The “rowers” are near the only tide gauge in the Northwest Territories. There has been no change in sea level there for 40 years.
Data and Station Information for TUKTOYAKTUK
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
Recent Comments
- William on The Clean Energy Boom
- arn on Up Is Down
- Luigi on Up Is Down
- Tel on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- dm on The Clean Energy Boom
- arn on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- arn on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on The Clock Is Ticking
It’s interesting to me that this bit of land on the northern edge of that continent would be approximately neutral for isostatic rebound. I’d have expected something fairly dramatic as this spot recovers from tens of thousands of years of kilometers-deep ice.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
I don’t think there was any ice there during the last ice age
http://www.iceagenow.com/Glacial_Maximum_World_Map.jpg
Hey I can give some numbers to this puzzle from Canada Rocks – the Geologic Journey (Nick Lyles and Andrew Miall)
Tuktoyaktuk is right on the 20 metre contour for glacial rebound in the last 7,000 years but is currently going down / subsiding at 4 cm per year.
And Steven is right that this area was right on the edge of the Keewatin or Laurentide ice sheet and was barely glaciated.
The breakpoint between massive land ice and massive sea ice appears to have been some distance offshore, which makes sense.
Take a look here, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_icesheet_hg.png
I suspect that, standing on top of this ice (as humans evidently did thousands of years ago) you would not have been easily able to tell the exact point at which the land ice transitioned to see ice.
Not to mention that the “shoreline,” had it been exposed, would have been on the order of a hundred meters lower than now, and thus far “offshore” from its current location. Buried by “permanent” ice this might be merely a subtlety, but at some point the ice would have thinned enough to float when sufficient sea depth was available.
That seems to be much further north than is Tuktoyaktuk’s current location.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Maybe the real point of their trip was to “adjust” that Tide gauge. 🙂
Mission accomplished! Call the chopper.
Relative sea level change is never simple. It’s always a balance between sea level rise and land emergence or subsidence. Globally, the oceans are rising about a tenth of an inch each year now, from thermal expansion. But locally? It can be all over the map.
Here’s Alaska’s south coast where the land is emerging:
“The land surface in Southern Alaska is moving faster than global sea level is presently changing,” says Jeff Freymueller, a scientist with the Geophysical Institute and Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “But rising sea level is likely to ‘catch up’ eventually.”
“In a presentation posted on the web earlier this month by the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, Freymueller reported that land along Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula is rising two to four times faster than the ocean, and that means “relative” sea level is falling. Blame this geographic uplift on the colossal collision between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates, plus some rebound from the melting of massive glaciers at the end of the ice age.”
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/southern-alaskan-sea-levels-defy-worldwide-trends
Naturally, all most of you want to do is to find someplace sea level is falling– because that will reinforce all your simplistic theses. But you really should study the reality in all its complexity, learning about things like isostatic rebound.
Here’s a good place to get started:
“Sea-level rise due to a combination of thermal expansion of the oceans and rapidly melting glaciers and ice sheets is one of the most direct and certain consequences of global climate change. The average global (“eustatic”*) sea level rose about 7 inches over the 20th century, which was 10 times faster than the average rate of sea-level rise during the last 3,000 years.
“Since 1990, sea level has been rising 3.4 mm/year, twice as fast as the average over the 20th century. In the coming decades, the rate of sea-level rise will continue to accelerate. While the range of projected sea-level rise varies across different studies, recent research suggests that, without significant reductions in global warming pollution, sea level could rise 75 to 190 cm (29.5 to 74.8 in.) by 2100.”
http://www.fws.gov/slamm/alaska%20slamm%20summary%20report-1.ashx.pdf
The claim that sea level rise rates have doubled are complete horseshit. Tide gauges show no acceleration.
Okay, Steve. Show us your source.
You are always making up BS and presenting it as fact. Then when someone calls you on it you say you were only paraphrasing. So I’m starting to get used to this site being an imaginary news source, all parody.
I would rather see you say something interesting about how global sea level gets measured. Then it would be a challenge to address you.
You really aren’t very bright, are you?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/did-satellites-perturb-sea-level/
See, Steve? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I point out the complexity of establishing a good number for global sea level change, considering that all the continents are bobbing about like corks in a tub, and you respond with a link to measurements at some single spot in the Netherlands. As though that settles the matter.
I don’t think you’re stupid, Steve. I think you’re playing to a stupid crowd. But if anyone reading this has an interest in how global sea level change is measured, they can’t do better than to absorb the info in this article, one with references aplenty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Nothing complex about it.
Find me the tide gauges which show that sea level rise has doubled since 1990. If you can’t do that, then stop repeating bullshit propaganda from professional climate extortionists.
First, take all the tidal gauges on earth, and compile their readings. Then inventory each coastline on earth and determine the trend and degree of their rise or fall. Then interpolate that mass of information and compare it to the amount of expansion you predict from your sets of thermal data. If the two results are in close agreement they tend to confirm you’re on the right track. If not, there’s something you’ve left out.
It’s not as easy as just sticking a peg into the mud at water’s edge, and then comparing this year’s spring tides with last year’s. I offered you the article so you could appreciate the complexity of the task.
But again, I understand that most readers in the peanut gallery will just prefer to hoot and holler at the way you’ve vanquished the godless foe. The consensus being reached among all the members of the actual science community? Just more evidence that THEY’RE ALL IN ON THE PLOT!
You are making it much too complicated. Start with finding *one* tide gauge which shows a doubling of sea level rise since 1990. If you can’t do that, then stop repeating bullshit propaganda from professional climate extortionists.
Steve, you’re not even making an attempt to understand the science. Sure, you can find a tide gauge that shows the seas are rising twice as fast as they used to. And you can find one that says they’re rising half as fast as they used to. And you can find some that say there’s been no change– as well as many that say the seas are getting lower. That’s because a tide gauge measures tidal rise and fall relative to some fixed point. And sorry, there are no points on the earth’s surface that are really fixed.
It’s called eustatic and isostatic change: change relative to the rising and falling of the world’s land masses. So the subject is necessarily complicated. And not, as you would wish it to be, simple. I am beginning to think you may actually be the nitwit you appear to be. You certainly haven’t mastered the science of determining absolute mean sea level.
Cut the bullshit.
Find some tide gauges which are rising twice as fast.
michael:
The implication from this — especially the latter sentence — is that there are various places where isostatic uplift/depression rates have changed markedly in the last few decades.
I have not encountered this, and much evidence that suggests that it is not true. Certainly it is not generally true, or the hundreds of tide-gage-based charts I’ve seen would be full of curves showing acceleration or deceleration of sea-level change.
They aren’t. They are instead remarkably stable.
In fact, it appears that the core source for the claim that sea-level rise is increasing seems to be satellite data, which (when overlaid upon tide gages) shows interesting discrepancies. The sea level rise rate shows decadal variations over the past century or so, but at larger scales the trend is surprisingly steady. Perhaps the satellites have compensation problems, or geoid problems, or whatever — but the data sets amassed from tide gages do not look alarming at all.
And they should be the ground truth in terms of what the future will hold.
In short, your claim of being able to find the gages showing what you say here seems vastly unlikely to me. Do you have an example of one?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Not happy with my answer? It’s the only correct one. Here it is again:
“Global mean sea level (e.g., the global average height of the ocean) has typically been calculated from tidal gauges. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea surface relative to coastal benchmarks. The problem with this is the height of the land is not always constant. Tectonic movements can alter it, as well as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. This is where land which was formerly pressed down by massive ice sheets, rebounds now that the ice sheets are gone.
“To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006) which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe.”
http://theseamonster.net/2013/05/sea-level-rise-in-north-carolina/
I think what you really want to see is this:
http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalResources/ClimateChange/Documents/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
Look at figure 2, sea level rise from 1870 through 2001. Note the degree of rise during the period 1870-1930. Then compare that with the rate from 1930-2001. Approx. double the rate. In fact the rate from 1985 through 2001 is even more pronounced.
All these records are determined from averaging large arrays of tide gauges. They’re as good as we can get with present technology.
That paper is junk science at its worst. They wanted to show an acceleration coincident with satellites and cranked out a pile of garbage.
I am not happy with your answer. You’ve suggested that tide gages showing sea level rise accelerating would be easy to find:
I don’t think that’s true. And yet for your statements in general to be true, these gages showing acceleration must be not only common, they must predominate.
How about one, please?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Michael have you ever stopped to think about one of the big controls on sea level … the mid ocean spreading ridges? You seem to be only fixated on continental tectonics but 70%of the world is sea and sea floor!
In order to bring sea floor spreading into the mix you would want to demonstrate that the rate of spreading is either accelerating or decelerating. And we have no reason to believe that this is so. So let’s just assume it’s a constant until proven otherwise.
Any signal change due to sea floor spreading would be swamped by isostatic and eustatic change in the levels of continents. We do know they are all bobbing around like corks, and displace immense volumes of water in the process.
But if you suspect that’s not so, then go ahead and conduct experiments that illustrate the degree to which sea floor movements displace large volumes of sea water… and that the rate of that change is moving in one direction.
Do not forget to include your explanation of how, despite the fact that the oceans are measurably warming, the warmer water does not increase in volume as we know it must.
Measurably warming?
What is your baseline and where is the data that supports that?
Michael where do you live that is “bobbing around like corks”? You seem to not understand that the ocean plates too are floating and floating exactly like the continental plates. The only difference is density of the rock involved and whether overlain by ocean.
Michael. Believes in Ideas based on Guess work of unproven but accepted facts. By people whose Income is directly related to those facts being a BAD thing. Steve has no financial interest
in the matter and relies on actual provable facts. Meter readings that do not lie or care if it is good or bad for either side.
Every comment you’ve made is IMO off base. First, it’s perfectly valid to see where someone’s funding is coming from. Because science can’t run without money. So do a little research. Find out who pays the bills for outfits like CSIRO, and then speculate why.
As for Steve’s funding, no one knows. His tracks have been carefully obscured. In fact there has been some speculation as to who exactly “Steve” is. He just appeared one day, with a web site.
I do enjoy the fact that you don’t think he has an agenda. He has to love loyal readers like yourself. Ones who, presumably, have read the entire Wikipedia article I cited, and who think it’s all just an elaborate foundation of lies. Lies untold thousands of people are all in on.
We know C02 provided to the troposphere has made this present Inter-Glacial period one that is never-ending, correct?
Where are you getting your accelerating sea level rise information?
Are you in favor of dire climatic predictions based on faith or do you appreciate scientific fact?
AGW based on models and humans contribution to the C02 content has remained a “working hypothesis” and has never been even close to becoming scientific theory and I assume you know why…
I prefer good measurement of the present and past to projections into the future. So I would never say anything like the current interglacial period being never-ending. But in everything we measure, there’s been an accelerating rise since around 1750. And a clear theoretical link has been established between that and the theory of global warming. So we’re at the point where we can say it’s likely to continue along this accelerating path unless some of the inputs change.
As for your last sentence, “AGW based on models and humans contribution to the C02 content has remained a “working hypothesis” and has never been even close to becoming scientific theory and I assume you know why…” I think you are parroting a meme you’ve been taught. So I would ask you to demonstrate the reason you feel this is so.
Start here: a theory is an explanation of observable events that is verified by testable data. That is, it is falsifiable.
We all fully understand the changes, which may be not be linear over extended periods of time have occurred since the last glaciation period. We also know that science so far has no explanation in what causes the earth’s magnetic reversal nor the stimulus for glaciation onset and visa-versa. Climatology is infantile in the present and AGW is a working hypothesis that has wasted more time and money than anything we’ve witnessed.
The models used in the AGW hypothesis have all failed miserably and maybe you can tell me why conservative & liberal scientists are 180 degrees out of agreement on the hypothesis, but agree on every single one of the verified scientific theories.
I see political science overwhelming all the geo-sciences by a twisted group of academia and the MSM followers.
If there were any proof via measurable & repeatable measurements to back up your assertions, we’d be talking about scientific theory, now wouldn’t we…
“In the coming decades, the rate of sea-level rise will continue to accelerate.”
You been studying earthworm poo?
Not earthworms. I reckon something much closer to home!
In al simplicity I say that there is nothing like Post Glacial Rebound. Isostatic rebound is a geological Myth. I am sorry to burst your bubbles but you have to learn to think for yourselves and stop building false premises on other peoples erroneous doctrines. Darwin, Llyle, Jameison and Agazzis all built their Ice age theories on a simple error in interpretation of Charles Darwin and his buddy Lyle. Darwin observed what he called “Raised Beaches” he thought the land had lifted from the sea. The opposite was what was really happening. The land mass was subtly expanding and as a result the sea was subtly receding. There lies the RUB. The Earth is Expanding and as a result the seas are receding. The Ice age never occurred and the Land is not rebounding it is the earth that is expanding. So where do we go from here?. Debunk Post Glacial Rebound and all the stupidity that had been perpetrated on us over the last century and come into the light. You will see that our planet earth is expanding and the seas are receding and that is why all ancient civilizations lived in high mountains because of sea levels back then. If the ice was one mile thick how is it that all ancient civilizations around the world have their houses founded in the solid earth. And by the way I am in touch with the elders of the Inuit first nation people in Hudson Bay. The elders say that they have been noticing for generations that the Hudson Bay is getting shallower. The government agents, however, keep telling them that the sea level is rising. Who would you believe?. It is amazing that with all the enlightenment today we still are hooked on the Post Glacial Rebound Myth. I would suggest that you look at whats happening in NEW Jersey and find out what they have discovered. Check with the people of Norway and hear whats happening there and look at all the lakes and inland seas and see how they are disappearing. See whats happening in Alaska as the Glaciers melt. The sea is still receding The great lakes are disappearing. The sea of Galillee is disappearing. Lake Chad is almost gone, All the North American lakes are drying up as the earth expands. Get rid of Post Glacial Rebound and come into the light
See ‘The Mysterious Receding Seas” by Richard Guy on http://www.youtube.com and Google
So sorry to burst your bubbles on Isostatic Rebound we have been had butit is time to think for ourselves and relegate the theory to the geological dustbin forever. Call; 867-445-8012
Richard is a graduate of West London University, UK. P.Eng, MSe. Structural Engineer.
Please think the process out for your own satisfaction. Post Glacial Rebound is a myth. It is a figment of Agassi’s imagination: but just use your own imagination and you will see.
Post Glacial Rebound was posited as taking place only in the Northern lands of the arctic. What Darwin saw was what he termed “Raised BEaches” in South America and the Isoands of the Pacific. These lands are as far south as you can get and yet the same phenomenon is noted there i.e. the land supposedly rising from the sea (isostatic Rebound? ) No it is the sea receding from the land as the earth expands. Volkmar Muller has enlightened us with an equation which he says shows the rate of Isostatic Rebound. What he has really done is sown us the rate of earth expansion. V.Muller should be recognized for this mistaken hypothesis. The rate of so called Post Glacial Rebound is actually the rate of earth expansion claimed by the Earth Expansionist, So I want to recognize Volkmar Muller for his work on what may well prove to be the final proof of Earth Expansion because Isostatic Rebound is a myth so it must be expansion. Ergo
I would publish this on Whats up with That but they as still wrapped in the Post Glacial REbound Bubble. Richard Guy Tel: 867-445-8012. Email” [email protected]
1. am going to attach this Thesis so that you can read it and formulate an opinion: I have titled it “The Story of Isostatic Rebound;’ Read it and respond:
2. THE STORY OF ISOSTACY;
I am following your format as per the outlines below
1) Put forth background information on isostatic rebound, 2) What is Isostatic Rebound 3)How did the theory evolve 4) Why did the Theory evolve. 5) What supporting evidence is there for it and 6) What edivence negates it. what it is, how and why the theory was developed, what supporting evidence there is, or isn’t for it
The description of Isostacy or Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound, glacial isostasy, glacial isostatic adjustment) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostasy. It affects northern Europe (especially Scotland, Estonia, Fennoscandia, and northern Denmark), Siberia, Canada, the Great Lakes of Canada and the United States, the coastal region of the US state of Maine, parts of Patagonia, and Antarctica.
The premiss of Isostatic Rebound, or Isostacy deals with the rise of land masses that were supposedly, depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period. Isostacy as a theory exists based on the premiss that the land was 1) depressed and 2) was depressed by the Glacial ice sheets of the last Glacial period. Further to this the premiss states specifically that Isostacy affects northern Europe, Scotland, Estonia, Fennoscandia, northern Denmark, Siberia, Canada, the Great Lakes of Canada, the United States, the coastal region of Maine, parts of Patagonia and Antarctica.
All these lands were, supposedly, burdened with Ice perhaps three miles thick which excerted a great load on the land mass which depressed the crust of the earth. Now that the Great Ice age had disappeared the land was no longer burdened and hence was now rebounding. Isostacy is sometimes likened to the effect of the feeling of levitation one feels when disposed of a heavy burden. Like Children sometimes play by pressing down hard on the shoulder of a playmate and then suddenly releasing them. The playmate experiences a feeling of levitation as if they are suddenly gaining height. Of course the feeling of levitation is illusory.
The Theory of Isostacy had an extended incubation. Many Characters were involved in its evolution but it all started with Darwin. Darwin was a trained Naturalist who dabbled in many other sciences including Geology. Charles Lyle a Geologist, was a friend of Darwin. In 1835 Darwin set sail in the research ship HMS Beadle on a journey that would take him five years during which he circumnavigated the earth… Before Darwin sailed llyle gave him a copy of his book “The Principles of Geology”. Darwin was greatly influenced by LLyle’s book and developed an interest in Geology.
Thomas Francis Jamieson was a Scottish scientist who studied Agriculture and lectured for 15 years in that subject. From childhood he had an interest in Geology and studied sea levels and the glaciations of rocks in Scotland. He was one of the early believers of glaciations and the ice age having witnessed marine fossils above sea level. Jamieson corresponded with both Darwin and Agassiz so it can be seen how the early theory was formulated.
Louis Agassiz was a Swiss doctor who had developed an interest in tropical fish species and published his findings in several papers. Agassiz had studied moraines and glaciology in his native Switzerland and finally came to the United States where his scientific ideas gained a foothold. HE was appointed head of the Harvard Scientific School of Zoology. Agassiz was the first to propose the existence of an ice age. He made his statement in support of what Darwin had found on his journey on the HMS Beadle.
The genesis of Isostacy as a science came from the collusion of the various concepts of these three intellectual Giants. Darwin has observed on the journey that sea fossils were high above sea level everywhere he went along the coast of Patagonia and on islands in the Pacific. He termed this observation “Raised Beaches” This idea gained ready acceptance among his colleagues Jamiason and Agassiz. Agassiz based his Ice age Theory on Darwin’s observation by stating “The reason that the land is rising from the sea is because it had been previously burdened by the last ice age and now that the Ice age has gone the land is slowly rebounding. Of course Darwin and Agassiz were towering intellects in a less enlightened age. Their theories were accepted without question. This did not mean, however, that they were right.
When Darwin observed what he termed “Raised Beaches” he naturally assumed that the land was rising from the sea because sea level, to him, was never the issue. The sea was always accepted as being at the same level throughout history. Sea level was assumed to be at one level then as it is assumed to be at the same level today 180 years after Darwin made his observation. When scientists tell us today that sea levels are rising by two millimeters per annum they are really inferring that sea level is rising by two millimeters above what it has always been. It is truly believed that the sea level that John Cabot or Henry Hudson sailed on is the same sea level that exists today. That is certainly not so.
John Cabot and Henry Hudson sailed on a different sea level one hundred years apart. Sea level has been receding over millions of years as the earth has expanded. The earth has expanded to about twice its size in the last 4000 million years. This simply means that sea level could not have remained a constant as we are apt to accept. Historical references easily prove this to be untrue. Sea level has been constantly ebbing lower and lower as the earth has expanded. The question therefore is this: What did Darwin actually witness. Did he witness what we know today as the process of Earth Expansion. If this is the case Isostacy is really the process of earth expansion and is the mirror image of Darwins interpretation.
The Rand McNally table shown here indicates the growth of the earth over that period.
RAND MCNALLY CHART.
The Isostatic theory states quite definitively that it is the northern land masses that are supposedly affected by Isostatic Rebound. Darwin observed “Raised Beaches” everywhere he went around the world, His voyage traversed most of the tropical areas of the world and yet he made the same observation of raised beaches there, far away from the, so called, frozen northlands. These, so called, “Raised Batches” can be seen everywhere on the face of the earth as sea levels continue to recede.
In order to prove that the sea has receded we have to go back into history to look at where sea levels were back in ancient times. I suppose that we can all agree that if we can revisit the “Cradle of Civilization” Mesopothamia and look at sea levels there it would furnish us proof that we are looking for which is the recession of the seas. Nineveh in Mesopothamia was the capital of the Ancient Assyrian Empire. The city was established by Noah’s grandson Nimrod. Noah is hailed as the Patriach of the Assyrian Empire. Nineveh was established on the estuary of the Euphrates River. At that time Nineveh was on the sea on the Persian Gulf. Today the ruins of that ancient city are 700 feet above sea level. After Nineveh the great Babylonian Empire came into being as the sea level retreated and Babylon was then on the Gulf. Today, however, Babylon is 450 Miles from the sea. After Babylon Ur of the Chaldea’s came into prominence as sea level dropped further. Abraham the Patriach of the Jewish people was born in Ur and at that time it was a busy seaport on the Persian Gulf, Today the ruins of Ur is 250 Miles from the sea. Baghdad the capital of Iraq had a harbour on the gulf coast in ancient times but today Baghdad is 350 miles from the sea.
It is quite logical to assume that as the sea declined in the Cradle of civilisation the same phenomenon occurred around the world as water seeks it own level. We therefore can see from this example that the recession of the sea on all continents of the world would follow this norm. Interestingly enough it also shows us something that has not been yet realized by historians and that is that all ancient civilizations started, first of all, in high mountain regions around the world and came steadily downward as sea levels declined. The Assyrian civilization had it genesis in the Ararat Range of Mountains in Turkey. The Chinese Civilization developed downward from the Yellow River Plateau. Egyptian civilization evolved downward from the Nubian Plateau. The Indus civilization developed downward on the Indus River. Tibetan civilization still exists at elevations above 18000 above sea level. Tibetans still mine salt from an ancient ocean bed at 19000 feet above sea level. In the western hemisphere we have the Incas and Aztec civilizations living at elevations above 15000 feet above sea level.
So when Darwin first saw that the beaches were raised he was not aware that it was the sea that was receding because the earth was expanding.He naturally assumed that the land was rising. So now that we have established the order of things we naturally have to take issue with the Ice age burden. Did it or did it not exist? And if so what was its extent? We have to assume in the light of the above findings that it was not heavy enough to depress the earth.
It has always intrigued me that every where on earth archaeologists are discovering more and more ancient civilizations and the evidence is always foundations of houses in solid ground accompanied by rubbish middens alongside. How then did these ancients leave houses founded in soil if there was three miles of ice over the land. Just Recently a major archaeological stone age discovery in a mountain in the Yukon. The foundations of the houses all have to be excavated. Up on the coast of the Barents sea archaeological digs find foundations in soil placed there thousands of years ago. Some years ago an ancient civilization was found on top of the Zagroa Moutains in Turkey. Archaeologists were surprised to find this ancient civilization at such an elevation. The fact that all ancient civilizations evolved first of all on high mountains is still not known by archaeologist and historians. I certainly hope that the realization and acceptance of this reality will soon become common knowledge.
How do we know that sea levels were once much higher than today. Again we have to go by the evidence. Salt is found everywhere on earth. This salt was deposited by ancient seas that no longer exist. From the top of the Hymalayas to the sea level at Louisiana to the San Lazaro mountains in Texas to the ancient sea bet at 19000 feet in Tibet salt is everywhere. Salt is below the Sahara desert and in the Dead Sea. Salt is in lake Titikaka in South America and all across Europe and Russia. So if salt is to be found everywhere we know that seas once covered the earth.
For further proof of the global seas that once covered the earth we can look to pillow lava. Pillow Lava is deposited by volcanic action all over the surface of the earth. The greatest deposits are found under the sea because the sea covers 70 percent of the earths surface. These lava deposits are found on land as well as under the sea because as I have shown before the earth was once all covered with water and volcanic activity has been taking place for millions of years as the earth has expanded. The pillow lava evidence is therefore found today on the tops of mountains as well as at the bottom of the sea.
Driving across the California and Arizona desert you can see pillow lava outcrops all across the landscape. These deposits were ejected there when the desert was still ocean floor. You can find pillow lava deposited on the peak of Mt Kilomanjaro in Africa at 19000 feet above todays sea level. Under the snow capped Mount Ararat in Turkey you will find evidence of pillow lava deposited there when the ocean covered mount Ararat. Mount Ararat is today 17000 feet above sea level Pillow lava outcrops can be found at elevations of 22000 feet on Mount Everest. Pillow lava is testimony to the fact that oceans once covered the highest mountains on earth.
Another popular concept arising from the Isostatic Rebound Theory is that all mountains grow. The mountains are said to be growing because the land mass is rising in keeping with Theory.If we examine this anomaly closely we will see where the growth of mountains is just another false premiss arising from the initial Darwinian misconception. The heights of all mountains are measured from sea level. All Governments around the world do topographical surveys from time to time to keep track of their topographical features. These surveys take place for several reasons. One aspect of these revised surveys is always a necessary constant: the survey always starts with the establishment of the existing sea level. The last survey of a particular mountain may have taken place fifty years before and during this time sea level has ebbed lower making the mountain height appear that much taller. Of course the surveyor is a student of Post Glacial Rebound so his survey finding is declared: “ the mountain has grown by two feet in fifty years”. Like Darwin he is being influenced by the wrong deduction.
In similar manner these revised surveys are done to reset benchmarks which are to be found on all city streets. These benchmarks are placed at random locations on the streets of all cities to assist surveyors in their work. The idea of the benchmark is to transfer existing sea level from the sea to the city street. As I mentioned before all topographical elevations are taken from sea level. The benchmarks serve this purpose and is calibrated with the height above existing sea level. This means that a surveyor on any city street can use these marks as references to the existing sea level which could be miles away. Over several years these benchmarks have to be recalibrated because they all become useless as the existing sea level falls. The usual reason put forward for the change in elevation of the city benchmarks is that the land mass rises as a result of Post Glacial Rebound. Of course this is not so its an illusion. Richard Guy , Mse, Structural Engineer http://xbraille.wix.com/receding-seas Web Page
Reply: Tel; 867-873-3266 or Cell: 867-445-8012
• hitchens67 says:
December 27, 2013 at 2:13 am
Amazing read and incredibly detailed! I’m saving this to use in my evolution arguments because it is entirely relevant. Thank you for sending this!
Reply
3. Richard Guy says:
January 3, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Hello Hitchins 67 Thanks for posting these concepts for discussion. What should emerge from all this discussion is the realization that seas are receding, not rising, and that our Planet is Expanding which dictates that seas recede. Unfortunately we are being assailed by the scientific community and the media with “Rising Seas”. While this approach persists we will make no further progress towards realization of a major error in Geological interpretation.
I often allude to the New Jersey realization that the seas are receding.