Alarmists say that sea levels are rising rapidly, and unless we act now to take over the climate using the secret man-made CO2 reduction method, soon New York and even Cologne, Germany, will end up in water. At least that’s the alarmist scenario that the Truth Media like to tell us about.
However, a number of studies and tide gauge data tell us a very different story. Hat-tip: reader Mary Brown.
The latest study titled: Holocene sea-level change and evolution of a mixed coral reef and mangrove system at Iriomote Island, southwest Japan, by Yamano et al tells us that sea levels were more than 1 meter higher 5100 to 3600 years ago than they are today they, or 0.4 meters when corrected for tectonics.
The paper’s abstract follows:
Exposed fossil microatolls and core samples from a coral reef and a mangrove forest at the Yutsun River mouth, Iriomote Island, southwest Japan, reveal the internal structure and temporal changes in the sedimentary processes of a mixed reef–mangrove system. Evidence from the core samples and fossil microatolls suggests sea level reached its present position before 5100 cal yr B.P., and a relative sea-level highstand of 1.1–1.2 m above the present sea level occurred from 5100 to 3600 cal yr B.P. This was followed by a gradual fall in relative sea level. The tectonically corrected sea-level curve indicates a stable sea level after 5100 cal yr BP., with a sea-level highstand of up to 0.4 m between 5100 and 3600 cal yr B.P.
A nearshore reef dominated by massive Porites and arborescent Acropora initially developed at 6500–3900 cal yr B.P. Reef development was potentially terminated by relative sea-level fall and sediment discharge from the Yutsun River that affected the backreef environment. An offshore coral reef reached present-day sea level by 1000 cal yr B.P., forming a wave break that enabled the foundation of mangrove forest on the fringing reef after ∼1000 cal yr B.P. The reef development was significantly delayed compared with other coral reefs in the region with similar medium-to high-energy conditions, but it provided a calm environment in the backreef area that allowed the development of mangroves. These features demonstrate the chronology and causal relationship between coral reef and mangrove development under the influence of Holocene sea-level change and river discharge.”
The peer-reviewed study is yet more cold water on the heated alarmist claims of a rapidly accelerating sea level rise.
NOAA: tide gauges measure only 1.7 – 1.8 mm
Tide gauges are also showing a much slower sea level rise. Just recently the NOAA here announced that had adjusted its tide gauge data for 2018 and now says the average global sea level rise rate is only 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, as opposed to satellite data which show a rise of over 3 mm per year.
Naturally, the tide gauge data are more crucial because they measure sea level rise at the coast where people actually live.
According to sunshinehours.net:
That’s a measly 5.6 inches by 2100.
The map of relative sea level trends provides an overview of variations in the rates of local sea level change at long-term tide stations (based on a minimum of 30 years of data in order to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on monthly mean sea level).
The variations in sea level trends seen here primarily reflect differences in rates and sources of vertical land motion.
Areas experiencing little-to-no change in relative sea level are illustrated in green, including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. These are stations not experiencing significant vertical land motion.“
15 responses to “New Study Shows Sea Level Near In Western Pacific Was 0.4 Meters Higher 3600 Years Ago Than Today”
It seems there is not metric or area where nefarious activities are not going on when it comes to measuring climate. Here is one from Anthony Watts concerning the Palmer Drought Index:
Not really 0.4m higher. 1.1 -1.2m higher is what the sea vs land observer experienced. Tge 0.4 is after geostatic rebound, a mathematical concept, not an experienced thing (and a calculated estimate based on models!!).
BTW when I was in Abu Dhabi I saw shallow offshore or beach deposits 1 -2m above the current sea level kilometers inland, where previous studies said the shoreline was up to 17 km inland 3000 years ago.
1.7 – 1.8 mm/yr may be on the high side.
See from where video begins to t=42.8
The value is closer to 0.7 mm/yr
Even if it’s slightly higher, it’s not going to be catastrophic.
In this paper (you can search for “0.7” to find where it’s referenced) we are told that, while possibly slightly greater, that is the most likely upper limit.
Link that goes with last paragraph of my “Yonason 10. March 2019 at 10:11 AM” – when it’s approved.
And, as to ocean heat content. They have their top people working on it.
(Looks like Scott Adams is getting up to speed on how climate alarmist “scientists” generate their data.)
Yeah right, of course there are many many super cold pockets of ocean that don’t get measured and thus the warming from those places where sensors are located isn’t real, right?
So how does this work for the tide gauge data above? Those “sensors” aren’t covering all coasts, right? Or reconstructions that get presented here? One location to infer the sea level (or another metric) development of a whole region? How do you guys do this?
@Kenneth: you do know what satellites are measuring, right? The whole ocean surface altitude relative to the center of the planet. That correlates with the increase in the volume of the oceans. Oh and you forgot to mention that the sea level rise is not global … some regions observe a decrease in sea levels 😉
How did I forget to mention something? I haven’t commented here. I didn’t write the article.
Why would the idea that sea level rise is not global be news?
65% of tide gauges show either stable or declining sea level trends.
Pardon me, since this is usually your topic I automatically thought this comes from you, Kenneth.
That is not the case with the linked tide gauge data in this article.
Naturally. No need to engage your brain before responding, as usual. It was just your usual knee-JERK reaction. 😉
found a nice read here:
Interesting points to be taken seriously. Also would mean that we should look in certain spots and not everywhere!
There goes SebH with another of his straw man arguments. It’s as if logical fallacies are so hard wired into his brain that he can’t “think” without them.
Roy Spencer gives a brief overview of the dynamics of ocean heating/cooling, and why even if we could dramatically improve our measurement of heat content, it probable wouldn’t help the warmists’ case – here.
So … you do expect there to be cold pockets of ocean that haven’t been measured by the sensor grid? Or is this another instance of a skeptic explaining to the world that they are being lied to and all the data would be fake anyways?
There is no “warmist case”. There is what science found out is happening and then there are weird internet people following their imaginations or in your case make it a partisan thing about left vs. right. As if right leaning people have to automatically oppose science or really anything that make sense to do as a global civilization …
You really ARE trapped in a logical fallacy mentality, aren’t you?
You either didn’t read what Dr. Spencer wrote, or didn’t understand it.
“The average [ocean] temperature distribution we see is the net result of these different, competing processes. And so, a change in ANY of these processes can cause surface warming or cooling, without any radiative forcing of the climate system whatsoever.”
There isn’t enough information to tell you what’s causing what, or why. To claim there is, isn’t science, it’s pure fantasy.
“There is no “warmist case”. There is what science found out is happening…” – SebH(ysterical) the faithful drone.
Well, you’re right about there being “no warmist case.” And that’s because they are activists pretending to be scientists. What SebH calls “science” is nothing but unsupported idle speculation. Either SebH isn’t smart enough to know why that’s true, or he knows and is lying to us. Either way it doesn’t speak well for him.
I will believe sea levels are rising when the ocean reaches the wall at Bondi Beach.
I would rate that as a one in a billion chance.
Here’s an informative piece recommended by a poster over at Roy Spencer’s blog.
Sea level isn’t as simple as the simple activist minds want you to believe. Nor is there any reason to be alarmed by natural sea level change.