied Continental Drift itself. Perhaps he will have a Part II.

August 31, 2013 5:17 pm

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.

Bill Illis
August 31, 2013 5:23 pm

Bringing up the Great Lakes is the interesting part because the post-glacial rebound is not even in the Great Lakes.
Generally, the north side of the Lakes is rising faster than the southern sides which has left a few bays high and dry on the northern sides for example. It has also flooded some parts (mainly in Lake Huron) which were dry land not too long ago. Now this is not always the case so it is not a hard-and-fast rule.
Here is a chart of the most accurate post-glacial rebound estimates from around the world provided by GPS receivers. Rebound is as high as half an inch per year in the highest glacial load points (if the glaciers are gone today) while some areas (mainly deltas) are sinking by half an inch per year.
It is now crucial to use these estimates when looking at individual tide gauges and it is crucial to the Grace gravity satellite and the sea level satellites as well. The earlier models were just quite accurate enough compared to the new GPS-provided data.

August 31, 2013 5:25 pm

dbstealey says:
August 31, 2013 at 4:21 pm

I’ve been wondering why Mars is so arid all over, but with past geologic evidence of flowing water.

One thing I’ve heard is that Mars’ weak gravity and lack of a magnetic field allows the solar wind to scour away the atmosphere, especially lighter molecules like water. Venus also doesn’t have an intrinisic magnetic field, though it does have a weak induced field. Venus may have lost water but is keeping heavier molecules. says

… have left that planet with practically no intrinsic magnetic field. The consequences for the space environment and atmosphere are numerous, ranging from the presence of an ‘induced’ magnetotail in the wake, to an ionosphere and upper atmosphere that are constantly being scavenged by the passing solar wind.

August 31, 2013 5:33 pm

Speed. Anthony changed things around “for the reading challenged”, thus, not for me. I don’t feel insulted. Amused, maybe, but not insulted. I’m well aware that some people don’t read thoroughly, and am often amused by someone lashing out at Anthony for an article clearly written by someone else.
If all we did was read affirming articles we’d be no different than the climate change crowd. Sometimes stuff like this is interesting and makes you think. Already this thread is a highly informative resource about isostatic rebound, glaciers, the Great Lakes, and continental drift. How is that bad?
After all, if you stop learning you’re dead. And it IS interesting to read oddball or non-mainstream ideas, even if they’re easy to shoot holes into. I’m still fascinated by the abiogenic theory of petroleum, and some other interesting things that sometimes appear on WUWT.

F. Ross
August 31, 2013 5:36 pm

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.

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.

Pablo an ex Pat
August 31, 2013 5:38 pm

The record low level for Lake Superior was recorded in 1926. The level fluctuates now because of rain fall patterns and more importantly the out flow from the lake through the DREDGED channel at Ste St Marie. Despite that we have yet to see a lower level than 1926 – got close to it but haven’t broken it.

August 31, 2013 5:45 pm

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

Don K
August 31, 2013 5:48 pm

Perhaps Mr Guy would care to address the numerous recent marine fossils found throughout the Eastern St Lawrence drainage basin at localities in Vermont, New York, Quebec, and Ontario. Common modern marine fish have been found in concretions at Green Creek near Ottawa, invertebrate shells on Mt Royal at Montreal, the skeleton of a beluga whale in a railroad cut near Charlotte, VT. There is even a widespread somewhat notorious geologic formation known as the Leda Clay — a glacial clay containing shells of the bivalve Leda. Notorious, because the stuff has the unfortunate property of creeping out from under structures built on it which has resulted in bridges collapsing as well as buildings and even townsites being engulfed.
Conventional wisdom says that the continental glacier depressed these areas, the Atlantic flooded them when the glaciers melted, and the Atlantic was pushed back to its current configuration when the land rebounded. Fits the observations well including progressively reduced maximum levels for the “Champlain Sea” deposits in more Southerly areas where the glaciers presumably melted first allowing some rebound before the marine flooding.
What’s the alternative explanation?

August 31, 2013 5:49 pm

Thirty years ago I was involved in a multi-million dollar state program in Michigan to handle the problems of high water levels of the Great Lakes. They are down now but in a few years they will start to come back and we may be facing shoreline problems from high water levels again. A fellow who worked on Great Lakes issues for 40 years said this movement was simply cyclical. But isnt it all.

August 31, 2013 5:55 pm

Perhaps the writer is a creationist. If you believed that the world was created 7000 years ago, you wouldn’t believe in ice ages, isostatic rebound, etc. You would have to come up with some alternative explanation for the evidence before you.
I quite like St Augustine’s explanation for fixing the date of creation at 7000 years ago. Even in his day, the rate of material progress of mankind was such that logically mankind could only be a few thousand years old. Of course he had no concept of biological evolution.

TalentKeyHole Mole
August 31, 2013 6:17 pm

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.

NZ Willy
August 31, 2013 6:29 pm

george e. smith says:
“…..NZ Willy says: ‘The defining feature of rock is that it’s uncompressible.’ ….. Careful there Willie, nothing; not even diamond, is incompressible, or uncompressible, (etc)”
…within delta, as is true for all things, and in this case delta is microscopically small even at macroscopically large pressures. This is well within the conventional meaning of “incompressible” — or “uncompressible”, as Humpty & others may say.

August 31, 2013 6:38 pm

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.

August 31, 2013 6:45 pm

One does not need to go even back to the 1800’s to see an example: A power plant in Spain was being expanded: After many millions of tons of rock were excavated from several dozen acres of hillside to create a “flat foundation” at the same elevation as the first power station, construction began on the main turbine building, control building, and electrical transformer yard.
As they finished construction only a few years later, the “level” plumb lines, and building frames, and concrete floors and pipes and crane supports for the new buildings were found to be “significantly” off-plumb. The rock under the carefully laid and perfectly “flat” building foundation, now relieved of the tons of previous topsoil and rock, were moving up, and the new buildings were being thrown off level as a whole mass.

Steve from Rockwood
August 31, 2013 6:59 pm

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….

August 31, 2013 7:58 pm

Ric Werme,
Thanks, Ric. I’m not an astronomer or geologist, so I was just having fun speculating.
Steve from Rockwood says:
“Your thesis is just as crazy.”
I’ll be the first to admit it, Steve.
But you’re assuming that every possible location in the planet is completely impermeable. Do you really think that’s likely? What if there’s a plug under the ocean, and someone pulls the the chain? What then, eh?
I think steam pressure makes sense. Also, it’s not my thesis. I read it here a while back, it wasn’t my original idea. But it sounded good. What do you think keeps all that water at the surface, anyway? A layer of Formica?
There are very deep earthquakes too, which would tend to crack the bedrock. And the mantle is far above the boiling point of water. And of course, the continents never move, we all know that for a fact, right?
Something is keeping all that water on the surface, no? Why not steam pressure?
Remember Steve Jobs? Think outside the box! ☺

August 31, 2013 8:16 pm

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?)

August 31, 2013 8:53 pm

Thank you Victor Venema for inviting me to be ridiculed by the commentators. This is a wonderful opportunity to get the message about the insanity of Post Glacial Rebound removed from Geology and the Earth Expansion Theory accepted. Thanks for allowing me to post my views because as you can see my facts are all researched and documented they cannot be refuted. So if I am allowed this forum among others to platform my campaign. You will be aiding the advancement of science by doing away with Post Glacial Rebound and the Ice Age Myth. Thanks
Richard Guy

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 9:04 pm

@ D. B. Stealey — I think your idea is highly plausible. It is certainly not “crazy.” It doesn’t take a very big crack in a bucket for all the water to drain out. Thanks for sharing. That you had the strength of character to open yourself up to the ridicule you knew would inevitably come (and that you took it with such class), shows you are one cool dude.
Peter G, I believe God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days about 7,000 years ago. I also think the above article is JUNK SCIENCE.

August 31, 2013 9:36 pm

William Abbott says:
August 31, 2013 at 4:05 pm

August 31, 2013 9:37 pm

Thank you Anthony for posting this article. This article is very funny if it is in jest and is very sad if it serious. I had a good laugh either way.
Isostatic sinking and rebound can be measured in real time at the base of dams. A Lacoste-Romberg model G gravimeter placed in a stable vault at the base of a dam is able to measure the viscoelasic sinking and rebound as the dam fills and empties, It is also able to measure the solid Earth tides, as the Sun and Moon pass overhead. It was hypothesized that the 1984 Oroville California earthquake of 1984 was produced by the rapid emptying of the Oroville dam causing a local fault to be re-activated.

August 31, 2013 9:40 pm

As a contributor of ideas to WUWT, I confess some ideas which I thought were brilliant turned out to be less than brilliant. The readers of WUWT soon set me straight. Most were quite polite as they did so, but even those who perhaps might have been more polite did a good deed, for they were ending my ignorance.
I am still not entirely sure Richard Guy didn’t have his tongue planted firmly in his cheek as he submitted the above “brilliant idea,” but if he was sincere and meant well and simply wanted to share, I thank him. He made people think twice and double-check, and that is always a good thing to do. Otherwise we dwell in a landscape of assumptions which are incompletely verified.
There are times a ten-year-old child will go over something I wrote thirty years ago which I have read and reread and re-reread, and which many others have read, and the child will spot an error in spelling no other person ever saw. Once the child points the error out, it seems obvious and glaring, and it amazes me it was never seen before. Person after person scanned over the same document, yet somehow assumed something that allowed them to blindly miss the mistake.
(Another time someone gave me an interesting test which consisted of reading a document aloud where every word was incorrectly spelled, (and in some cases the spelling was bizarre,) and I found I was able to read the document despite all the errors, due to some capacity our minds possess to overlook errors in a search for underlying truth.)
In any case, we all make mistakes. It is for the betterment of all concerned to have errors pointed out. There is no need to be snide or get nasty about it, especially because Richard Guy hasn’t made an appearance. If he made an appearance, and informed us the science was settled, and that he was going to raise our taxes, then we might have a reason to be snide or get nasty. However, as it is, all he has done is share an idea.
Winston Churchill had an amazing brain which produced countless ideas, and one fellow who had to listen to a lot of the great statesman’s ideas stated something along the lines of, “Winston has a hundred ideas a day. Three are good ones.”
Without good friends to point out our mistakes we are lost.

August 31, 2013 9:41 pm

Janice Moore says:
August 31, 2013 at 9:04 pm
I believe God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days about 7,000 years ago. I also think the above article is JUNK SCIENCE.
Your belief is beyond junk science. It is junk religion.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 9:49 pm

“it rains because people use umbrellas” (Jim S at 8:16pm) YES!
Here is proof! … 😉
It wasn’t raining before he put up that umbrella.
Umbrella-induced rain (delayed by a quarter cycle)
(timing is everything)

(that’s why Gene Kelly keeps re-opening the umbrella every so often and why that man in the final scene immediately opens it — needs the rain for his excuse for why he drove the family sedan into the ditch (hope he remembers he needs some mighty strong breath mints, too))

August 31, 2013 10:04 pm

dbstealey says:
August 31, 2013 at 7:58 pm
> Something is keeping all that water on the surface, no? Why not steam pressure?
How about stratification? Rocks have a density about 5 g/ml, iron more, water 1. The minimum energy state would be an iron core, rocky crust, and water on the surface.
Throw in some plate tectonics and you might lift some of those rocks above the water.

August 31, 2013 10:10 pm

RE: F. Ross says:
August 31, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Hmm. You point out Richard Guy wrote, “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.”
I agree that was a mistake on Richard’s part.
It is odd how humans, who want acceptance so badly, want to “outlaw” input when it takes the form of a correction. They want acceptance yet can’t accept.
If you ask a person, “Will you accept a million dollars?” they will answer “Yes! Yes!”
If you ask the same person, “Will you accept a correction that will save you a million dollars worth of being mistaken?” they will frown, if not shout “No! No!”
(Of course I myself am a saint, and am never guilty of behaving in such a manner.)

Brian H
August 31, 2013 10:14 pm

Edit: of exiting discoveries exciting

August 31, 2013 10:37 pm

dbstealey says:
August 31, 2013 at 7:58 pm
…the mantle is far above the boiling point of water…
Depends on pressure doesn’t it, as Boyle showed in the 17th century?
There are oceans of water in the mantle.

August 31, 2013 10:40 pm

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”.

August 31, 2013 11:00 pm

Quite a crazy person writing about what he cannot understand.
But why on WUWT?
Makes the whole site much less credible.

August 31, 2013 11:19 pm

“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

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 11:20 pm

Alex (at 11PM), “writing about what he can did not understand” — because he, to give him the benefit of the doubt, did not read what A-th-ny and others wrote in the comments on this thread. (ahem)
Sorry for the rebuke, Alex, but after all the abuse A-th-y took above, I just could not keep silent.
Your first sentence, in context, is doubtlessly true. A guy who (above) claims that

He has built Airports, Refineries, (and) Highways… .

is on a par with the Inventor of the Internet.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2013 11:24 pm

Ro, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Thanks for sharing that (I only watched the first 45 seconds or so, too tired). TOO FUNNY.
The earth is even rotating backward (that’s how he could take us back in time!). LOL.

August 31, 2013 11:26 pm

Are you sure this was not someone testing Poe’s Law

August 31, 2013 11:57 pm

Janice Moore,
Thank you. I’m just having fun here, as you can see — but maybe others can’t.
milodonharlani says:
“There are oceans of water in the mantle.”
Correctomundo, John. But still, water is liquid, and it will drain thru rock if there’s an opening. It will even drain through Formica, if there’s a hole.
Ric Werme,
Thanks again. But if someone pulled the plug, the water would drain out, no? Anyway, something is holding the oceans up on the earth’s surface. Any suggestions as to what that could be? Anti-gravity?
I’m going with steam pressure. Heat rises, that’s good enough for me. And then there’s “carbon”! “Carbon” must be a problem somehow; that’s what the Consensus seems to think, and they’re never wrong…

September 1, 2013 12:37 am

6H2O + 6CO2 ———-> C6H12O6+ 6O2
Leaves solid material plus Oxygen and no water or CO2 just depends how much is converted back?

M Courtney
September 1, 2013 12:41 am

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

Peter Miller
September 1, 2013 1:15 am

This sort of guff would be better suited to Real Climate or Skeptical Science than WUWT.

Steve C
September 1, 2013 1:19 am

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. 😉

September 1, 2013 1:40 am

OK, joke’s over! Whoever it was who pulled the plug can put it back in now.
Some one has noticed.
A CL thesis, long on assertions and short (very) on evidence. If the Great Lakes
are losing depth, then silting is a pretty strong candidate. They are after all the
tail-end puddles of the last glaciation. Silting up is what lakes do. Get over it?
I’m afraid I have a knee-jerk reaction to attempts to ‘panic’ me into action such
“There is no time to waste because our survival depends on this acceptance.”
Yeah, yeah. Slow down. Anthropogenic Global Warming is known to create
bigger brighter better hurricanes, tornados and even whiter snow storms too.
When the time spans mentioned in the … essay … show lack of instantaneous
effect, then there is no need to panic.
Silting and ‘Glacial Rebound’ both singly and in combination are plausible
contributors to any shallowing of the Great Lakes, as are outflows exceeding
inflows, where outflows include water extraction for irrigation.
However, let’s not put the cart before the horse. Are the GL’s losing volume (or
area and depth) at all?
Pointing at dunes (which are notoriously dynamic) and crying ‘See! See!’ is not
adequate evidence of anything except wind.
Another Chicken Little hypothesis. Needs more data and measurement. Grade; F (Fail).

Alan Bale
September 1, 2013 2:10 am

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

Geoff Sherrington
September 1, 2013 3:34 am

In case this is not known, the summit of Mt Everest is a marine limestone with fossils. It was once, presumable below the sea. Some calculate that it lifted up at a rate of 10 mm per year.
Not saying this is isostasy, just that sedimentary rocks go a long way vertically.
The expanding earth hypothesis was a favourite of Prof S Warren Carey of University of Tasmania, one of the greats of plate tectonics. He lamented that accurate satellite measurements would not clarify the hypothesis until after his departure. Some satellite experts have written to me that there is no altimetry evidence for earth expansion. The hypothesis arose for several reasons, one being that fitting the continents back together by shape still left a rather large sea on a globe the size of today’s.

September 1, 2013 3:40 am

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

September 1, 2013 3:41 am

Glacial Isostatic Adjustment; three words that mean so much.

September 1, 2013 3:51 am

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.

David, UK
September 1, 2013 5:03 am

I’m pretty sure that satellites can measure sea (and land) level to an accuracy of a few inches. It shouldn’t be hard to measure what is rising and what is falling.

Steve from Rockwood
September 1, 2013 5:59 am

. 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.

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 1, 2013 6:00 am

Completely crackpot. No other word for it.
The hallmark of crackpots is that they preach. And boy, does this guy preach.

Steve from Rockwood
September 1, 2013 6:04 am

Another group using GPS to measure glacial rebound. They claim a repeatability of 1 mm and vertical movement up to 2 cm / yr.

Steve from Rockwood
September 1, 2013 6:11 am

Yet another GPS program to determine isostatic rebound, this time caused by climate change although the authors do state that more research is needed. Vertical movement of 2-7 mm / yr.

Silver Ralph
September 1, 2013 6:53 am

Not only is this posting absolute bollo, but the author cannot write either. Take a look at this sentence construction:
This theory of Iostacy was based on an original error in deduction. The error in deduction was that the land rose from the sea.
Hmm, I think a billion monkeys typing at random could do better. In fact, this is probably how this entire compendium of bollo was devised………. 😉

Bruce Cobb
September 1, 2013 6:56 am

This reminded me of the great sci-fi trilogy “Dune”, by Frank Herbert. When I first started reading this, I thought “someone is pulling our leg, to see who bites”. I still find it hard to believe that Guy is serious about this. For one thing, if the oceans are receding, where is the water going?
It’s pretty whacky, but harmless, like the belief in alien beings. Yes, Al Gore is pretty strong evidence, but more is needed….

September 1, 2013 6:59 am

Planet expands?!? Stopped there.

September 1, 2013 7:17 am

>>>It took Nero, Trajan and Articus one hundred years of dredging…..
And where did this Emperor Articus come from? Eh? Just what is this Guy (sic) on about? Come on, Richard Guy, I know you are out there somewhere, please do tell us.
Honestly, this Guy (sic) must be the the most brain-dead nematode to have ever wormed his way (sic) into a ‘university’. But then the University of West London is not a university at all, it is a polytechnic. This was the result of liberal politicing, where some equally brain-dead numskull in parliament wanted equality in education more than exellence. So they renamed all the third-rate polytechnics as universities. But they are still third-rate, and some of the students are merely there to make up the numbers. I would suggest that Richard Guy was one of those make-weights.

September 1, 2013 8:00 am

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

September 1, 2013 8:08 am

Nothing wrong w/Anthony posting this. Junk, but there are some interesting replies. That’s what it’s all about.

September 1, 2013 8:35 am

RoHa says:
August 31, 2013 at 11:19 pm
Oh my.
Oh my, oh my, oh my.
REPLY: That video just goes to show that you can model anything – Anthony

September 1, 2013 9:09 am

dbstealey says:
August 31, 2013 at 11:57 pm

Ric Werme,
Thanks again. But if someone pulled the plug, the water would drain out, no? Anyway, something is holding the oceans up on the earth’s surface. Any suggestions as to what that could be? Anti-gravity?
I’m going with steam pressure. Heat rises, that’s good enough for me.

I’ve been to the thermal features at Yellowstone and Calistoga, California. High pressure steam is not to be argued with.
I fear someone has pulled the plug. Given that black holes are involved, we’re all going to die:

Reply to  Ric Werme
September 1, 2013 9:31 am

Hi Ric
The water is not going anywhere the surface area of the earth on land as well as the seafloor is expanding so the sea levels must fall: its that simple. That is what is happening and has been happening for a very long time. We just fail to recognize it because the process is slow and we are in one particular location for most of our lives. Your observations were noted

Frank Kotler
September 1, 2013 9:17 am

Without immediate action to institute global regulation and taxation, the children just aren’t going to know what water is!
(do I need a /sarc tag?)
I know my head is expanding ’cause the shiny spot keeps getting bigger!
If this was a test to see if we could recognize it before we stepped in it, I think we passed.

Reply to  Frank Kotler
September 1, 2013 9:36 am

Hello Frank
Water levels are recding all around the world some inland seas and lakes are shrinking and some are disappearing for one reason or another. Just recently the house of Simon Peter the fisherman and Disciple of Jesus was unearthed by Archaoelogists in Bethsaida Israel. They were naturally puzzled by the discovery because the house was seven miles from the sea of Galilee. Cheers

Frank Kotler
September 1, 2013 10:33 am

Hello Richard,
Thank you for sharing your observations and theories for us to discuss.

September 1, 2013 10:49 am

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).

Bruce Cobb
September 1, 2013 12:03 pm

Hmmm… So, we have one farfetched idea with little or no evidence; that the oceans are receding, based on an even more preposterous idea; that the earth is expanding.
Good luck with that, Richard.

September 1, 2013 2:02 pm

Over the many years I have observed that people live in many separate realities some not connected to the physical reality.
I put down the wrong date for the Oroville earthquake series: It was 1974-1975‎
I think the lowering of the sea levels can be easily explained to some: it was the Kursk that collided that plug in the bottom of the Baltic (hence the big cover up), and is causing the ocean to drain. All of that water is making the minerals hydrate and expand.
Baba Yaga was flying over the area at the time and claims she saw the whole thing happen.
After I wrote this I drank the entire mug of beer and did not get my moustache wet.

September 1, 2013 4:58 pm

Ric Werme,
Thank you for the link. If someone doesn’t put that plug back, Richard Guy is right…
we’re DO-O-O-O-O-M-ED!!
These things are happening everywhere!
No wonder the Great Lakes are drying up.

September 1, 2013 6:10 pm

“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.

Reply to  RoHa
September 1, 2013 6:45 pm

There was really no emperor named Articus but at least you were paying attention. What other two Emperors tried to keep the harbour at Ostia open by dredging? Ostia is now three miles from the sea. The Salt pans at Ostia which were once at sea level are now twenty feet above, present day, sea level and three miles from he sea. Thanks for your continued diligence.

Gunga Din
September 1, 2013 7:07 pm

I’m not so sure that Richard Guy’s paper will get much attention because he didn’t somehow blame it on carbon. Perhaps if he threw in a carbon sink and dbstealey’s plug….

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 2, 2013 1:49 am

What I know is that we swallow everything we have learned in school without thinking for ourselves. All I am saying is think. Ever so often governments measure mountains to see how much they have grown. We hear that Everest has grown so many feet in so many years, yes I know, Isostatic Rebound. That’s so easy to accept because that is what has been handed down to us. But think?. We measure all topographical features from sea level because sea level is a established datum for ages. But WHAT IF SEA LEVEL HAS BEEN RECEDING OVER THE AGES? WHAT IF SEA LEVEL HAS BEEN RECEDING UNKNOWN TO US?. So when we hear that mountains grow please just stop for a second to think the problem out?
The Tibetans harvest salt from the floor of an ancient sea at an elevation of 18000 feet above sea level. Hymalayan pink salt is an expensive commodity left behind by receding seas. The Hymalayas are supposed to be still rising due to the Indian collision. How much further is it supposed to rise:just think for yourself?

September 1, 2013 7:30 pm

Richard Guy says:
“There was really no emperor named Articus…”
But… but, I thought Articus was the patron saint of the Artic! Bureaucrats routinely pray to St. Articus to keep the Artic from becoming ice-free. And any fool can see that their prayers have been answered. So don’t try to tell us that the government schools indoctrinated taught us wrong!
If I had gone to a parochial school those bureaucrats might have given me wrong information, like teaching us that it was the emperor Claudius who dredged Ostia [and invented underwater-setting cement in the process]. But what do private schools know, anyway?
St. Articus, Intercede For Us. Do not let the Artic become ice-free!
Our fate rests in your holy hands.

September 1, 2013 7:33 pm

W e need people like Richard Guy and the expanding earthers just so we take another look at current “received wisdom”. In many cases what is conventional, unremarkable doctrine today was, not so long ago, considered to be the ” out there” opinion of crackpots. Dinosaur extinction, due to meteorite impacts , continental drift-plate tectonics the earth revolving around the sun, the great age of the earth ; all of these were extremely controversial. It does no harm to revisit our ideas.
Having said that I know where Noway would be without Iostacy ……….about 2 miles below sea level.

Reply to  GregK
September 2, 2013 2:23 am

Hi GregK
In New York I attended an exhibition at the New York Public Library some three years ago “The New York Shoreline over 300 years” Someone pointed out in a post that the size of Manhattan has been increased to almost twice by landfill: true. What has been overlooked however is that the sea level has fallen over the last three hundred years and is still falling undetected. When you stand at the corner of Pearl Street and Wall Street you can see that the East River is 1800 feet away and fifteen feet above sea level. Three hundred years ago the sea at Pearl Street was five feet below the street level. There were depictions at the exhibition showing that the coast of New York has moved out a quarter mile in that time. New York Harbour like all harbours around the world have to be dredged constantly.

September 1, 2013 7:57 pm

I would like to offer a delightful field trip in Maine. When I was but a fledgling, in place salt water clams were being noticed by glaciologists from University of Maine they were well up the Penobscott River several hundred feet above present sea level.
I have lived my life rationalizing the earth quakes and presence of the salt water clams 200 feet above present sea level with the narrative described in this field trip. I don’t think I am too old to learn but perhaps to gain some first hand knowledge Mr Guy needs to get out from behind his writing desk and take a nice field trip. A little reality from time to time does wonders.(Sigh! Field checking assertions has become a thing of the past and the CC, PC community substitutes data with vigorous hand waving,ideology and projections of improbable models!)
A viable alternative explanation of these observable phenomena would be in order if he wishes to keep his assertions viable…‎

Reply to  Half Tide Rock
September 2, 2013 2:46 am

Hi Half Tide Rock
I did get out to see the real world. Early in my engineering career I was working on the building of an Oil Refinery in Milford Haven in Wales, UK. The refinery was being built on the sea and it had a Jetty for ships to bring in the Crude. I mentioned that all the steel structures we were putting up would erode in a few short years because of the sea salt. The Foremen enlightened me with a small piece of information which set me thinking. He said that the Sea was moving out and would be further away in another 100 years. He was from the area and evidently knew all this. He told me that all the Roman Roads which were built on the foreshore of Wales were now far inland. In later years a reader of my book “The Mysterious Receding Seas” wrote me sending photos of several Forts and Castles in Wales which were once on the sea but were now far removed. I found the same anomaly build in the Middle East and on Islands in the Bahamas.

Reply to  Richard Guy
September 2, 2013 8:50 am

Richard, I absolutely agree that if I was standing on ground that was because of tectonics being uplifted at the rate of 2 +/- cm per year the ocean would be receding relatively This relative relationship would hold as long as sea level rise remained under the uplift rate.
It is absolutely true that we have to take a look at an obligation to take a look at all “Settled Science” as our understanding improves.
Your strength of materials training should prepare you to analyse the deflection of a floor that is loaded in the it is loaded and after the load is removed. You are welcome to question glacial rebound as an explanation for the phenomena we observe in areas where the ice loaded the ground and then the load was rapidly removed. As an engineer your proposition goes against your training. In addition it breaks the first rule of Newtons rules for appropriate scientific method. IE restrict your self to the minimal number of causes sufficient to explain the phenomena..
If you attempt to falsify glacial rebound in favor of your theory your theory fails on the evidence.
If you attempt to falsify major tectonic events in favor of your theory tour theory fails on the evidence.
If you use major tectonic events to suggest the mean global sea level receded and thus the observed phenomena your premise fails by observation in areas which are not rising out of the oceans…
To one of your points: There are major tectonic events in play in the Caribbean. These events sufficiently explain anomalous changes in land form. Your theory introduces unnecessary complication because one would have to reconcile anomalous observations world wide with out the benefit of understood phenomena.
To another of your points which I choose as a good example of why your approach fails scientific method Dredging in New York as support of your thesis:. Moving water transports sediment. the grain size that can be transported and direction is a function of the velocity. When dredging takes place in areas of high water velocities the dredged area sees an immediate reduction of the current velocity at the up stream edge of the dredged area. When the suspended particles meet this low velocity boundary they are dropped. causing a “delta effect” the delta grows into the dredged channel until such time as the channel does not meet it’s criteria and the process of removing the deposited material is necessary to maintain the channel. This recurrent dredging is the phenomena you use to advance your theory and for the reasons above this phenomena fails your theory because there is a simple and known explanation with out your theory.
.. . . .
Going beyond what is necessary to refute.The reason that ledge is now being blasted in these harbors is because the draft of vessels in being increased Recently the Panama Canal max size ship criteria has resulted in significant adjustment in American depth and berthing. .If we decide to dredge channels deeper it does not reflect a change in elevation of the land.
Most of your arguments are anecdotal observation of known phenomena with understood causes and therefore your use of them fails as a non sequitur.
A global argument that sea level is dropping requires global measurements against a global standard. Perhaps you should limit your arguments to those which support your theory not refute it through the introduction of unexplained complexity.The direction I would look for supporting data is to the satellite global mean sea level data. This data presumably is independent of tectonic, subsidence and other observable phenomena which complicate and if required to fail refute your thesis.
Best wishes.

Reply to  Half Tide Rock
September 2, 2013 8:46 am

Some years ago in Arizona I went with some surveyors to survey a nine acre parcel of land. The survey revealed that land had been added to the parcel and the access road was on the adjoining parcel of land. My Daughter, while a Civil Engineering Student, was paid by the University to take her fellow students on field trips. She told me that every year they started at the same peg but was never able to close the Traverse: they were always out. In later years I spoke to some students on a field trip and they told me the same thing. When I did surveying in London we were told the same thing. Later in Arizona building hundreds of houses not on 50X100 lot ever closed accurately. There was always some inches out. There is a famous court case in Texas where 2 ranchers are fighting over a mile of land that was not on the map 200 years ago. And so it goes you live and you learn. The border of Texas and Juarez Mexico is expanding. Both Mexico and the US laid claim to the land. When I visited in 1972 I was told that the land was signed over to Mexico by President Linden Johnson as a goodwill gesture. The land was then 600 feet wide. Richard Guy

Reply to  Half Tide Rock
September 2, 2013 9:01 am

When you are on the way down to El Paso Texas you travel through the San Lazario salt sands desert and they are 2000 feet above sea level. The entire desert is salt instead of sand. All this salt was the cause of the Texas Salt wars in the late eighteen hundreds. Salt is found on evey continent on earth. In Russia there is a Mountain of salt. In Lampoc California there is a mountain of Diatomaceous material which is mined by the John Mansfield Company. These miniscule sea organisms were deposited there over millions of years when the Mountain was still under the sea. The tiny crustatians are used to make fine fuel filters. A food variety is even ingested and is supposed to have curative powers. Nearby on the same mountain range is a major earthquake rift that tore the mountain apart. I first visited the area in the seventies when the ruins of the old Spanish Monastery was still there. The earthquake rift ran right through the Monastery and wrecked it. Thirty years later when I returned to the area the entire area was covered with houses. All the houses built across the rift were condemned because they were being torn apart. The earthquake rift occurred in 1811 the same time as the New Madrid Earthquake. The Padres moved the Monastery across the Lampoc Valley and rebuilt on the same earthquake fault. Some years later that Monastery also suffered earthquake damage. Richard Guy

Reply to  Half Tide Rock
September 2, 2013 9:18 am

Hi Half Tide Rock
Thanks for the lesson is Structures and Strength of Materials. But that is my point exact. I am saying that no Ice Age load has been imposed on the land over the ages to cause a rebound. What I am saying is that Darwin started the whole ball rolling with what he termed “Raised Beaches” He assumed that the land was rising from the sea when it was really the opposite. So later Agazzis picks up on Darwin and says. “The reason the land is rising is because the Ice Age imposed a heavy burden on the land and now that the Ice has melted away the land is rebounding.” That is the myth that Isostatic Rebound is built upon. What I am saying is that if Darwin was wrong in his interpretation of the uplift then Agazzis is doubly wrong in using a flawed concept to base his Isostacy theory on. SO if there was no ice age burden there was no Isostacy. Geology students would welcome such a change believe me. Thanks Half Tide Rock your comments were greatly appreciated. Your submission was great. Richard Guy .

September 2, 2013 12:55 am

Water is endangered? Srsly?

Reply to  UK Sceptic
September 2, 2013 8:05 am

UK Sceptic: The British Isle was once attached to mainland Europe. Millions of years ago the separation started and the Island of Britain has been moving away ever since. The English Channel
is about twenty one miles and counting. There are about 4 earthquakes in Britain annually and they are most often centered in the middle of the English Channel. The White Cliffs of Dover have their related counterparts on the French coast. If the land masses were ever to get together again they would fit snugly. The Channel coast of Britain is eroding and falling into the sea no doubt because of the slump caused by the expansion. This slump phenomenon takes place along all rifts and can be seen along river valleys: which are all rift lines. Now if you are still sceptical take a tour along the Cornish coast of Britain and see how the cliffs fall off to the Atlantic at Lands End. Also all the Cinque ports have lost their harbours since the Middle ages. Southampton has had three successive harbours since the middle ages. The Towns of Sandwich and Richborough are all inland today but were once on the coast. Richard Guy

September 2, 2013 2:02 am

The story of the Ark on Mt Ararat is a historical story which you may believe or not but just think?
Noah is hailed are the Patriach of the Assyrian Nation. The Assyrians are an ancient people who originated in the higher reaches of what is modern day Iraq in former days Mesopothamia. The land between two rivers. Noah,s great grandson Nimrod established the city of Nineveh on the Estuary of the Euphrates River. In later years the city of Babylon was, also,established on the estuary of the Euphrates River. Later the city of Ur was also established on the Estuary of the Euphrates River. Ur was a busy harbour on the Persian Gulf at one time but today Ur is 250 miles from the Persian Gulf and 120 feet above sea level. Babylon is today 400 miles from the Gulf and 150 feet above sea level. Nineveh is today 700 feet above sea level. Baghdad also once had a harbour on the Tigris River but today it is 350 Miles from the Sea. Think ?

September 2, 2013 2:09 am

The interesting thing about my last post which I omitted to mention is that Mount Ararat is always covered with snow. Mt Ararat is an ancient Volcano but below the snow cover is pillow lava. Mt Ararat is sixteen thousand nine hundred feet above sea level today? Pillow lava is also found all across the Arizona and California Deserts. Pillow Lava is all across the Pacific Sea floor and the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

September 2, 2013 3:22 am

So this little essay is just a repeated baseless claim with no evidence outside a handful of anecdotes that are easily explained by current understanding.
Drop in water levels of the Great Lakes? Can’t be increased water consumption or drought, must be that isostatic rebound is wrong.
A city at the end of a river has got more land or needs to be dredged? Can’t be deposition from the river, must be that isostatic rebound is wrong.
What’s that, we’ve measured isostatic rebound with GPS, rising seas with altimeters and there are plenty of places where land is being lost to the sea? Just don’t mention those but stay calm and use another anecdote while complaining about how the truth is hidden (PS. you can buy the book that proves it).
Some comments have suggested that this is a poor quality post by WUWT standards but I don’t see how it’s any different to WUWT’s approach to climate science.
Most importantly, these claims mean that sea levels aren’t rising and any such claims should be pushed by WUWT, regardless of whether they attack isostatic rebound, thermal expansion, plate tectonics or whatever.

Reply to  MieScatter
September 2, 2013 6:46 am

The sea is rising by 2 Millimeters per annum and we must all be alarmed that in 100 years we will be flooded. Let us just think for a moment: think? What does a millimeter look like when you try to envisage it between your thumb and forefinger. It is the thickness of a Quarter. It is an insult to our intelligence to keep harping on a 2 millimeter sea level rise. We cannot be serious when we look at sea level. Sea level varies by 100 feet all around the world so we had better speak in terms of a foot of sea level rise because we cant measure a millimeter of water difference in a bathtub. Think? That’s all I ask; Think? It not about bad spelling, poor sentence construction its about thinking? There are marine fossils at 29000 feet on Mt Everest. Don’t we know the entire earth was once covered with Water.
Think? We still have the same amount of water today it has gone nowhere but the planet has expanded and so it is natural that water levels must fall. Think? That’s why I thank Anthony for posting my hypothesis so that it can be thrown out to thinking minds for discussiion. WUWT is to be commended for posting my thoughts for someone is going to see through all the sarcasm and redicule and come up with something of value. Thanks again Anthony. Richard Guy

Reply to  MieScatter
September 2, 2013 6:56 am

Some years ago I was working on a commercial building in Houston, Texas. We were on a site visit one morning. The electrical contractor had just dug a trench for his cables and the black tufted earth was lying on the side of the trench. I commented to the Architect that the soil looked rich and was perhaps full of nutrients for plant growth. The Architect reached down and took up a clod of the earth and held it up for me to see as he crumbled it with his fingers. As the powdered soil fell through his fingers he commented. “Richard this earth is no good for agriculture it is full of salt for just a few years ago the sea was here” This was in 2000. But I had heard that from the building foreman on the refinery site in Milford Haven, Wales in 1958. I have been connecting the dots since then. Richard Guy

Reply to  MieScatter
September 2, 2013 7:07 am

WUWT I commend you for your liberalism of thought. I appreciate you airing my thoughts so that the others out there may start thinking and not just accepting what Darwin or Agazzis passed down to us. In our quest for the truth we will find that as sea levels receded through the ages civilization followed. Our earth was covered entirely with water and as the sea levels fell ancient civilizations developed on the tops of mountain outcrops.( Sounds Familiar?) Yes all ancient civilizations started up in high mountain regions of the world. We may have to rewrite history as we have been taught it? Think. As sea levels receded land bridges emerged and early civilizations were able to spread out, invade and capture other peoples, make war and expand their territories. Alexander the great went east early on and the Mongols came west later. Just think. All these developments were dictated by receding seas and we still don’t know this part of our history. We still don’t know that seas are receding today??? Just Think and see for yourselves just don’t accept what we are taught.

September 2, 2013 4:38 am

In your post at September 2, 2013 at 3:22 am you say

Some comments have suggested that this is a poor quality post by WUWT standards but I don’t see how it’s any different to WUWT’s approach to climate science.

And your (deliberate?) failure to “see” is precisely why I made my post at August 31, 2013 at 1:55 pm
The posting of articles such as the above – whether or not the intention is to refute them – enables the likes of SkS to pretend such articles are typical of the standard of science presented on WUWT.

Gunga Din
September 2, 2013 7:40 am

September 2, 2013 at 3:22 am you say
Some comments have suggested that this is a poor quality post by WUWT standards but I don’t see how it’s any different to WUWT’s approach to climate science.

I have an idea. Why doesn’t MieScatter get, say, Michael Mann or Hansen to submit a post to WUWT and then stick around to answer comments like Richard Guy has? I realize that answering questions from those who don’t agree isn’t the norm for such “climate scientist” but what would be the harm? Gee, maybe some might even start to think.

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 2, 2013 7:54 am

A New York times article first published in 1981 spells out what New Jersey has learned since starting to use aerial photography since 1922. Read it is the archives of the NYT. “Jersey Rights to Shore prove costly to Casinos” Good article for opening the eyes. Aerial photography is able to span the generation gap which we cannot do because we all assume sea level never changes. We are unable to pass the changes from generation to generation and so we remain ignorant of the sea level recession. Aerial photography is able to span this informational gap. So we all can benefit with the information and use it constructively. The State of New Jersey is using it to collect back taxes? Well that’s constructive?? Richard Guy

September 2, 2013 8:15 am

All the historic cities around the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas are all six miles inland today.
Troy, Ephesus, Mycene, Ramsees, Ramsees was the store city where the Israelites started out on their Exodus from Egypt. Ramsees had a harbour in historic times but was discovered six miles inland on the Nile Delta in 1883. Pithom, also. a store city was later discovered. Pithom also had a harbour and the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at Pithom. Today the Red Sea is fifty miles from Pithom. Pithom is approximately half way along the Suez Canal by the City of Ismailia.

September 2, 2013 8:37 am

Richard Guy:
At September 2, 2013 at 8:15 am you wrongly assert

All the historic cities around the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas are all six miles inland today.

NO! For example, Alexandria is under the sea.
This is but one example of your seeking information which supports your idea and ignoring information which contradicts it.
Science is an attempt to seek the closest possible approximation to truth by attempting to find information which falsifies existing understanding(s) so the understanding(s) has to be rejected or amended.
Pseudoscience is an attempt to justify an idea as being true by attempting to find information which supports the idea while ignoring or rejecting information which conflicts with the idea.
Everything you have written here is pure pseudoscience.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 2, 2013 12:13 pm

Alexandria by sunk by tectonic activity. All the city sank. There are many sunken cities around the world that have been buried by earthquakes. Port Royal is one such famous city that sank off the coast of Jamaica in 1692. Earthquakes are a manifestation of earth expansion and as the earth expands it creates fissures and the earth slumps. The Town of New Madrid in 1811 slid off the banks of the Mississippi River Fault and sunk. I don’t profess to be a scientist but I can think and that is all I am asking you to do. Think. Don’t just accept what has been handed down to us. All the major bridges in the USA have been retrofitted for earthquake. This means that we have reached a level of awareness about earthquakes we never had before. We engineers build bridges and dams across river valleys without any thought about earthquakes. Our bridges fail sometimes mysteriously and all our dams leak WHY?. Richard Guy

September 2, 2013 11:29 am

When scientists tell us that sea levels are rising they are really saying that sea levels are rising ,over and beyond, the level they have always been. We all accept sea level as a datum throughout history as well as today. That was the mistake Darwin made: he, like all of us, thought that sea level was constant through the ages. That was a mistake that we all make. As I said in a previous post WHAT IF? sea level was the variant in the equation? All mountains are measured from sea level. Every fifty years we determine sea level and start from there to measure the mountain but we are unaware that the sea level has receded by one foot, not 1millimeter, but 1 foot. We then announce that the Mountain has grown by 1 foot in fifty years. This is what happens because we accept sea level as a fixed datum. That is where the whole Isostatic Rebound Theory falls apart. Every benchmark established in every city street fifty years ago is wrong as far as height above sea level goes but that is attributed to Isostatic Rebound if you see what I mean?
I think that we should question the entire premise of Isostacy and wring the truth out so that we can move on to more interesting discoveries. One such discovery is the origins of ancient civilizations in high mountains. Every ancient civilization originated first of all in high mountains. Gobekli Tepe has recently been discovered i.e. in historical terms. It is about three thousand feet above sea level in Turkey and is about 12000 years old: much older than the Pyramids. What we are going to find for the future is that archaeologists will unearth older and older civilizations higher up than Gobekli Tepe. Some years ago an ancient civilization was discovered on top of the wind swept plains of the Zagros Mountains. Archaeologists were amazed that ancient civilizations existed at such an elevation. Many more great discoveries will be made the higher up we go. Remember the most ancient cities are at high elevations. That should tell us something. Historians tell us that Nineveh is the oldest city in Mesopothamia. What they don’t tell us is that Nineveh was the first city because all the other cities Babylon, and Ur were built after Nineveh in descending order of age as sea levels fell. Richard Guy

September 2, 2013 11:43 am

Richard, I understand the Boulian analysis. My confusion is that you seem to be using flawed analytical techniques even in your immediate response. God bless the people who observed and suggested theories which could be critically examined and lead to an incrementally more perfect understanding of the world around us.
You are welcome to interpret the data differently. And if you prevail in your explanation more power to you.
From my personal experience as a geologist and having examined personally what is taken to day as firm evidence, I cited a great field trip in Maine so that any aspiring geologist can personally examine the evidence cited in hundreds of primary peer reviewed papers. in Maine the current data suggests strongly that there was over a mile of ice. By your construct If your theory is dependent upon this ice either not existing in the recent past or having no significant weight then your theory fails by your own construction. MY WORD this construction is not helpful to your point!
I am pointing out that your construct runs into a philosophical theory of what constitutes scientific evidence issue.
My recommendation was to leave this argument alone because it is not necessary for glacial rebound to fail in order to advance your theory and because there is so much empirical evidence it is not likely to fail… so you are entangled in a peripheral battle with little relevance to your thesis or chance of success.
As for your historical dialogue on the point where we all “went wrong”. I am unconvinced with out an alternative explanation of how rock that was clearly deposited on the surface of the ocean floor at some time becomes buried under subsequent facies and is discovered at great depth with out any sign of a “hole” in the sea floor being filled. These used to be called geosynclines. After periods of orogeny and erosion these deposits which were metamorphosed at depth and temperature appear on mountain tops.
While you are entitled to question anything, Your ” oceans are receding” is insufficient to provide a better explanation of the phenomena you chose and because you have additionally chosen to attempt to debunk data with unsupportable assertions which through your lens do not better ( more simply) explain the observed….. the theory you advance fails. It fails more quickly because of the construction of the argument you use to support it. For the reason of poor construction, it never had a logical chance!!!. I would prefer to see you create a better, more succinct, argument so that the result can be judged on it’s own merits rather than get tangled up with old dogs and ghosts.
Science is advanced by individuals with new interpretations of the existing data Old dogs become respected ghosts who broke ground on the path to enlightenment If the investigation is rigorous the failure of the theory is just as important as the possible advancement brought by acceptance.
I truly wish you well, but I am going to have to bow out having offered and exhausted the explanation for the basis of my best advice.

September 2, 2013 12:37 pm

Richard Guy says:
At September 2, 2013 at 8:15 am you wrongly asserted

All the historic cities around the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas are all six miles inland today.

At September 2, 2013 at 8:37 am I answered that saying

NO! For example, Alexandria is under the sea.

At September 2, 2013 at 12:13 pm you have replied saying

Alexandria by sunk by tectonic activity.

It seems you cannnot see the factual error and the logical disconnect between

All the historic cities around the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas are all six miles inland today.


Alexandria by sunk by tectonic activity.

Sad. Very, very sad.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 2, 2013 1:33 pm

I suppose I have to define that I meant Troy, Ephesus, Mycene, Ramsees. Alexandria was sunk by earthquake. The lighthouse and Library were all destroyed by earthquake. We all accept that. I mentioned that Port Royal was also destroyed by earthquake and sunk in thirty feet of water in Kingston Harbour I went down with divers some years ago to look at the ruins. I must be missing your point: where is the disconnect?

September 2, 2013 2:03 pm

Richard Guy:
At September 2, 2013 at 1:33 pm you ask me

I must be missing your point: where is the disconnect?

OK. You asked.
You said

All the historic cities around the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas are all six miles inland today.

I pointed out that you were wrong. I cited Alexandria which is not “six miles inland” but is actually below the surface of the Mediterranean Sea.
Your reply is to say that Alexandria sank as result of an earthquake.
Yes, that is why it and other places sank. And it is also why some places rose.
It is a logical disconnect to claim “all” places have risen and to ignore those which sank because you choose to ignore them.
Your ideas are nonsense. Face it. And live with it.

Reply to  richardscourtney
September 2, 2013 4:31 pm

Pacific Islanders will tell you that Islands Pop up and Islands sink. Tulvalu is supposed to be swamped by rising seas. Tuvalu is sinking and so are the Duke of York and Carteret Islands.
So tectonics action sinks some locations in the normal process of earth expansion. In Iqaluit in Northwest Canada islands are appearing in the Hudson Bay. The Inuit elders have observed over many years that the Hudson Bay is getting shallower. I was shown an island that had grown in size over the years. In Jamaica when you stand at Port Royal and look out to sea there are now nine Islands where there used to be just one. Port Royal itself was a small sand spit in the year 1665 when the Spaniards arrived. Today Port Royal is comprised of hundreds of acres as the sea recedes. Five hundred years ago burials could not take place at Port Royal as the water table was too high. The first cemetery was established in the late nineteenth century when the sea level had dropped. Richard Guy

Janice Moore
September 2, 2013 2:51 pm

Dear Mr. Guy,
We were wondering how you could write all you did in your above article. Thank you for coming back. We, I think I can speak for all of us, now understand. All I can say is I am sorry for the frustration and hurt you are experiencing at our attempts to refute you (some of us would likely not have been as blunt, had we realized what you are up against). I’m afraid our strong rebuttals were necessary, however, in order to ensure that no one reading this thread would be misled about what the WUWT posters think.
Take care of yourself and in the days and months to come, as increasingly more people “just don’t get” what you are trying to tell them, hand it to God. Trying to convince others that you are REALLY, REALLY, RIGHT, is just not going to work. Trust me. It will only be cause for more depression. Just live one day at a time and rejoice in what is lovely in that day, your dog or a beautiful sunset, or your daughter’s loving voice on the phone. You have, here on WUWT, stepped outside the bounds of what we consider to be rational thought. Let it be. Even if you are no longer understood, you are still loved.
With deepest sympathy (more than you will ever know, I think),

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 2, 2013 6:08 pm

Hello Janice
Thanks for your kind collective thought and humane dismissal. In former days it might have been the Rack. Richard Guy

September 2, 2013 2:58 pm

Janice Moore:
re your post addressed to Richard Guy at September 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm.
Thankyou. Well said. You speak for me and I am sure many others.
Your post needed saying, and you said it well.

Janice Moore
September 2, 2013 3:01 pm

Thanks, Richard. I needed to hear that.

September 2, 2013 5:11 pm

Before reading through all 200-odd comments to see whether this point has already been made, let me note that GIA has long been held to be the number two agent controlling secular acceleration of earth rotation, since before they called it GIA even. This secular acceleration has been calculated through eclipse records to be -1.7 ms/century. Lunar laser ranging puts tidal acceleration at -2.3ms, leaving 0.6ms unaccounted for, hence its attribution to GIA. This trend holds over 2500 years, so that core/mantle coupling can be reasonably assumed to be negligible. Accordingly, in addition to all the other excellent evidence for GIA, one must explain the missing 0.6ms/century of acceleration if one discounts GIA.
Another thing to remember, beyond mantle loading, ice sheets displace the lithosphere’s center of gravity relative to the hydrosphere. –AGF

September 2, 2013 6:01 pm

While I’ve heard of the expanding earth theory I’ve never seen any solid proof. As to GPS measuring accurately I used to work for a GPS company and they had a course put on by a university prof who was one of the best at GPS in North America and the least accurate of the 3 is vertical. I still think the isostatic rebound is valid unless someone can show how having miles of ice on the majority of the continent wouldn’t have an effect.

Reply to  TRM
September 2, 2013 6:19 pm

Hello TRM
What I am saying is that the Ice age burden never existed to the extent that is professed. The surface of the earth is rising by expansion but not from the Ice Age load. The original premise was wrong. The land did not rise from the sea the sea receded and is still receding today. Granted we have been losing Glaciers all over the world. In Alaska the sea is receding as the Glaciers melt.
All ancient civilizations have houses founded in solid Earth not ice. The Ice age is a figment of imagination based solidly on the “Raised Beaches” that Darwin mis-interpreted. Agazzis later came along and based his Ice Age on Darwin,s mistaken “Raised Beaches”. This simple mis-interpretation is what gave us the Isostacy theory and I say that is wrong and the Ice age is a myth.

September 2, 2013 6:21 pm
We can take GPS satellites which we can rather accurately locate due to the simple facts of light speed being well known, and travel time providing a useful indicator of distance for a radio signal carrying a timestamp.
Whether the GPS system has an exactly known position or not, we do know that the position of it relative to a given location on the planet, simply because we can check with multiple signals and determine not just our location on the surface of the planet, but the altitude of said location.
With enough signals accumulated over a long enough time you can remove errors induced by the motion of the receiver, but there are errors which you can not eliminate, even if you bolt the receiver directly into the bedrock.
Those sources of error need to be explained, and even if no one had thought up post glacial rebound, it would have been discovered upon the advent of GPS surveying.
Canada is rising at a measurable rate.
The northern US is sinking at a measurable rate.
The great lakes are a big bowl on a tilting tabletop, and your entire argument about the great lakes fails because the water levels are not universally receding last time I checked.–w6gQHM3LcQ/UFCdidSpySI/AAAAAAAAU3w/HhBX9ujL1VU/s1600/Rebound+copy+copy.jpg
We’re not talking about a little bit of ice on the ground either:
We’re talking kilometers of ice in some places.
So no, this argument is flawed for numerous reasons and does not meet the prerequisites for being called science at all.

September 2, 2013 6:48 pm

Anthony, This guest post has allowed me to consider the nature of evidence in scientific method.This issue is directly relevant to the discourse on AGW and climate sensitivity to CO2. Mr Guy’s reasoning is in a form unsupportable as evidence for his thesis. It even goes as far as to attack theories not critical to his argument.
When the model does not fit the data the model must be modified, we have learned something either way.. Scientific method and rules of evidence do not allow us to hang onto the model and dismiss the evidence.
There should be some worth while discussions about scientific method, logic and rules of evidence. With out the form of logic there is no foundation to process and absurdities aren’t challenged. I believe that the AGW camp has abandoned good science for supporting an ideology. Never the less good science must prevail and the discourse has to be on the scientific plain not on the political battle field under their political “rules”.
OOPs sorry appeal to authority =fail
OOPs sorry ad homenum attack =fail
OOPs Sorry proposition h fails because e is not evidence of h.
OOps Sorry a phenomena that lags can not be the cause the proposition of cause =fails.
OOps Sorry an assertion with out data can not be evidence = fails.
OOps one lottery ticket of several million is only evidence that you could win not evidence that you will win. = fails
If we are to have a discussion we need to elevate the debate to scientific principles or frankly we will loose because politics and made up facts become too facile.

September 2, 2013 7:25 pm

Maybe we should give geran space to expostulate his assertion that the moon doesn’t “rotate.”

September 2, 2013 8:20 pm

Well, it rotates and orbits at a rate such that it keeps the same side towards the planet, which I assume is what they meant, though they said it in a strange manner.
Oh dear, I was reading some more of these posts, Richard… are you claiming that the planet is expanding, as in actually growing in surface area?
Would this not suggest that there is material being added to the interior, or that the interior is composed of something which undergoes expansion over time… like freezing ice perhaps?
Are you aware that you’re essentially stating that ice ages are absurd, but a simple conclusion of your train of thought might be that the seas are draining into the planet, freezing, and causing it to expand?
Do you know what happens when water freezes? There is energy involved, where is the energy transfer involved here?
Why is the apparently logical conclusion for you after learning that there are fossils on the Himalayan mountains, that clearly they were under oceans in exactly the same state they are today?
Why is that more reasonable than the idea that they have been lifted upwards by the collision between the indian and asian plates?
I’m just at a loss here, what is your motive for pushing this idea without even doing something as simple as checking to see if GPS data supports your assertions?

Reply to  Max™
September 3, 2013 6:03 am

Hi Max
GPS is incapable of measuring the slight expansion of the earth over time because GPS in itself has not the subtle capability of measuring the enigmatic variations of the earth surface. The topographical features of the earth make it impossible to get the accuracy. Please stop selling GPS as an accurate measurement model for earth expansion. The measurement of the Planetary expansion is not possible with GPS in its present state. A method to measure the earths expansion still has to be devised. On the matter of increase of the earths surface we all still look for where the mass is coming from. What we have to look at is where is the volume coming from. The earth increases it surface with Magma which is ejected as Lava and expands to several times its volume while loosing its density. This ejection from the earths interior is what creates the new seafloor and land area. In the process it looses its density and becomes the lighter crust. This phenomenon is
staring us in the face everyday but we miss the subtlety of the Metamorphosis from Magma to Lava.
This is what I term the “Popcorn” effect. That is why our sea floors expand and why sea levels must fall. Richard Guy.

September 2, 2013 8:51 pm

Wait, I’ve got it!
Ok, bear with me here, this is nothing crazier than anything else in this thread…
The interior of the planet is a gigantic refrigeration system which extracts heat from seawater, freezes it, and then the heat sinks are magma chambers and ultimately volcanic eruptions!
In case you were wondering why this would exist, well, if you just got done making a world in a week, wouldn’t you want to relax and drink a lot of ice cold beer?
The planet is just [insert deity here]’s beer cooler!

September 2, 2013 11:28 pm

Richard Guy, have you ever heard of a little theory called plate tectonics?

Reply to  UK Sceptic
September 3, 2013 6:16 am

Hello UK Sceptic
Yes I have heard of plate Tectonics. When Wegener presented his paper on plate Tectonics to the American Scientific Society the President of the Society declare it “UTTER DAMMED ROT”. Fast forward one hundred years and what do we have Plate Tectonics and in order to deny expansion we have subduction. Have you heard that all the planets in the cosmos expand.? Why should the earth be disobedient to the laws? Just Think? Don’t just follow blindly. Think? That is why you are a Sceptic; remember? Richard Guy

September 3, 2013 7:23 am

All the planets in the cosmos expand? I wasn’t aware than anyone on Earth could see so far into the cosmos and view every planet therein.
It is ridiculous, hyperbolic statements like this that that make me think you are not to be taken too seriously which is why I won’t be following you blindly.

September 3, 2013 7:40 am

GPS is incapable of measuring the slight expansion of the earth over time because GPS in itself has not the subtle capability of measuring the enigmatic variations of the earth surface. The topographical features of the earth make it impossible to get the accuracy. ~Richard Guy</blockquote
The GPS system orbits at a given height, these orbits are defined by the mass of the planet and the velocity of the satellites themselves.
To change an orbit you must accelerate or decelerate somehow, or change the mass generating the gravity well itself.
Removing enough material to alter orbits enough to make the system unreliable would be rather catastrophic, and at anything resembling current technological levels it is rather impossible anyways.
The idea that the satellites themselves would stop following the orbit they have since launch with no outside forces influencing them is patently absurd to anyone with any sort of physics background, an object in motion and so forth, right?
We have the clocks on these satellites tuned to such a degree that we needed to account for the nanosecond influences resulting from them being further out of the gravity well, as well as those due to their motion relative to the ground.
If there was some way in which ANY influence was making this system unreliable it would not work at all.
Every time your gps device updates it is receiving several radio signals from the satellites it can “view” at your location, one signal is used as a timestamp sort of check, while the other three or four are used to determine what the delay between each satellite sending that signal and reception was.
If you have an object flying along over the planet at a known and fixed rate, and you know it was over point A at time a, point B at time b, and so forth, you can then use that to tell how far away that object was when it sent a signal from point A at time a which was received at time a’, repeat for the signal from an object that was at point B at time b, received at time b’, and another from point C at time c, received at time c’.
If each satellite was at a known location when the signal was sent, there is only a single location which intersects the three spheres corresponding to signals sent from t = (a, b, c) and received at t = (a’, b’, c’) and the receiver must then be at that location.
Even more than that, you can use the actual time of flight and another signal to tell where you MUST be located even if you don’t know exactly where the satellites should have been at that time.
There are far more things involved, as this is a vastly simplified explanation of the technology, but the important thing to realize here is that GPS does not have some vertical resolution issue.
You’re taking a set of spheres which intersect at some point below the satellites, there aren’t any intersections which correspond to a point 10 meters above you that could also correspond to the point 10 meters below you.
Most public GPS devices don’t bother including altitude, but it is a simple enough matter to determine.
Now, if you have a receiver which is not in motion, and it is constantly checking the signals it receives from any satellites which pass the field of view of said receiver, each additional set of signals further narrows down the possible set of intersections to an ever finer position.
If you have several receivers which can cross check the position of other receivers AND that of satellites, and you tune them to the proper frequencies then your accuracy is only limited by the wavelength of the radio waves carrying them, this is the main reason public gps devices often have a range limited to meters, the signals have wavelengths on the order of a meter or so.
Again though, if the planet were expanding as you claim, then the GPS system would not work at all any longer.
If you have some sort of counter to the fact that GPS works, then perhaps you should acknowledge that it does work, and that it is more than enough to debunk your whole point.
If the planet were expanding, and thus the altitude of the satellites were changing (plus the actual distribution of mass would throw the orbits off further!) then the systems flat out would not work any longer.
They do, and do not show the sort of growing inaccuracy required by your idea, if the facts disagree with your hypothesis, then so much the worse for your hypothesis.

September 3, 2013 7:41 am

BAH! There should be a tag after ~Richard Guy in that post…

Tom G(ologist)
September 3, 2013 10:32 am

Anthony – you inflated this idiocy by referring to it even as ‘bad science’ This is not science at all and did not warrant the amount of effort everyone here spent on it. This does not even approach the borderland of science and is practically devoid of any geologic knowledge.
Enough said.

Robert W Turner
September 3, 2013 1:12 pm

And quit the lie about the Earth spinning on its axis. Accept the fact that the universe spins around the Earth before it’s too late and the planet goes supernova.

September 3, 2013 4:31 pm

For what it’s worth, I think that Richard is on to something. The theory of earth expansion is older than plate tectonics and has quite a following around the world. If you are not familiar with it, maybe you should get out more.
The satellite estimates of sea level rise differ from gauge averages by several mm/yr. Maybe it is a fundamental problem. Maybe we should look at all the assumptions that go into the satellite measurements.
Read Nil Axel Morner. Isn’t he hinting at something similar?
Reading the comments to Richard’s article reminds me of why I stopped reading the comments here.

Reply to  Marty
September 3, 2013 6:14 pm

Than you Marty its refreshing to have someone who thinks. I have worked in several locations worldwide and found the same anomaly everywhere. There is so much weight for what I have observed that I thought that it would be helpful for scientists to think through my observations.
This has not been the case. I just got some encouraging words from another member of the Expanding Earth Fraternity. The expansion process is not an increase in mass but rather an increase in volume. All the great scientists look for the mass increase of the earth and finding none negate Earth Expansion. The simplicity of the complexity is this we don’t look for mass increase we look for volumetric increase. The volume of the earth is increasing by magma which is ejected under tremendous pressure from the earth. It immediately expands to eight times is volume as lava on the ocean floor. This increase in sea floor spreading dictates the recession of the sea. The sea has been receding for millions of years and as it does civilizations follow in decending order.
My second book is entitled. “The Ascent of Man: Downhill all the Way” It relates how civilizations have followed the receding seas downward. So to start where I came in before all the sarcasm and redicule started. The earth is growing by a process which I term “The Popcorn Effect” because of the expansion of the Lava. As our earth grows sea levels fall. As sea levels fell civilization followed. Richard Guy

September 3, 2013 4:46 pm

V Mueller pointed out in http://www.aracneeditrice.