Reposted from the NoTricksZone
By Kenneth Richard on 4. January 2021
In 2020, scientists continued to publish papers affirming global sea levels are today about 2 meters lower than they were a few thousand years ago.
During the last interglacial (~116 to 128 thousand years ago), when CO2 peaked at just 280 ppm but surface temperatures were so much warmer that much less water was locked up on land as ice, sea levels were “at least ~7 m to ~9 m above present” and they “could have been as high as 11-13 m above present” at some locations (Muh et al., 2020).
“Corals with closed-system histories collected from patch reefs on NPI have ages of 128-118 ka and ooids/peloids from beach ridges have closed-system ages of 128-116 ka. Elevations of patch reefs indicate a LIG paleo-sea level of at least ∼7 m to ∼9 m above present. Beach ridge sediments indicate paleo-sea levels of ∼5 m to ∼14 m (assuming subsidence, ∼7 m to ∼16 m) above present during the LIG. …. Results of this study show that at the end of the LIG paleo-sea levels could have been as high as 11-13 m above present (at localities close to North American ice sheets) to as little as 5-8 m above present (at localities distant from North American ice sheets).”
During the Mid-Holocene sea surface temperatures were also considerably warmer despite CO2 levels only reaching ~265 ppm. Yet at that time sea levels were about 2 or more meters higher than they are today according to an ever-accumulating body of paleo-evidence.
Since 2019, over 40 new studies have been added to the NoTricksZone sea level database:
Holocene Sea Levels 2+ Meters Higher
Below is a sampling from this past year’s additions.
Bhattacharya, 2020 Western India, +2 m higher than present
“The Mid-Holocene SL [sea level] that is radiocarbon dated to 7.3 cal yr BP and 5.1 cal BP was ~2 m higher than the present sea level.”
Toniolo et al., 2020 Brazil, +2.9 m higher than present
“In South Brazil, vermetids indicate sea level fall of 2.9 m during the last 4.0 ka. … [T]he last 4.0 cal ka BP, with maximum elevation of + 2.9 m around 4.0 cal ka BP (oldest sample), minimum of + 0.5 m at 0.9 cal ka BP (youngest sample) and average sea level falling velocity of 6.6 cm per century. … The RSL variation curve of São Francisco do Sul (SC) shows smooth fall trend from 2.9 ± 0.5 m at 4.0 cal ka BP until the modern sea level (zero), which is in accordance with the paleo-sea level data obtained from vermetids and compiled by Angulo et al. (2006) for the Brazilian coastal region between 3°S and 28°S (Fig. 6).”
Tanabe, 2020 Japan, +2-3 m higher than present (rate: 40-70 mm/yr)
“During 7-4 ka, the sea level was 2-3 m higher than the present level, and at 3 ka, it fell to -2 m TP. After 2 ka, the sea level stood at the present level. … The following durations, vertical displacements, and rates of sea-level rise have been inferred for MWP1D: 7.6-7.5 ka, 6 m, and 60 mm/yr in the Caribbean Sea (Blanchon et al., 2002) … The rates of three sea-level jumps in Tokyo Bay were >40-70 mm/yr for TB1, >20-50 mm/yr for TB2, and >20-30 mm/yr for TB3.”
Damien et al., 2020 Arabian Gulf, +2.5 m higher than present
“These different trends can be explained by different local conditions. Recent work carried out in northeastern Kuwait estimated a +3.5 m asl [higher than present] highstand (~ 5000–3500 cal. years BP) from beach ridges studied (Reinink-Smith 2015). This highstand is about 2 to 2.5 m higher than the previous maximum identified in the area (Gunatilaka 1986). This new result seems more in line with our data, pushing back the Holocene highstand dating. … [L]andforms associated with this highstand [about 6000 years ago] are today located between 1 and 3 m above the current sea-level.”
King et al., 2020 New Zealand, +2.65 m above present
“Regional tectonics dominate the relative sea-level signature across much of New Zealand, and trends of uplift and subsidence can vary significantly depending on the timescale of analysis. … Clement et al. (2016) addressed the problem of regional variations in relative sea-level history by integrating a broad selection of mostly published preexisting local sea-level proxy data to generate a series of relative sea-level curves for different parts of New Zealand. … In their study, a highstand in the northernmost North Island was identified from 8.1–7.3 ka BP (0.6–1.4 kyr prior to Gibb (1986) in agreement with Australian records (e.g. Horton et al. 2007; Lewis et al. 2013)), reaching ∼2.65 m above present mean sea level, before falling to present values between 7.8 and 6.4 ka.”
Areias et al., 2020 Brazil, +4 m higher than present
“At 3700 cal. years BP the RSL was localized at around +4 m above the present sea level, representing the Holocene eustatic maximum for the Rio de Janeiro coast. Estimated SST obtained from the stable isotopes of the aragonitic vermetids was ~20 °C. At ~3300 cal. years BP during the RSL fall the SST reached its upper-Holocene maximum temperature of ~22 °C. At ~2000 cal. years BP, the RSL was +2 m and an intensification of the upwelling events brought about lower SST (~17 °C) in the intertidal/supratidal settings than offshore. … The following period (from ~1900 to ~1300 cal. years BP), characterized by a continuous sea-level fall, recorded a SST of ~20.5 °C, higher than before. … These data show that in the southeastern Brazilian coast the RSL passed from ~ + 4 m at around 3700 cal. years BP to ~ + 1.30 m at 1300 cal. years BP (e.g., Spotorno-Oliveira et al., 2016).”
Martins et al., 2020 SE Brazil, +2.4 m above present
“In Armação dos Búzios city, north of Rio de Janeiro State (SE Brazil), Jesus et al. (2017) recognized recently the following evolutionary stages of sea level during the Holocene: a sea-level lower than the current between 8148 and 6300 cal yr BP; a rise in sea level between 6300 and 4500 cal yr BP; a transgressive maximum of about 2.4 m above the present level at 4700–4500 cal yr BP; a sea-level drop from 4500 cal yr BP until the present.”
Parker et al., 2020 East Saudi Arabia, +2.8 – 3.75 m higher than present
“The sediments record rapid transgression during the early Holocene with a mid-Holocene high-stand immediately prior to 6880-6560 cal. BP when the upper limit for the palaeo Mean Highest High tide water (MHHW) was 2.8-3.10 m above present day mean sea level. Transgression continued until shortly after 5575-5310 cal. BP with an upper limit to the palaeo-MHHW of 3.75 m above present sea levels.”
Amato et al., 2020 Italy, current coast still underwater just 300 years ago (0.3 ka)
“During MIS5‐2 shallow marine‐coastal environments turned into fluvial‐marshy environments in response to the last glacial sea‐level fall. At the beginning of the Holocene, rapid sea‐level rise caused a marine transgression that carved a steep cliff >300 m inland (Figure 9a). The MFS, dated at ca. 7.0 ka, was followed by the establishment of an open natural coastal environment that persisted until Roman age. The small sheltered bay of the Fusandola S. paleomouth may have hosted the Roman harbor (Figure 9b). … In 1260 CE, a new harbor with a long quay existed, probably that built by Manfredi di Svevia (Figure 9c). Our chronological and geochemical data evidence the construction of a later new harbor during the 17th–18th centuries, providing independent support to the iconographic evidence from 17th to 18th century CE maps (Figure 9d). During the last century, the harbor structures were covered once again. The latest phase of coastal restoration took place in 2016 CE (Figure 9e).”
If all the ice in the world (both poles and glaciers) melted, how much would sea level rise?
North pole practically nothing as it floats, glaciers and grounded ice caps (excluding Greenland) maybe 50mm.
South Pole 62 meters
Greenland Ice Cap 7 meters
Or about 220′ for the metric impaired and would take tens of thousands of years to completely melt
On 23rd August 2020 – Sky News (UK) breathlessly announced a scientific study had found that enough ice had melted off the Greenland glacier in the last 12 months to cover the United Kingdom in 100m of ice.
Holy crap ! Sounds serious. It isn’t and it’s nonsense.
Why use England as a metric ? because it gives a nice alarmist soundbite via a nonsensical scale.
Why not use Monaco and cover it with 474000 km of ice, 20% more than the distance to moon – or the Vatican 1203000 km – three times the distance to the moon. Both would be correct to the quoted metric and equally nonsensical.
Recalculate the figure from U.K (Area 242.5×103 km2) vs the area of the world’s oceans (Area 361×106 km2) and you will find this claimed figure would have raised sea levels by 67mm – which it actually hasn’t done and that’s demonstrable – so they are simply caught out in a big fat lie – period.
A 67mm sea level rise would cause the Earth to slow its rotation by 2.2 milliseconds whereas it only slowed by it’s natural rate (due to tidal forces etc.) of 15 microseconds – so if the news item was true, the Earth would have had to suddenly slow down by ±150 times its normal rate – this would have had the astronomers up in arms – maybe no one noticed ?
Even the notorious tidal gauges – which can be tortured to confess most anything – couldn’t come up with more than 2.6mm-3.6mm for that period to all causes – not just Greenland.
And it’s nonsense as Greenland has been melting around its edges – this due to warming oceans – which are 99.9% heated by solar activity and has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 – the warmer oceans give off more water vapour which leads to greater precipitation – which is actually increasing the total mass of the Greenland ice cap (but yes, it is melting at its periphery).
The behaviour of the Greenland ice cap is in fact conclusive proof that climate change is entirely natural – but the alarmists just simply lie and twist the facts to support their noble cause.
Except that their cause isn’t very noble.
Erratum: Glaciers and grounded icecaps 500mm
The $9 million NEEM (North Greenland Eemian) ice core drilling project (2007-2013) concluded that Eemian seas were 15 to 25 feet higher than today … and folks are all in a tizzy about current 1-2 mm/yr sea rise.
Well that’s absolutely fantastic – if counting Dancing Faeries is ‘Your Thing’
Errr, how much ‘land’ was there then.
e.g. How tall were the Himalayas, presumably not as tall as now.
What about the Appalachians or the Rockies, presumably taller than they are now
Because what stirred me up was a Massive ## Open Online Course that came out of Exeter.
They were concerned about Ocean Adidation and suggested grinding up rock and shovelling it into the Ocean. The order to neutralise the acid. 2nd grade chemistryor what?
Seriously, from a UK University
## is there anything left in this world that is safe from super duper massive kilo mega hype? Anything at all. Does anybody have a single shred of credibility left. Apart from The Emperor.
The thing became surreal was that that module had a picture of a rocky/stony beach as its header.
I ventured to enquire why those rocks didn’t do any neutralising, or all the mud on the ocean floor. or the rocks & stones on the faraway beach.
Anyway, I did a back-of-envelope and worked out that if we shovelled the Entire Land Mass of this Earth into the ocean, we’d be left with a global ocean of 3,000 metres depth instead of 4,000 metres and have precisely nowhere left to live.
Would that or would it not cure Ocean Acidation?
On average I think it would, there’d be nobody around to notice or measure it so= No Problem.
Even if they could measure it.
So where does all that Yellow Stuff that gave the Yellow River it’s name do when it gets into the water. What are Continental Shelves made of. How big were they back then.
What about all the brown/orange/red/grey stuff that flavours contemporary flood water.
What does it do for Sea Level
Without any context such as that, what these folks are saying is less relevant than a really irrelevant thing.
I like your spellings, the few times I have dared asked about ocean acidification, I do get a little better than 2nd grade answers. Mass balance, even among some publishing types, is beyond them, maybe they think it is just a weight measuring device. A lot of restoration is justified by sequestration, making more fossil fuel, I suppose.
None of this, of course, matters….because it’s not about science and never has been.
The reduction of sea level implies the creation of ice, polar and glacial. With that in mind, the Arctic ice is probably just forming from none to almost none. This puts our short term ‘climate’ fluctuations into a more realistic perspective, as the ice that is barely there became more permanent over the past few thousand years.
“Implies” is too weak a word. These studies add to a host of studies that provide strong evidence of neo-glaciation during the Late Holocene.
Over the last 6,000 years Planet Earth has been cooling. The decline has been non-linear, but the overall trend is down. Glaciers have reformed and forests have receded in boreal regions. The next Ice Age glacial stadial is on its way.
If we can forestall it (unlikely), we should. A great many scientists (some say 99%) believe mankind can warm the globe. Okay then, let’s do it. Life depends on warmth, and the cold that’s coming will destroy all life in much of the Northern Hemisphere. That’s a bad thing, people. The situation is dire.
Warmer Is Better. Warmer Is Necessary. Warmer Is the Only Rational Choice.
Yes, we need CO2 to be at 800-1200ppm before the Holocene ends.
The SLR problems will be easily and permanently solved by adding a snorkel to our masks.
Seas rise and land sinks. Which is being measured?
Every one of these studies appears to be measuring relative sea level (i.e. they do not attempt to parse out the eustatic sea level change from local sea level change). This compilation from NoTricksZone seems… carelessly tossed together, at best.
The differentiation of relative sea level and absolute sea level is indeed a problem that many people don’t appreciate. However it is generally accepted, when working with paleo sea levels, that the distinction can’t really be made unless there is corroborating data from a much wider area. I would suggest that in this case consistent global data demonstrating a sea level several metres above current level, at about the same time, can be reasonably interpreted as a global event and most likely indicates absolute sea level.
I agree that separating out relative and absolute sea level requires using multiple lines of evidence from wide areas, but holding a bunch of individual studies of relative sea level change at arm’s length and trying to kind of eyeball it does not provide any kind of robust estimate, and certainly isn’t robust enough for grandiose claims like, “mid-Holocene sea levels were 2 m higher than today.” I think we should all be able to agree on that point.
My own personal observations along the Australian east coast many years ago, suggested that there was a geologically recent highstand, however I have never been able to find much research until recently. So I do agree that it would be good to see it all pulled together and published.
I guess no one was particularly interested previously in what is only a relatively minor geological event, but it has become more important in recent times.
Good old fashioned, unsexy, detailed research.
“During the last inter-glacial (~116 to 128 thousand years ago), when CO2 peaked at just 280 ppm but surface temperatures were so much warmer that much less water was locked up on land as ice”
Setting aside for the moment that the CO2 level of 280ppm is not comparable to today’s atmospheric measurements, this still, and again, illustrates a simple fact: Atmospheric CO2 levels have never, are not now, and will never “drive” the Earth’s climate. Period.
The paleoclimate records show the Earth’s temperature to be indifferent to, on longer time scales, or the driver of, at shorter time scales, the atmospheric CO2 level. Only in the fantasy computer modeled Earth does atmospheric CO2 drive the Earth’s temperature. Here, in the real world, atmospheric CO2 doesn’t “drive” Jack Sh*t.
I drove one of those once, ’72 Duster.
Without doubt, sea level marks the status of the planet Earth with respect to partitioning H2O phases. There are complications, like plate tectonics/drift (you need a continental mass in a polar region to stack up glacial ice to get max effect during cold phases, for example), ocean current changes, etc. I watched a Discovery Channel program about the Romans bringing grain to feed Rome, the researchers went down to the Mediterrean coast and looked for docking facilities, and found none. Then they noticed a strange-shaped lake behind the coast, and discovered the docking facility, complete with numbered posts for ships to tie up to. The punch line? The ships docked 5 to 8 meters higher than current Med sea level.
Land rises too, see Scotland.
Do you think Venice is rising?
No, the whole Po valley is sinking, including Venice. And has been doing for millions of years as sediments erode from the Alps and their weight depress the basement. But it has grown worse the last century due to drainage and groundwater withdrawal.
This is old news.The Arabian Gulf records show this level of rise. Also, as a quick check of the Greenland ice cores will confirm, it was 2 degrees warmer than now in Greenland at 8Ka BP. Now is the coldest warm phase of the interglacial cycle. The observations say the mid term climate, i.e. the trend in interglacial time scales, across the 1Ka cyclic variability, not short human time scales, is getting colder, not warmer.
?dl=0
If something doesn’t seem to make sense, check your assumptions. Perhaps the paleo-temperature proxies are wrong, or there have been unrecognized tectonic movements along shorelines.
Of course it’s true but that won’t stop the prophets of doom- because it never was about climate.
I visited the city of Tainan in Taiwan back in the 90’s. The Dutch built a fort and lighthouse there on the foreshore in the 1600’s. Now, you cannot even see the ocean from there. Yes, there has been some siltation but rising sea levels over ~400 years should have put paid to that – but it hasn’t. Not even close.
That is not a good example. Taiwan is very tectonically active with a very young and rapidly rising mountain spine.
If you drive far enough west out of Honolulu Hawaii, you come to the Farrington Highway. It bends around to the north along the edge of the Pacific Ocean. It ends just short of the north-west corner of Oahu, and Hawaii’s famous Banzai Pipeline surfing area. You can’t get to the Pipeline area, though, without a long, dangerous hike. Along this path, where lava flows from the ancient volcanos mark the edge of the land, you can see interesting water spouts as the surf crashes through fissures and vents in the lava.
A couple of miles before the road ends, a highway sign points to the Kaneaha Cave, a basketball court sized cave formed by the pounding surf. A sign at the cave entrance describes the cave formation, which says it was carved out of the lava when sea level rose up to the height of the cave. At this time, the highway and the cave entrance are some 22 meters above current sea level.
Now some might argue that the land uplifted, instead, and that the sign makers didn’t fully understand the difference between uplift and sea level rise. Much of the Hawaiian volcanoes are said to be dominated by land subsidence due to the weight of the several million year old volcanoes, and this area is not generally uplifting. I don’t know enough about the topic to make an argument either way. This cave certainly can add evidence to the argument that our current sea levels are not at a maximum.
Oahu does seem to be rising:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233530006_Uplift_of_Oahu_Hawaii_during_the_past_500_ky_as_recorded_by_elevated_reef_deposits