Sea Levels Near B.C. Canada Were 90 Meters Higher Than Today 14,500 Years Ago

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 23. August 2021

A new study suggests British Columbia (Canada) relative sea levels remained 10 meters higher than they are today until they fell to their present levels in the last ~1800 years. Two other new studies suggest sea levels were still 0.8 to 1 meter higher than today during the Medieval Warm Period.

After the peak of the last glacial about 20,000 years ago, relative sea levels subsequently rose from 120 meters below modern sea levels to heights of 90 meters above today’s by ~14,500 years ago in the Douglas Channel near British Columbia, Canada (Letham et al., 2021).

Sea levels proceeded to fall 75 to 80 meters over the next 3000 years, or about -2.5 meters per century (-25 mm/yr), and then they remained 10-15 m above present for the next ~9000 years.

We determine that central Douglas Channel was ice-free following the Last Glacial Maximum by 14,500 BP and RSL was at least 90 m higher than today. Isostatic rebound caused RSL to fall to 21 m asl by 11,500 BP, though there may have been a glacial re-advance that would have paused RSL fall around the beginning of the Younger Dryas. RSL fell to 10–15 m asl by 10,000 BP, and continued to drop at a slower rate towards its current position, which it reached by ∼1800 years ago.”
Image Source: Letham et al., 2021

Steffen et al., 2020 proposed relative sea levels peaked at 32 meters above today’s levels in Nanotalik (southern Greenland) during the latter stages of the last ice age (13,800 years ago).

Image Source: Steffen et al., 2020

Sea levels were reportedly about 40 meters higher than today 15,000 years ago along the coasts of western Norway (Bondevik et al., 2019).

Image Source: Bondevik et al., 2019

For the Southern Hemisphere, a 2011 study (Watcham et al.) reported Antarctica’s sea levels were at least 15 meters above today’s 9000 years ago. Falling sea levels have been ongoing since then, with an especially pronounced acceleration in declining sea levels in the last 500 years.

Image Source: Watcham et al., 2011

Two more new studies indicate the relative sea levels along the coasts of Bangladesh (Haque and Hoyanagi, 2021) and South China Sea (Yan et al., 2021) were still about 0.8 to 1.2 meters higher than today’s during the Medieval Warm Period.

None of these studies have sea level trajectories that even remotely align with changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration that ranged from 230 ppm 14,500 years ago to 270 ppm during the Medieval Warm Period.

Haque and Hoyanagi, 2021

“This study illustrates the influences of sea-level on the depositional process during the last 1000 years of the southwestern delta, Bangladesh. … During the 850–1300 AD, RSL [relative sea level] was reached up to +80 cm higher than the present level where tidal-influenced bioturbated light yellow to gray mud deposited in the upper delta plain area. RSL was dropped up to −110 cm during 1300–1850 AD.”

Yan et al., 2021

“Beachrock is considered a good archive for past sea-levels because of its unique formation position (intertidal zone). To evaluate sea-level history in the northern South China Sea, three well-preserved beachrock outcrops (Beigang, Gongshanbei, and Hengling) at Weizhou Island, northern South China Sea were selected to examine their relative elevation, sedimentological, mineralogical, and geochemical characteristics. Acropora branches with well-preserved surface micro-structures were selected from the beachrocks and used to determine the ages of these beachrocks via U-series dating. The results show that the beachrocks are composed of coral reef sediments, terrigenous clastics, volcanic clastics, and various calcite cements. These sediments accumulated in the intertidal zone of Weizhou Island were then cemented in a meteoric water environment. The U-series ages of beachrocks from Beigang, Gongshanbei, and Hengling are 1712–768 ca. BP, 1766–1070 ca. BP, and 1493–604 ca. BP (before 1950 AD) respectively. Their elevations are 0.91–1.16 m, 0.95–1.24 m, and 0.82–1.17 m higher than the modern homologous sedimentary zones, respectively. Therefore, we concluded that the sea-level in the Meghalayan age (1766–604 ca. BP) was 0.82–1.24 m higher than the present, and that the sea-level over this period showed a declining trend.”
4.7 21 votes
Article Rating
132 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
August 24, 2021 6:09 am

Wow! What a Reality Check! If there was any sanity/intelligence amongst the CAGW crowd this would cause them to have an introspective moment. Not going to happen because they are all in to their new religion.

John Bell
Reply to  Ron Long
August 24, 2021 6:19 am

They are MASTERS of ignoring contrary evidence, they have an agenda, and truth makes no difference.

Reply to  Ron Long
August 24, 2021 6:23 am

Agree. I went to Vero Beach, Florida over the weekend … but couldn’t see any sea-level rise … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCn_LKZL8O0

Alan the Brit
Reply to  John Shewchuk
August 25, 2021 7:09 am

You guys CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!! The sea-level down here in Paignton, South Devon, UK, rises dramatically twice a day!!!! A father of three children asked me yesterday was there any beach down here as he wanted to bring them onto the sand for the day during the Summer holidays, I told him emphatically that yes there was, he just needed to wait for the tide to go out & there would be sand, however we were on a Spring Tide day & he would have to wait a while!!! BTW the sea-level also falls twice a day down here, but that never happens anywhere else in the world, sea-levels only rise over here in the UK…..FACT!!!!! Ask the Greenalists!!! Sarc off!!!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 25, 2021 7:30 am

Absolutely serious — plus no on has ever died from climate change … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaSvvzOPY_Q

Reply to  Ron Long
August 24, 2021 7:53 am

I don’t believe it for a second. 14,500 years ago the global sea level was 130 meters lower, not 90 meters higher. There is a very serious error somewhere.

J N
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 8:00 am

No, it’s right. See my comment.

Reply to  J N
August 24, 2021 8:10 am

Your comment is beautifully free of data. Do you really believe that the B.C. isostatically rebounded by 220 m in 14,500 years?

J N
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 11:59 am

Come on George, don’t be lazy, be really curious :-). You can check for the data in a few seconds using google. Even wikipedia explains it very well and has a map that can confirm that the regions mentioned in the articles are the ones where the rebound was more significative. I’ve worked extensively in Isostatic compensation measurements and I can confirm to you that this is real science based in real observations or proxy derived real data. Not invented data (cooked by CAGW crowd for instance) or tortured data to give the answers that we want. There are plenty of articles and data about the Scandinavian peninsula rebound. There are also plenty of means today to measure it with good accuracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

https://topex.ucsd.edu/geodynamics/PGR_sea_level.pdf

Last edited 1 month ago by J N
Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  J N
August 24, 2021 3:07 pm

These are regions with substantial land elevation change that don’t represent what happened with worldwide sea level.

J N
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 24, 2021 8:49 pm

Of course not. See my first comment about other lower latitude regions.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  J N
August 25, 2021 7:13 am

Scotland land levels rising, southern England land levels falling leading to apparent sea-level rises in tiny measurements!!! The Greenalists tend to, like so many of their ilk, forget to mention such geological processes as it doesn’t fit their biased agenda!!! Socialists, don’t you just love’em???

stinkerp
Reply to  J N
August 24, 2021 5:17 pm

Exactly, J N. See my comment to J N’s comment which includes links to check for yourself that sea level is still declining in high northern latitudes because of post-glacial rebound. See also here:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

whiten
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 8:14 am

And how do you know or can tell which is which?
George.

Logic dictates that most probably you’re wrong George, as far as paleoclimate data goes.

3 to 4K years of warming can melt a lot of ice.
The last Interglacial period started 15K years ago,
and according to the numbers and the paleoclimate data it is already over and done.

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Greg
Reply to  whiten
August 24, 2021 9:23 am

The halocene optimum was a lot warmer than today, I see no reason to reject that sea levels were higher.

whiten
Reply to  Greg
August 24, 2021 10:09 am

Yes Greg, the holocene optimum, aka the peak of Interglacial optimum, was warmer than today;
but that is ~7K years after the period this study here in question points out at.

14.5K years BP is far earlier than the begining of holocene… and still within the territory of the Interglacial period.

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Greg
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 9:22 am

I don’t believe it for a second.

So what is the basis of your belief ? You do not even say why you disagree. You make an unqualified claim and that’s it.

Amazing. I’m not even going to look at this paper because you said it’s wrong. Good enough for me!

Reply to  Greg
August 24, 2021 11:25 am

Why I disagree is explained in the following sentence. Please enhance your reading skills.

I did not look at the paper because it is paywalled. Did you know that it was paywalled? Do you even know what paper I am talking about?

Last edited 1 month ago by Curious George
whiten
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 2:16 pm

Curious Silly,

when it comes to reading skills, only you or a silly like you will claim or consider that this study in question is claiming that SL was 90 meters higher than present SL globally… silly!

You are silly, are you not Curious, when it comes to reading skills, dummy.

no cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
BCBill
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 7:48 pm

Use SciHub and set the data free.

ATheoK
Reply to  Greg
August 24, 2021 5:34 pm

Accurate observations and reality is the ruination of alarmist delusions.

Jeff L
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 10:23 pm

Glacial rebound – no error – this is relative SL at a specific point .
This is also application of Geology 101. Not a surprising result.
But , on a global scale , glacial rebound continues to effect the modern sea level data, as the rebound decreases the volume of the ocean basins, esp. the N Atlantic which had substantial glaciation on it’s edges (and just to be slear, all ocean basins are connected, so it effects all global SL data)

whiten
Reply to  Jeff L
August 25, 2021 9:09 am

Jeff,

Consider the relative SL for Greenland and Antarctica.
According to this study the SL signal for both is very strong around 14.5K BP.

Meaning that glacial rebound for both places keep compensating for further SLR after 14.5K BP… and the SL signal of the 14.5K BP remains strong and not polluted… for both places.

Meaning, that by 14.5K BP, most of global ice that had to melt, has melted, and also;
most of global SLR has happened.
The SL signal at 14.5K years BP is so strong because that is the point in time where SLR acceleration has already peaked and turned to deceleration.

The most of global SLR remaining to be, from that point and after, is at best, half of what already happened.

So for ~3K years before and until 14.5K years BP, 2/3 of global SLR already happened in acceleration…
while the rest, ~1/3 will take something like 6K years to happen, in deceleration.

That is how I think, the SL signal for both Antarctica and Greenland is so strong at 14.5K years BP.

Ok, just saying, whatever… 🙂

cheers

stinkerp
Reply to  Ron Long
August 24, 2021 5:24 pm

This doesn’t change the fact that sea level has been rising pretty steadily for most of the last 14,000 years globally. In Alaska and Scandinavia sea level has been declining over the same period due to post glacial rebound as the massive glaciers melted. You’re right about the CAGW crowd. They are short on knowledge of anything except what their mindless masters tell them from the climate models they’ve baked. Steeped in propaganda, bereft of knowledge, perspective, and wisdom.

Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 6:48 am

From the article: “None of these studies have sea level trajectories that even remotely align with changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration that ranged from 230 ppm 14,500 years ago to 270 ppm during the Medieval Warm Period.”

The most important statement in the article.

The main sea port during the time of ancient Rome, is now landlocked because of receding sea levels since that time. That would tell us that the Roman Warm Period was warmer then than it is today.

Sea level is a very good indicator for the general temperature of the planet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 7:19 am

Right on, Tom. Sea Level is what us geologists use to determine the planet’s aqueous state, colder with more ice and lower sea level, warmer more liquid state and higher sea level. By the way, I have seen stranded (that’s a popular word these days) indigenous kitchen midden’s along the Oregon coast, these are burnt shell accumulations at higher levels above current sea level than needed to have a reasonable camp site.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 7:54 am

Sea level is a very good indicator for the general temperature of the planet.”

Not at the height of the last Glaciation it isn’t!

From the paper …

We determine that central Douglas Channel was ice-free following the Last Glacial Maximum by ∼14,500 BP and RSL was at least 90 m higher than today. Isostatic rebound caused RSL to fall to 21 m asl by 11,500 BP, though there may have been a glacial re-advance that would have paused RSL fall around the beginning of the Younger Dryas. RSL fell to 10–15 m asl by 10,000 BP, and continued to drop at a slower rate towards its current position, which it reached by ∼1800 years ago.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 24, 2021 8:16 am

I was talking about sea level in general, not in one specific place, where isostatic rebound might be an issue.

Sea levels were higher, all over the world, at some points in history, so this would tell us that temperatures were higher all over the world at those times, so sea level is a good indicator of the general temperature of the planet at any point in time.

whiten
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 24, 2021 8:43 am

The weight of last glacial period was ~18K years ago.

14K years ago Laurentide was already gone.

cheers

John Tillman
Reply to  whiten
August 24, 2021 9:00 am

No, it wasn’t. Nor was the Cordillera ice sheet. Going, but not yet gone by any means.

http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/2_infopgs/IP2IceAge/aDeglacNoAm.html

whiten
Reply to  John Tillman
August 24, 2021 9:29 am

Sorry John.

I know this reply of mine to you is not proper in consideration of yours, but, you are free to believe that “crap” you linking to.

That is not the only one there.

In a way this study here, today, kinda of contradicts the one you link to.

cheers

Greg
Reply to  whiten
August 24, 2021 9:32 am

Yep, when they say “following” they did not mean just after .

whiten
Reply to  Greg
August 24, 2021 9:37 am

Greg, the main thing their study says is that SL then was higher than the present one…. globally.

The rest of the straws, like accuracy or the terminology, do not change that.

cheers

Greg
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 24, 2021 9:30 am

Well done Anthony, you comment about “the height of the last Glaciation” and then quote the paper saying “following the Last Glacial Maximum by ∼14,500 BP”

14,500 BP is about 12,500 BC. That was about the time of Y.D. when Earth was in the current interglacial.

When geologists say “following”, 10ka later is nothing. They did not mean immediately after the peak of LGM.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 11:40 am

If you visit Herculanum it’s obvious the truth of the above.
The Roman remains are now not even close to sea.

Eg. Bradyseism caused the ancient Roman city of Baiae to become submerged, so a lot of sea level rise is actually SUBSIDENCE.

Ruleo
Reply to  pigs_in_space
August 24, 2021 2:53 pm

*Herculaneum

Tom
August 24, 2021 6:56 am

Some would think that this would cast a shadow of doubt over climate change theory, but, in politics, doubt is not allowed.

Rick C
August 24, 2021 7:05 am

Sea level in British Columbia 1800 ya could not be 10 meters higher than now without sea levels everywhere being ~ 10 M higher. That would have put the Nile Valley underwater throughout the reign of the Pharaohs.

Jeroen B.
Reply to  Rick C
August 24, 2021 7:43 am

You presume it’s only the water level that can move up and down.
The land can move (and be moved) vertically as well.

Rick C
Reply to  Jeroen B.
August 24, 2021 9:32 am

Yes, but not on the time scale of few thousand years. There is no geological evidence of such massive uplift in NA in the last 2000 years.

GoatGuy
Reply to  Rick C
August 24, 2021 9:50 am

Perhaps, but there also wasn’t any indication that global average sea level was 10 m higher 200 years after the advent of Christ, either. IF it were so, the small but still copious pre-medieval civilization structural evidence would be uncontested. It is not so.

Reply to  Jeroen B.
August 24, 2021 9:50 am

The Pacific Northwest coast is where a Pacific plate slides beneath a North American plate….the coast of Washington periodically rises as the plates “stick” together and then there is a slippage and earthquake and tidal wave. There is a Roman city under water on the Italian coast and an Egyptian city underwater near the mouth of the Nile. The answer is likely geology – not climate change.

Last edited 1 month ago by Anti-griff
ATheoK
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 5:54 pm

They “know” it was geology as the earthquakes signaling Earth movement were documented, in detail regarding the sunken parts of Alexandria.

Len Werner
August 24, 2021 7:10 am

Didn’t need to tell me–I developed a well on my hillside rural property in SW BC when I recognised a sliver of lateral moraine–with a spring coming out of it–capped by 2-3m of glacial-marine clay 100m above present sea level, about 50 km east of downtown Vancouver. The moraine recharges with water through a 2 meter thick clay filter; it’s excellent water and now I have 1,000 gallons constantly refreshed in a 4′ diameter by 12′ deep well under my concrete shop floor.

For geologists the hand-wringing about a few mm of seal level change has been just so much micro-analysis and chicken-little fear-mongering. Attention is paid to it by the gullible only through ignorance.

Reply to  Len Werner
August 24, 2021 7:58 am

How did you determine that it was a glacial-marine clay, not a glacial clay?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2021 8:31 pm

I would bet he meant “moraine” and his phone corrected him.

Len Werner
Reply to  Curious George
August 25, 2021 8:09 am

Marine fossils. Occasional large cobbles in a clay matrix. And the bet would be lost; I did mean marine.

Bellman
August 24, 2021 7:16 am

Key word being “relative”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bellman
August 24, 2021 7:41 am

Keep that in mind when they are “adjusting” sea level rise to account for the invisible amount it “would have” risen if the supposed sinking of the sea floor wasn’t occurring.

Bellman
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 24, 2021 7:51 am

It says it in the article:” Isostatic rebound caused RSL to fall to 21 m asl by 11,500 BP…“, my emphasis. How do you think melting glaciers cause the absolute sea level to drop?

griff
August 24, 2021 7:35 am

And with ice caps melting, now they start rising more rapidly

Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 7:40 am

Ah, wow, you invent new physical laws 😀 😀 😀 when talking about “melting” Arctic, did you ? 😀 😀 😀

William Astley
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 7:51 am

Griff,

We are living in a Dansgaard-Oeschger warming period. It is odd that CAGW crowd ignore/hide the cyclic warming in paleo climate record.

Cyclic warming in the past (For example, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Mediavel warm period. There are nine warming periods in this interglacial and the warming periods are also found in the glacial period) were all followed by cooling.

As can be seen from this graph of Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures, CO2 did not drive the past cyclic warming. And all of the past cyclic warming periods (all of which correlate to solar cycle changes) were immediately followed by cooling.
comment image

The Antarctic Ice Cap is gaining mass. The Greenland Ice Sheet was losing mass. The Greenland Ice Sheet was stopped losing mass as the peak of the warming is over.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2021_v6.jpg

D-O Warming periods which are roughly 150 years in duration, have a short 20 year or 30 year sudden increase in temperature, before the sun goes into a Maunder minimum.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  William Astley
August 24, 2021 8:19 am

“As can be seen from this graph of Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures, CO2 did not drive the past cyclic warming.”

Ah, one of the “Sceptics'” fave graphs!

The top of the Greenland Ice sheet does not represent the Globe.
And one ice-core does not even represent Greenland.
From the man behind the top graph …

“Alley made this point explicitly, telling Revkin:
“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.””
comment image

“Greenland temperature reconstruction from Vinther et al. (2009) using proxy data from six ice cores. Data spans the past 12,000 years with a resolution of 20 years. Observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth is shown at the end in black, with a 20-year smooth applied to match the proxy resolution. Proxy records and observations are aligned over the 1880-1960 period.”

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355.epdf?sharing_token=CzXgCmAUW6WhNi9hjIzjg9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PJTwhPVzcLJWnDU5a2GpVVTFnewCqFkN7fawPAD-gSd7gHKqJ8KTwrwah_BjmM__m0DCS1QTb6dGPM3DBS9bj1uuLYx7GYABX6z0p2AS_CWMisY8hfokf7DY78JM8zkai-JKze5gAUfHoAhdy_Pahy9YtXWfFR1NpQd43xJYp1FA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.carbonbrief.org

Last edited 1 month ago by Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 24, 2021 9:16 am

Griff is talking about ice caps – no question about if it’s global or local. If you have critics, start wit griff, not with william Astley.
And what concerns Greenlands melting..

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210823.png

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 24, 2021 10:21 am

As is noted at the top of my post – I was responding to ….

“As can be seen from this graph of Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures, CO2 did not drive the past cyclic warming”
by William Astley

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 24, 2021 1:39 pm

You won’t or can’t understand, not new, but typical for yours 😀

ATheoK
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 24, 2021 6:06 pm

Nor does alarmists attaching modern records to ice core records, even with the specious claim that 20 year smoothing makes them relative…

Reply to  William Astley
August 24, 2021 9:43 am

The griffter is constantly led to water…but he reuses to drink.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 7:55 am

with ice caps melting

Oh Griff, even the awful Met Office disagrees with you. UKMO say’s:

“Antarctic sea ice extent on 11th July [2021] was moderately above average (13th highest on record). “

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/monitoring/sea-ice/2021/briefing-on-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice—july-2021

So how is it melting? Do tell.

BobM
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 8:03 am

And there’s griff using his fossil-fueled devices and technology to prove he’s full of “schist”. Oh, that dangerous CO2, huh, griff? No intention to do your part in reducing those dangerous emissions, huh, griff?

MAL
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 8:48 am

The so call rising more rapidly is well withing the measuring error bars. So the reality we don’t know if they are rising more rapidly. That the truth and some fools think otherwise. The world is full of fools. The problem is not being one of them.

whiten
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 8:53 am

But, regardless of one’s religion griff,

This study clearly shows that 14.5K years ago, at the beginning of the Interglacial period the SL was higher than at present.
Not lower, regardless about the accuracy.

Which means that present actually, according to SL, is closer to the state of glacial period than it was 14.5K years ago.

cheers

Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 9:57 am

The griffter is unaware that Tennessee just received 17 inches of rain at one location…..griffter thinks that’s a drought. The griffter thinks all these warm/cool cycles of the last 10000 years are CO2?….that’s cuckoo.

ATheoK
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 6:22 pm

Mental deficient giffie included Tennessee along with Germany and China experiencing the alleged 1 in 1000 years of floods.

Except all three of those locations have recorded higher floods far more recently than 1000 year.

It’s giffie’s thinking and reliance upon proclamations from the nether vent.

DonM
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 10:07 am

Griff, you ignorant slut….

Look on the bright side. If you are right, then the those abandoned port cities can be re-established, and people like you can step up and micromanage the redevelopment of the infrastructure, homes, & occupants.

It’s a perfect utopia for all of the planners that can’t do anything on their own, but want to be in charge of everyone else.

Look on the bright side.

Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 12:01 pm

Yeah that melting Arctic Sea Ice will be raising SL any day now. And the Antarctic Ice Cap and Greenlands vast ice sheet are extremely stable and very cold. A little thawing at the edges still is ocurring because we are in an interglacial period called the Holocene if you haven’t heard there Grifter.

TonyG
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 1:54 pm

“And with ice caps melting, now they start rising more rapidly”

Well we won’t have to worry about it when the seas start boiling, will we?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 4:08 pm

SLR is not accelerating, but since that is what you are paid to believe I can understand why you feel the need to lie.

ATheoK
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2021 6:03 pm

giffiepoo non-science…

Glaciers have been gone from the North Polar cap for tens of thousands of year.

What is causing the isostatic change now? Underwater change no less…

That hole giffie keeps digging is suffocating deep now.
giffie’s comments show the lack of oxygen.

MarkW
August 24, 2021 7:36 am

I can hear the alarmists now.

Since those high sea levels occurred at different times, sea level rise was regional, it was never world wide.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 8:21 am

They would love to make that argument. I think that’s why they are concentrating on isostatic rebound as a debating point. They are trying to regionalize it.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 8:26 am

Isostatic rebound, you genius. It’s even stated in the excerpt above. The relative sea level was high there. Gee, you deniers are the folk who get frightened twice a day by the high tide.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 24, 2021 10:45 am

Knew it wouldn’t take long.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 24, 2021 12:32 pm

Unless you are arguing that the glaciers melted at different rates all over the world, then isostatic rebound is not sufficient to explain all of the differences.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 1:39 pm

isostatic rebound is not sufficient to explain all of the differences.

Is this your scholarly opinion? I reckon this is at best an “opinion” without the “scholarly” qualification 🙂 Well, we’ve already known science is not governed by MarkW’s guesswork.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 24, 2021 4:10 pm

It’s what the data shows, my opinion regardless.

That you prefer to believe models over data is not my problem or fault.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2021 12:23 am

It’s what the data shows

Well, it’s not what the data shows. This is the problem. Even simple introductions like wikipedia can tell you that “rebound” is very diverse and can have very great magnitudes depending on location.

my opinion regardless

Now that’s true, we should disregard what you say. A good illustration:

That you prefer to believe models over data is not my problem or fault.

In this specific example reconstruction measurements (as opposed to model results) support other reconstructions and model results. This is confirmation, another pillar in science.

Last edited 1 month ago by nyolci
Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 8:35 am

It was when we consider the removal of the weight of the Cordillera Ice sheet from the Land above that region.

J N
August 24, 2021 7:43 am

Beware that these studies relate to relatively high latitude regions. In these locations, at glacial maximum, the weight of the ice led to an isostatic compensation of crustal sinking. Since the glacial maximum, these regions have been on a slow rise. Thus it is not the sea level that is falling but the crust that is slowly rising. Even today, in several circumpolar-polar regions, for instance in Scandinavia, the sea is apparently receding. This is stated in the studies. In the rest of the planet, especially in mid to low latitudes, the sea level was 120-140 metres below the current level and has naturally been rising.
Form much as I would like this study to cast even more doubt on crazy CAGW theories, the causes of this change are entirely natural. 

Last edited 1 month ago by J N
stinkerp
Reply to  J N
August 24, 2021 5:10 pm

Exactly. I was going to point out the same thing but you beat me to it. Sea level in high northern latitudes was higher not because global sea level was higher but because the land was compressed under mile-thick glaciers. As those glaciers melted, the land lifted and sea level declined. It’s still happening today, though more modestly, which you can see in this NOAA global map of tide gauge data around the world. Sea level is still declining around Alaska and Sweden and Finland.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

We do know, however, that 125,000 years ago at the peak of the prior interglacial warm period that global sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher than today so it’s very likely that we have sea level rise to deal with for the next couple thousand years or so, though at a slow rate of between 2 and 3 millimeters per year globally; a rate humans can easily adapt to over several centuries.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200821121103/https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

(Previous article was apparently scrubbed from NASA GISS website in the last few months, likely because it has data that contradicts the global warmist narrative, but still on the Wayback Machine Archive. Take that, GISS warmists!)

Anthony Banton
August 24, 2021 7:45 am

Isostatic rebound BC:

https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1338&context=ias_pub

“Abstract
Sea-level history since the Last Glacial Maximum on the Pacific margin of North
America is complex and heterogeneous owing to regional differences in crustal
deformation (neotectonics), changes in global ocean volumes (eustasy) and the
depression and rebound of the Earth’s crust in response to ice sheets on land
(isostasy). At the last glacial maximum, the Cordilleran Ice Sheet depressed the crust
over which it formed and created a raised forebulge along peripheral areas offshore.
This, combined with different tectonic settings along the coast, resulted in divergent
relative sea-level responses during the Holocene. For example, sea level was up to 200
m higher than present in the lower Fraser Valley region of southwest British Columbia,
due largely to isostatic depression. At the same time, sea level was 150 m lower than
present in Haida Gwaii, on the northern coast of British Columbia, due to the combined
effects of the forebulge raising the land and lower eustatic sea level. A forebulge also
developed in parts of southeast Alaska resulting in post-glacial sea levels at least 122 m 
lower than present and possibly as low as 165 m. On the coasts of Washington and
Oregon, as well as south-central Alaska, neotectonics and eustasy seem to have played
larger roles than isostatic adjustments in controlling relative sea-level changes. ”

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222707476_History_and_isostatic_effects_of_the_last_ice_sheet_in_southern_British_Columbia

Last edited 1 month ago by Anthony Banton
fretslider
August 24, 2021 7:47 am

Science is but a convenient fig leaf – very useful when it agrees with the narrative.

The bottom line is they simply do not know and feel compelled to communicate to the world that they do.

An Antarctic glacier larger than the UK is at risk of breaking up after scientists discovered more warm water flowing underneath it than previously thought. The fate of Thwaites – nicknamed the doomsday glacier – and the massive west Antarctic ice sheet it supports are the biggest unknown factors in future global sea level rise.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/30/antarctic-doomsday-glacier-may-be-melting-faster-than-was-thought

No mention of the volcanoes, the magma chamber etc

Thwaites glacier may well be melting faster than ever, but it isn’t global warming, it’s due to geothermal processes in the underlying rock.

Cue griff…

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
James Donald Bailey
August 24, 2021 7:53 am

Political fights aside, that is a major overturning of accepted wisdom about sea level only rising since the ice age. That type of change is often accompanied by strife between factions holding on to the old established science and factions proposing new evidence.

It could have been a fascinating look into such struggles. But politics will rear its ugly head, biasing what will happen.

Dusty
August 24, 2021 8:12 am

I believe the key here is “isostatic rebound” and in extreme conditions such as that discussed here, it is the height of disingenuousness not to clearly point out the reasons.

Obviously, disequilibrium abounded on a global scale, albeit on a pace of a decrepitly old and crippled snail, and the signal condition occurring had everything to do with two solids — ice and rock — the former pushing down and the latter pushing up, with water just trying to get out of the way.

So, while not a great analogy due to the smaller relative change involved, one doesn’t normally say the water is higher on the ball when pushing a beach ball below the ocean surface, and the glaciers did just that to B. C. , by up to 1 km at some point at its peak and with the glacier’s decline to a just a memory, the ground rose back to where it is today a bit worse for wear from its time before the glacier.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dusty
Olen
August 24, 2021 8:27 am

Beats the crap out of climate change theories. That happens when real science is applied.

Ed Bo
August 24, 2021 8:45 am

So basically what the study says is that the weight of the continental glaciers depressed the land under them by about 100 meters, and the ice melted faster than the land could rebound.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ed Bo
Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 8:51 am

Our Vice President, Kamala Harris, just said sea level rise was disrupting the shipment of cargo across the oceans. She suggests we buy our Christmas presents now, rather than waiting, as the supply chain may be disrupted (by sea level change?).

This is an example of the sad state of the leadership in the United States. Completely clueless.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Oldseadog
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 9:04 am

Even if she was right, your Chrismas presents are already well on thier way from wherever they were made, they were ordered probably in January.
So no cigar X 2.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 9:28 am

I see where Biden is going to stick with his August 31, 2021, deadline for pulling out of Afghanistan.

Now, the press, instead of asking how many Americans are in Afghanistan, should be asking how many Americans Biden is going to leave behind.

Absoulutely dispiciable, but totally predictable for an appeaser like Biden. He’s not a warrior, he’s an appeaser through and through. Appeasers run from a fight every time, and that’s what Biden is doing now. When Biden first ran for Congress in 1972, he ran on being against the Vietnam war. He’s been an appeaser since the very first. Now, we see what happens when we have an appeaser as a president.

We should be seeing the Secretary of Defense and the generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff resigning in protest over Biden leaving Americans behind in Afghanistan.

The Congress should immediately pass a law forbidding Biden from pulling out of Afghanistan until all Americans and Friends are safely out of the country. I think when it sinks in that Biden is abandoning Americans in Afghanistan, even the Democrats are going to insist we stay until this mission is accomplised.

Biden is a dangerous, delusional fool, who has no business running the United States, and he should be impeached and removed from office as soon as possible.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 9:39 am

Just keep in mind that every horror story you see related to Aghanistan was caused by Joe Biden and his stupid decisions. This whole debacle is all on his head, as are the consequences.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 9:45 am

The U.S. should also confiscate all the weapons left behind by Biden.

There may be a little hope in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance is fighting back and apparently holding off the Taliban. They fought the Taliban successfully before Americans went to Afghanistan, so they may be able to defend themselves, although the Taliban having 85 billion dollars worth of American war equipment won’t help them at atll.

If the Northern Alliance can establish a free zone, then they may give people in Afghanistan a place to run and hide from the Taliban. The Northern Alliance would of course need support from the U.S. to fight a long fight, and I’m sure as long as Biden is in office, that they would not be getting anything from him.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 10:57 am

We give the “Tallyband” Joey…and we get the people and weapons….I know…the Tally don’t want Joey….nobody likes him.

Simon
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 3:03 pm

 “Joey….nobody likes him.”
Mmmm not so sure about that. 81,283,098 voted for him, or put another way 51.3% did. Which tellingly and crucially, was more than the other bloke.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2021 4:15 pm

Did they vote for him, or against Trump?

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 6:13 pm

Probably both. Look to be clear I think Biden is a good man, but I’m not sure he should be president. Both the old guys should move over in my opinion.

Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Well, you see US elections for Prez are subject to being manipulated and about 40,000 votes in Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania would mean a Trump win…not to mention Michigan and Wisconsin. The demrat party is about power…it is controlled by an old hag…Piglosi….daughter of Satan….and Joey the Clown Biden…the USA would be much better off if a dog and a goat were to replace them. Both have never held a regular job…just been lying and cheating in the demrat party for …seems like the last century.

Simon
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 8:30 pm

Well that’s a thoughtful comment.

Reply to  Simon
August 25, 2021 6:45 am

You apparently do not understand that a President can be elected with a majority Electoral College vote but a minority popular vote. Joey should have been kicked out of politics years ago for making bold faced lies about his academic record and plagiarizing other politicians speeches…but demrats have no principles and Joey managed to hang around until…he was all that was left…from a totally bankrupt worthless party.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 10:18 am

Come on man…the “Tallyband” luv Joey….he gave them one big present of weapons….maybe he will offer them one of Hunter’s paintings next?

Simon
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 24, 2021 9:05 pm

Come on man…the “Tallyband” luv Joey….he gave them one big present of weapons”
But then Trump gave them back 5000 soldiers so fair to say they just love US presidents full stop.

Reply to  Simon
August 25, 2021 6:51 am

Trump has not been President for 8 months…this is all Joey Biden…perfect example of how NOT to do it…typical Joey….actually believes he has a brain…..but he is the Godfather of the Bideno Crime Family.

TonyG
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 25, 2021 7:43 am

“Trump has not been President for 8 months”

Whatever happens will be Trumps fault until the next Republican president is elected (if that ever happens)

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 11:36 am

Well the Aug 31 deadline for withdrawal is better than the May 1 deadline negotiated by Trump. Congress voted to stop Trump reducing the military below 4,000 and he ignored them and continued the withdrawal to 2,500 by January. Since Trump’s appeasement of the Taliban started he reduced the military from 13,000 to 2,500 before he left office.

Ruleo
Reply to  Phil.
August 24, 2021 3:01 pm

There was trilateral agreement with the U.S., the Afghan government, and the Taliban. You know? A peace treaty? Not unlike the several peace treaties Trump made IN the Middle East?

After the stolen election the U.S. reneged on the deal in Janurary. So, the Taliban said, f– it, we’ll just take over. They knew how weak the Biden Regime is.

LOL @ you trying to blame Trump. Leftists have a pathology to never accept responsibility.

Simon
Reply to  Ruleo
August 24, 2021 3:50 pm

There was trilateral agreement with the U.S., the Afghan government, and the Taliban. You know? A peace treaty?”

This came well after the US had met and negotiated a deal with the Taliban. The original meeting (with the TB)was on Feb 29 2020. Despite the fact that the Taliban repeatedly broke their part of the deal to not use violence, Trump still insisted that the Taliban get their 5000 (seems it was 5000 not 1500) soldiers released. Wow what a tough negotiator.

And all the time the Afghan government were extremely worried about Trumps concessions. Afghanistan’s First Vice President Amrullah Saleh told the BBC that the Trump administration made too many concessions to the Taliban. “I am telling [the United States] as a friend and as an ally that trusting the Taliban without putting in a verification mechanism is going to be a fatal mistake,”  Saleh says, adding that Afghanistan leaders warned the U.S. that “violence will spike” as the 5,000 Taliban prisoners were released. “Violence has spiked,” he added.

So you see the great deal maker seems to have screwed his part up. And while Biden must take some of the flak for the disaster that is the pullout of Afghanistan, Trump is right there in the middle. But Trump being Trump did his alternate history thing. He makes a mess and runs away saying it is all the other guys fault.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 12:41 pm

He’s not a warrior,…”
And private bone spurs is?

“Appeasers run from a fight every time…”
Isn’t Biden following through on Trumps agreement with the Taliban to get out? You know the one where Trump let 1500 Taliban fighters go?”

“When Biden first ran for Congress in 1972, he ran on being against the Vietnam war.”
Tell me again Tom how that war went for the US? I don’t recall that ending too well.

“Biden is a dangerous, delusional fool, who has no business running the United States, and he should be impeached and removed from office as soon as possible.”
Well if Biden ever wants to be impeached he can learn what to do from the last guy.

Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2021 1:51 pm

The demrats used a Special Prosecutor scam to try to remove Trump…next 2 phony impeachment scams…Joey Biden fools most of the dumb demrats most of the time….what a disaster this incompetent dangerous imposter is…even the Great Obomba said Joey will always find a way to mess things up…even more than the Obomba.

Ruleo
Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Isn’t Biden following through on Trumps agreement with the Taliban to get out?

LOL no buddy. Pay attention- you’re only 8 months behind.

Simon
Reply to  Ruleo
August 24, 2021 3:32 pm

So Trump didn’t have a deal with the Taliban to leave?
Or are you one of those who say because Biden sensibly delayed the pullout Trumps deal was magically not relevant?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2021 4:17 pm

A deal to leave involves a lot more than an agreement to leave.
That you aren’t smart enough to figure this out is par for the course.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2021 4:35 pm

Personal abuse, but no facts. Wait it’s a MarkW comment.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 4:13 pm

According to Psaki, there are no Americans “stranded” in Afghanistan.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 12:19 pm

Kamala is not alone in being utterly clueless. Here’s Hank Johnson of Georgia worrying that the island of Guam will capsize:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI&t=3s

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2021 4:12 pm

SLR is making the trip across the Pacific a few milli-meters longer every year.
If we aren’t careful, those costs are going to bankrupt the shipping companies.

Smart Rock
August 24, 2021 8:58 am

This is news? The “100 ft”, “50 ft” and “25 ft” raised beaches in Scotland have been known for a couple of hundred years.

All the examples cited in the post, except the last two, were in areas where the land was depressed due to isostatic subsidence, and subsequently rebounded. So what does it mean to say that sea level was 90 metres higher when the land was 80 metres lower?

The only relevant facts (to the skeptical cause) produced by the articles cited were that sea level in Bangladesh (an isostasy-free zone) was ± 0.8 m higher than present in the MWP and ± 1.1 m lower in the LIA. The South China Sea article confirms the MWP highstand These are very interesting numbers and I have archived the references for future use. Even though the papers are paywalled, the abstracts give the numbers.

BTW isostatic adjustment is still going on. Bradley et al (2009) described GPS measurements of present day vertical movements in Britain that vary from -1.17 ± 0.4 to +1.07 ± 0.35 mm/yr, at least 10,000 years since the Scandinavian/Britain ice cap finished melting.

Last edited 1 month ago by Smart Rock
Greg
August 24, 2021 9:18 am

Not seeing any graphs.

Rick W Kargaard
August 24, 2021 9:21 am

Hmm, 90 meters, that would take a melt of practically all of Greenland and Antarctica ice. Since other factors are involved there may have been a little left but we must have been way past any possible tipping points

Peta of Newark
August 24, 2021 9:44 am

metres

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 24, 2021 10:27 am

In case you haven’t noticed, this is an American-hosted web site.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 24, 2021 12:41 pm

I am Canadian, Meter is acceptable as is metre. My spell check changes metre to meter.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 24, 2021 2:26 pm

Peter?

Vuk
August 24, 2021 10:04 am

OT: “Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts dies aged 80The musician passed away in a London hospital on Tuesday surrounded by his family”
RIP and watch your language up there.
(quote: The world of this is a load of c–p. You get all these b—dy people, so incredibly sycophantic.)

william matlack
August 24, 2021 10:27 am

I dont know about sea level but I can tell you that the political bullshit level in Canada has reached new heights.

Alex
August 24, 2021 10:47 am

Let’s formulate it 8n a different way.
B.C. Canada was 100m lower 14 kY ago

August 24, 2021 11:53 am

Black Sea infilling 8,000 – 7000 yr BP was a substantial infilling source countering the Laurentide Ice sheet meltwater pulses and other land glacial meltwaters (primarily Europe) to the ongoing SLR. Can’t find much on the way of quantitative analyses of all these Holocene freshwater pulses and sea water infillings that occurred worldwide.

Last edited 1 month ago by joelobryan
observa
August 24, 2021 6:06 pm

“Sea Levels Near B.C. Canada Were 90 Meters Higher Than Today 14,500 Years Ago”
Seems to fit with the established geological evidence at Hallett Cove in South Australia whereby around 15000 years ago the SL rose 130M until 6000 to 7000 years ago. In other words aboriginals could walk on lane across what is now Gulf St Vincent and well south of Kangaroo Island to where the Continental Shelf is if you check the sea depth.

Why not 90M like Canada? Well that could be because the continent of Australia was much more stable with no isostatic rebound particularly as there’s the remains an ancient coral reef well inland-
ANCIENT GIANT UNDERWATER REEF FOUND IN NORTH FLINDERS – Coober Pedy Regional Times (cooberpedytimes.com)

But there’s more at Fitzgerald Bay just north of Whyalla-

“The Fitzgerald Bay Stranded Shingle Ridge is an elevated shingle ridge deposited by 3m high sea levels during the mid-Holocene period (5,000 years ago) and then regionally uplifted by around 4m. The ridge consists of packed, sub-rounded pebbles and cobbles that now lie 5-8m above the adjacent landscape. It is located parallel to and slightly inward from the modern coastline of western Upper Spencer Gulf between Whyalla and Port Augusta, South Australia”
26443_Summary.pdf (environment.sa.gov.au)

A few regional differences but you can certainly join the dots and presumably as a climate changer crap your pants when Fort Denison shows 0.65 mm a year SLR compared to what could be 16.25mm/yr for EIGHT THOUSAND YEARS at Hallett Cove
Sea Level Trends – Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia – NOAA Tides & Currents

observa
Reply to  observa
August 24, 2021 6:07 pm

oops…walk on land

george1st:)
August 25, 2021 5:58 am

The IPCC / UN / China don’t wish to discuss facts or history of climate .
They know the world climate is changing and warming and their convenient reason for that is to blame CO2 emissions caused by western civilisation .
Politics is far more powerful than science .

DMacKenzie
August 25, 2021 9:32 am

“…After the peak of the last glacial about 20,000 years ago, relative sea levels subsequently rose from 120 meters below modern sea levels to heights of 90 meters above today’s…..”
We know it rose about 100 meters because the continental shelf used to be beach and delta, but the Holocene high stand is generally not accepted to be 90 meters above todays level.

TheLastDemocrat
August 26, 2021 7:04 am

Tangential, but interesting sea level story. A news story about a recent study trying to account for the “Great Discontinuity.”

It may have been caused by an event where the entire planet was covered with glaciers.

And I am dumb if I believe the entire planet could be covered with water.

“The Great Unconformity is dramatically exposed at the Grand Canyon, but it has been identified in rock layers in other parts of the world. As a result, scientists have suggested that this weird memory lapse may have been caused by an erosive event that spanned the globe, such as the worldwide glaciation associated with the ‘Snowball Earth’ period some 700 million years ago.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvzk8q/why-one-billion-years-of-time-are-missing-in-the-grand-canyon

%d bloggers like this: