Rising Sea Levels Reshape Miami’s Housing Market

[Pete7469]

Let me get this straight...

Sands, that shift, erode, and piles back up with ocean currents are proof of globull warning sea level rise, yet the constant water levels that have not risen an inch at NY Harbor, Boston Harbor, Venice or anywhere else should be ignored?

You bed wetters do know that the North Pole is an ice sheet that actually displaces more water by volume? If it melted entirely the ocean levels would recede.

Wait....

I apologize. I used the term "know" in reference to libtards.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This Abu fella fails to understand that these cities he is wailing over were founded in high risk places to start with, Miami is on a shallow state land with a long history of massive storms going over it.

We used to have Doggerland, Bering's land bridge and more earlier in the Holocene.

The sea increase has been slow and unsurprising since we have been warming up since the END of the LIA phase.

He also can't seem to grasp the difference between sinking land and rising seas either...all one need do is look at historic photographs going back to the 1800s of the shorelines in those areas to see that there has been little, if any change.

Yeah, he makes clear he doesn't read them since those papers I posted already addresses it, to come up with a number that is HIGHER than now.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The following nations coastlines covered in the papers I posted:

South Korea
Northern Ireland
Northern Philippine Sea
Thailand
Southern China
Caribbean
Denmark
Scotland
Persian Gulf
South Vietnam
Guam
South Africa

There are many more, but I see that you are a typical brain dead warmist loon, who has made it clear you are determined ignore what the papers says.

See the quote in my sig regarding an unwillingness to debate facts because they have consensus? That describes the mind set of most of these brain dead wack jobs...they couldn't think for themselves if their lives depended on it and they believe that anyone who can tack a couple of letters behind their signature is inherently smarter than they are so they believe that relieves them of the responsibility to actually think.

I get a crick in my hand, whipping up refutations to their silly stuff.

Consensus are often wrong, but he is too ignorant to know this.

 

[abu afak]

Let me get this straight...

Sands, that shift, erode, and piles back up with ocean currents are proof of globull warning sea level rise,yet the constant water levels that have not risen an inch at NY Harbor, Boston Harbor, Venice or anywhere else should be ignored?
...

Too stupid to believe.
This is just a Giant Premise error/LIE/Piece of Con-tard ignorance.
Where did you get the claim "sea level hasn't risen an inch at NY Harbor, Boston or Venice"... you ******* Moron?

XXXX - Mod Edit

I mean, we're talking completely UNeducated (or someone used to getting away with Trump-like 'Big Lies') here.

XXXX -- Mod Edit -- Need more topic. Less personal..
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

duplicate

What is funny about my post with a number of published science papers showing higher sea levels earlier in the Holocene?

It's anecdotal. Duih.
`

The papers?

Here are more you plan to ignore?

Marwick et al., 2017 (full paper) Thailand, +4 to +5 m higher than present

“Sinsakul (1992) has summarised 56 radiocarbon dates of shell and peat from beach and tidal locations to estimate a Holocene sea level curve for peninsula Thailand that starts with a steady rise in sea level until about 6 k BP, reaching a height of +4 m amsl (above [present]mean sea level). Sea levels then regressed until 4.7 k BP, then rising again to 2.5 m amsl at about 4 k BP. From 3.7 k to 2.7 k BP there was a regressive phase, with transgression starting again at 2.7 k BP to a maximum of 2 m amsl at 2.5 k BP. Regression continued from that time until the present sea levels were reached at 1.5 k BP. … Tjia (1996) collected over 130 radiocarbon ages from geological deposits of shell in abrasion platforms, sea-level notches and oyster beds and identified a +5 m [above present] highstand at ca. 5 k BP in the Thai-Malay Peninsula. … Sathiamurthy and Voris (2006) summarise the evidence described above as indicating that between 6 and 4.2 k BP, the sea level rose from 0 m to +5 m [above present] along the Sunda Shelf [+2.8 mm/yr], marking the regional mid-Holocene highstand. Following this highstand, the sea level fell gradually and reached the modern level at about 1 k BP.”

and,

Jiang et al., 2017 Southern China, +2.4 to +4.26 m higher than present

“[T]hree coastal sediments with 4 m, 3.7 m, and 2 m higher than present sea-level were deposited at 2.40 ± 0.05 ka, 2.92 ± 0.17 ka, and 4.26 ± 0.10 ka, respectively [2,400, 2,920, and 4,260 years before present], which indicate that the height of highstand relative sea-level are higher than both mean global sea-level eustacy and those records offshore southern China. … In conclusion, a beach ridge and two marine terraces sediments have been dated at eastern Hainan Island. They were well bleached and can be taken as good indicators of paleo-RSL [relative sea level] highstand records of late Holocene. Three highstand RSL [relative sea level] events occurred at 0.02-0.05 ka [200-500 years ago], 2.40-2.92 ka [2,400 to 2,920 years ago] and ~4.26 ka [4,260 years ago] with the sea-level heights of 0.5-1.5 m, 4 m, 3.7-4.0 m and 2 m [above present levels],respectively. The height of highstand RSLs are higher than both mean global sea-level euastacy and those of offshore southern China.”

and,

Khan et al., 2017 Caribbean, ~+1 m above present (rate: 1.09 meters per century)

“Only Suriname and Guyana [Caribbean] exhibited higher RSL[relative sea level] than present (82% probability), reaching a maximum height of ∼1 m [above present] at 5.2 ka [5,200 years ago]. … Because of meltwater input, the rates of RSL [relative sea level] change were highest during the early Holocene, with a maximum of 10.9 ± 0.6 m/ka [1.09 meters per century] in Suriname and Guyana and minimum of 7.4 ± 0.7 m/ka [0.74 meters per century] in south Florida from 12 to 8 ka [12,000 to 8,000 years ago].”

and,

Sander et al., 2016 Denmark, +2.2 m higher than present

“The data show a period of RSL [relative sea level] highstand at c. 2.2 m above present MSL [mean sea level] between c. 5.0 and 4.0 ka BP [5,000 to 4,000 years before present]. “

and,

Long et al., 2016 Scotland, < +1 m higher than present

“RSL [relative sea level] data from Loch Eriboll and the Wick River Valley show that RSL [relative sea level] was <1 m above present for several thousand years during the mid and late Holocene before it fell to present.”

and,

Lokier et al., 2015 Persian Gulf, > +1 m above present

“Mid-Holocene transgression of the Gulf surpassed today’s sea level by 7100–6890 cal yr BP [~7000 years ago], attaining a highstand of > 1 m above current sea level shortly after 5290–4570 cal yr BP before falling back to current levels by 1440–1170 cal yr BP. These new ages refine previously reported timings for the mid- to late Holocene sea-level highstand published for other regions.”

and,

Stategger et al., 2013 South Vietnam, +1.4 m higher than present

“The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above +1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to +1.5 m around 6.0 ka.”

and,

Carson, 2011 Guam, Western Pacific, +1.5 to +2 m higher than present

“The case study in Guam may be viewed as representative of a broader region of the Remote Oceanic islands in the western Pacific, where first human settlement occurred around 1500-1000 B.C. (Bellwood, 1997; Kirch, 2000, 2010; Spriggs, 2007), generally at sites that today are broad sandy beaches but once had been small offshore islets, sand berms or spits, narrow beach fringes, and strand-like swampy settings around the end of a mid-Holocene highstand of sea level about 1.5-2 m above the present level (Carson, 2008a, 2008b; Dickinson and Burley, 2007; Gosden and Webb, 1994; Kirch, 1997; Nunn, 2005, 2007; Wickler, 2001).”

and,

Wündsch et al., 2018 South Africa, +3 m higher than present

“Holocene sea level reconstructions suggest a reduction of the speed of the sea level rise during this time [~7900–6400 cal BP]. The sea level likely reached and exceeded the height of the PSL [present sea level] by as much as 3 m .”

Is that enough for you?

Now have covered many nations coastlines in my two paper filled postings.

I have a lot more.

Your new, and apparently Bury-em-with BS (Probably PLAGIARIZED from some denier Blog like WUWT. ) reply, does NOT change my last post Porking your Link Dump. No, size does NOT count clown.

It's anecdotal/local and omits/ignores ie, tectonic/subsidence forces. Duh.
What is clear is sea level is rising GLOBALLY Now, and at an increasing rate.
(And of course, the OP claim was for Miami and S-E, and it's relatively faster rate)​

`

You are too stupid to notice that the published papers already accounts for tectonic/subsidence changes, like in the very first paper you ignored in post #31

Abstract
Understanding past relative sea-level (RSL) changes is crucial for predicting future coastal evolution, particularly within the context of accelerated melting of polar ice sheets due to global warming. RSL records are scarce in many regions along the Pacific coast. Here, we present a Holocene RSL curve for the west coast of South Korea based on detailed analyses of four sediment cores and the synthesis of existing sea-level index points without correction by tectonic, sediment compaction and other effects. Our record shows that the local sea level rose rapidly during the early Holocene and then fell gradually toward the present position during the late Holocene. An apparent sea-level highstand of ca. 1–2 m occurred 7–4 cal kyr B.P. A rapid sea-level rise of ~1.4 cm yr−1 during the early Holocene is a manifestation of polar ice sheet decay, while the apparent mid-Holocene sea-level highstand appears to be a signal of the hydro-isostasy of the far-field continental shelf. The result was confirmed by a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model. Holocene RSL change on the west coast of South Korea was closely linked to global temperature and ice sheet decay, especially during the early Holocene. There is a close relationship between sea-level change in the study area and Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) decay."

Stop being a stupid man!

 

[abu afak]

duplicate

What is funny about my post with a number of published science papers showing higher sea levels earlier in the Holocene?

It's anecdotal. Duih.
`

The papers?

Here are more you plan to ignore?

Marwick et al., 2017 (full paper) Thailand, +4 to +5 m higher than present

“Sinsakul (1992) has summarised 56 radiocarbon dates of shell and peat from beach and tidal locations to estimate a Holocene sea level curve for peninsula Thailand that starts with a steady rise in sea level until about 6 k BP, reaching a height of +4 m amsl (above [present]mean sea level). Sea levels then regressed until 4.7 k BP, then rising again to 2.5 m amsl at about 4 k BP. From 3.7 k to 2.7 k BP there was a regressive phase, with transgression starting again at 2.7 k BP to a maximum of 2 m amsl at 2.5 k BP. Regression continued from that time until the present sea levels were reached at 1.5 k BP. … Tjia (1996) collected over 130 radiocarbon ages from geological deposits of shell in abrasion platforms, sea-level notches and oyster beds and identified a +5 m [above present] highstand at ca. 5 k BP in the Thai-Malay Peninsula. … Sathiamurthy and Voris (2006) summarise the evidence described above as indicating that between 6 and 4.2 k BP, the sea level rose from 0 m to +5 m [above present] along the Sunda Shelf [+2.8 mm/yr], marking the regional mid-Holocene highstand. Following this highstand, the sea level fell gradually and reached the modern level at about 1 k BP.”

and,

Jiang et al., 2017 Southern China, +2.4 to +4.26 m higher than present

“[T]hree coastal sediments with 4 m, 3.7 m, and 2 m higher than present sea-level were deposited at 2.40 ± 0.05 ka, 2.92 ± 0.17 ka, and 4.26 ± 0.10 ka, respectively [2,400, 2,920, and 4,260 years before present], which indicate that the height of highstand relative sea-level are higher than both mean global sea-level eustacy and those records offshore southern China. … In conclusion, a beach ridge and two marine terraces sediments have been dated at eastern Hainan Island. They were well bleached and can be taken as good indicators of paleo-RSL [relative sea level] highstand records of late Holocene. Three highstand RSL [relative sea level] events occurred at 0.02-0.05 ka [200-500 years ago], 2.40-2.92 ka [2,400 to 2,920 years ago] and ~4.26 ka [4,260 years ago] with the sea-level heights of 0.5-1.5 m, 4 m, 3.7-4.0 m and 2 m [above present levels],respectively. The height of highstand RSLs are higher than both mean global sea-level euastacy and those of offshore southern China.”

and,

Khan et al., 2017 Caribbean, ~+1 m above present (rate: 1.09 meters per century)

“Only Suriname and Guyana [Caribbean] exhibited higher RSL[relative sea level] than present (82% probability), reaching a maximum height of ∼1 m [above present] at 5.2 ka [5,200 years ago]. … Because of meltwater input, the rates of RSL [relative sea level] change were highest during the early Holocene, with a maximum of 10.9 ± 0.6 m/ka [1.09 meters per century] in Suriname and Guyana and minimum of 7.4 ± 0.7 m/ka [0.74 meters per century] in south Florida from 12 to 8 ka [12,000 to 8,000 years ago].”

and,

Sander et al., 2016 Denmark, +2.2 m higher than present

“The data show a period of RSL [relative sea level] highstand at c. 2.2 m above present MSL [mean sea level] between c. 5.0 and 4.0 ka BP [5,000 to 4,000 years before present]. “

and,

Long et al., 2016 Scotland, < +1 m higher than present

“RSL [relative sea level] data from Loch Eriboll and the Wick River Valley show that RSL [relative sea level] was <1 m above present for several thousand years during the mid and late Holocene before it fell to present.”

and,

Lokier et al., 2015 Persian Gulf, > +1 m above present

“Mid-Holocene transgression of the Gulf surpassed today’s sea level by 7100–6890 cal yr BP [~7000 years ago], attaining a highstand of > 1 m above current sea level shortly after 5290–4570 cal yr BP before falling back to current levels by 1440–1170 cal yr BP. These new ages refine previously reported timings for the mid- to late Holocene sea-level highstand published for other regions.”

and,

Stategger et al., 2013 South Vietnam, +1.4 m higher than present

“The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above +1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to +1.5 m around 6.0 ka.”

and,

Carson, 2011 Guam, Western Pacific, +1.5 to +2 m higher than present

“The case study in Guam may be viewed as representative of a broader region of the Remote Oceanic islands in the western Pacific, where first human settlement occurred around 1500-1000 B.C. (Bellwood, 1997; Kirch, 2000, 2010; Spriggs, 2007), generally at sites that today are broad sandy beaches but once had been small offshore islets, sand berms or spits, narrow beach fringes, and strand-like swampy settings around the end of a mid-Holocene highstand of sea level about 1.5-2 m above the present level (Carson, 2008a, 2008b; Dickinson and Burley, 2007; Gosden and Webb, 1994; Kirch, 1997; Nunn, 2005, 2007; Wickler, 2001).”

and,

Wündsch et al., 2018 South Africa, +3 m higher than present

“Holocene sea level reconstructions suggest a reduction of the speed of the sea level rise during this time [~7900–6400 cal BP]. The sea level likely reached and exceeded the height of the PSL [present sea level] by as much as 3 m .”

Is that enough for you?

Now have covered many nations coastlines in my two paper filled postings.

I have a lot more.

Your new, and apparently Bury-em-with BS (Probably PLAGIARIZED from some denier Blog. ) reply, does NOT change my last post Porking your Link Dumps.

It's anecdotal/local and omits/ignores ie, tectonic/subsidence forces. Duh.
What is clear is sea level is rising GLOBALLY Now, and at an increasing rate.
(And of course, the OP claim was for Miami and S-E, and it's relatively faster rate)​

`

You are a truly stupid man, because I have a VISIBLE link for every single paper I posted, it is right there in front of you!

Here is the very first paper I posted, that you never read and will show that you are a close minded fool:

Holocene relative sea-level changes inferred from multiple proxies on the west coast of South Korea
Abstract
Understanding past relative sea-level (RSL) changes is crucial for predicting future coastal evolution, particularly within the context of accelerated melting of polar ice sheets due to global warming. RSL records are scarce in many regions along the Pacific coast. Here, we present a Holocene RSL curve for the west coast of South Korea based on detailed analyses of four sediment cores and the synthesis of existing sea-level index points without correction by tectonic, sediment compaction and other effects. Our record shows that the local sea level rose rapidly during the early Holocene and then fell gradually toward the present position during the late Holocene. An apparent sea-level highstand of ca. 1–2 m occurred 7–4 cal kyr B.P. A rapid sea-level rise of ~1.4 cm yr−1 during the early Holocene is a manifestation of polar ice sheet decay, while the apparent mid-Holocene sea-level highstand appears to be a signal of the hydro-isostasy of the far-field continental shelf. The result was confirmed by a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model. Holocene RSL change on the west coast of South Korea was closely linked to global temperature and ice sheet decay, especially during the early Holocene. There is a close relationship between sea-level change in the study area and Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) decay."

bolding mine

You said you don't like word like"may", "Might", etc.
Yet Your paper is "Inferred" form the coast of [seismic] South Korea.
WTF!

And there is No necessary relevance to Current warming of a Holocene Anomaly.
Current warming has a known Cause in Evidnce.

All those wasted/DEFLECTION posts akhmed!
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let me get this straight...

Sands, that shift, erode, and piles back up with ocean currents are proof of globull warning sea level rise,yet the constant water levels that have not risen an inch at NY Harbor, Boston Harbor, Venice or anywhere else should be ignored?
...

Too stupid to believe.
This is just a Giant Premise error/LIE/Piece of Con-tard ignorance.
Where did you get the claim "sea level hasn't risen an inch at NY Harbor, Boston or Venice"... you ******* Moron?
Reading to many of Sunsettwerp's posts?

I mean, we're talking completely UNeducated (or someone used to getting away with Trump-like 'Big Lies') here.

And everyone please note the High post count INadequacy complex of Sunsettommy.
He cant argue on topic, and tried posting volume/copying/plagiarizing, and High Frequency multi-posting as burial attempts instead.
`

No it is YOU who is TOO lazy to read the PUBLISHED science papers that covers the topic of the thread, which is about changeable sea level effects on cities.

It is hilarious that this clod actually thinks citing science research is plagiarizing/copying when the a link is provided for EACH paper, which often includes just the Abstract (a common practice), sometime quoting a section of the paper. It is well within fair use copyright laws fella.

You keep presenting evidence that you are a fool.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What is funny about my post with a number of published science papers showing higher sea levels earlier in the Holocene?

It's anecdotal. Duih.
`

The papers?

Here are more you plan to ignore?

Marwick et al., 2017 (full paper) Thailand, +4 to +5 m higher than present

“Sinsakul (1992) has summarised 56 radiocarbon dates of shell and peat from beach and tidal locations to estimate a Holocene sea level curve for peninsula Thailand that starts with a steady rise in sea level until about 6 k BP, reaching a height of +4 m amsl (above [present]mean sea level). Sea levels then regressed until 4.7 k BP, then rising again to 2.5 m amsl at about 4 k BP. From 3.7 k to 2.7 k BP there was a regressive phase, with transgression starting again at 2.7 k BP to a maximum of 2 m amsl at 2.5 k BP. Regression continued from that time until the present sea levels were reached at 1.5 k BP. … Tjia (1996) collected over 130 radiocarbon ages from geological deposits of shell in abrasion platforms, sea-level notches and oyster beds and identified a +5 m [above present] highstand at ca. 5 k BP in the Thai-Malay Peninsula. … Sathiamurthy and Voris (2006) summarise the evidence described above as indicating that between 6 and 4.2 k BP, the sea level rose from 0 m to +5 m [above present] along the Sunda Shelf [+2.8 mm/yr], marking the regional mid-Holocene highstand. Following this highstand, the sea level fell gradually and reached the modern level at about 1 k BP.”

and,

Jiang et al., 2017 Southern China, +2.4 to +4.26 m higher than present

“[T]hree coastal sediments with 4 m, 3.7 m, and 2 m higher than present sea-level were deposited at 2.40 ± 0.05 ka, 2.92 ± 0.17 ka, and 4.26 ± 0.10 ka, respectively [2,400, 2,920, and 4,260 years before present], which indicate that the height of highstand relative sea-level are higher than both mean global sea-level eustacy and those records offshore southern China. … In conclusion, a beach ridge and two marine terraces sediments have been dated at eastern Hainan Island. They were well bleached and can be taken as good indicators of paleo-RSL [relative sea level] highstand records of late Holocene. Three highstand RSL [relative sea level] events occurred at 0.02-0.05 ka [200-500 years ago], 2.40-2.92 ka [2,400 to 2,920 years ago] and ~4.26 ka [4,260 years ago] with the sea-level heights of 0.5-1.5 m, 4 m, 3.7-4.0 m and 2 m [above present levels],respectively. The height of highstand RSLs are higher than both mean global sea-level euastacy and those of offshore southern China.”

and,

Khan et al., 2017 Caribbean, ~+1 m above present (rate: 1.09 meters per century)

“Only Suriname and Guyana [Caribbean] exhibited higher RSL[relative sea level] than present (82% probability), reaching a maximum height of ∼1 m [above present] at 5.2 ka [5,200 years ago]. … Because of meltwater input, the rates of RSL [relative sea level] change were highest during the early Holocene, with a maximum of 10.9 ± 0.6 m/ka [1.09 meters per century] in Suriname and Guyana and minimum of 7.4 ± 0.7 m/ka [0.74 meters per century] in south Florida from 12 to 8 ka [12,000 to 8,000 years ago].”

and,

Sander et al., 2016 Denmark, +2.2 m higher than present

“The data show a period of RSL [relative sea level] highstand at c. 2.2 m above present MSL [mean sea level] between c. 5.0 and 4.0 ka BP [5,000 to 4,000 years before present]. “

and,

Long et al., 2016 Scotland, < +1 m higher than present

“RSL [relative sea level] data from Loch Eriboll and the Wick River Valley show that RSL [relative sea level] was <1 m above present for several thousand years during the mid and late Holocene before it fell to present.”

and,

Lokier et al., 2015 Persian Gulf, > +1 m above present

“Mid-Holocene transgression of the Gulf surpassed today’s sea level by 7100–6890 cal yr BP [~7000 years ago], attaining a highstand of > 1 m above current sea level shortly after 5290–4570 cal yr BP before falling back to current levels by 1440–1170 cal yr BP. These new ages refine previously reported timings for the mid- to late Holocene sea-level highstand published for other regions.”

and,

Stategger et al., 2013 South Vietnam, +1.4 m higher than present

“The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above +1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to +1.5 m around 6.0 ka.”

and,

Carson, 2011 Guam, Western Pacific, +1.5 to +2 m higher than present

“The case study in Guam may be viewed as representative of a broader region of the Remote Oceanic islands in the western Pacific, where first human settlement occurred around 1500-1000 B.C. (Bellwood, 1997; Kirch, 2000, 2010; Spriggs, 2007), generally at sites that today are broad sandy beaches but once had been small offshore islets, sand berms or spits, narrow beach fringes, and strand-like swampy settings around the end of a mid-Holocene highstand of sea level about 1.5-2 m above the present level (Carson, 2008a, 2008b; Dickinson and Burley, 2007; Gosden and Webb, 1994; Kirch, 1997; Nunn, 2005, 2007; Wickler, 2001).”

and,

Wündsch et al., 2018 South Africa, +3 m higher than present

“Holocene sea level reconstructions suggest a reduction of the speed of the sea level rise during this time [~7900–6400 cal BP]. The sea level likely reached and exceeded the height of the PSL [present sea level] by as much as 3 m .”

Is that enough for you?

Now have covered many nations coastlines in my two paper filled postings.

I have a lot more.

Your new, and apparently Bury-em-with BS (Probably PLAGIARIZED from some denier Blog. ) reply, does NOT change my last post Porking your Link Dumps.

It's anecdotal/local and omits/ignores ie, tectonic/subsidence forces. Duh.
What is clear is sea level is rising GLOBALLY Now, and at an increasing rate.
(And of course, the OP claim was for Miami and S-E, and it's relatively faster rate)​

`

You are a truly stupid man, because I have a VISIBLE link for every single paper I posted, it is right there in front of you!

Here is the very first paper I posted, that you never read and will show that you are a close minded fool:

Holocene relative sea-level changes inferred from multiple proxies on the west coast of South Korea
Abstract
Understanding past relative sea-level (RSL) changes is crucial for predicting future coastal evolution, particularly within the context of accelerated melting of polar ice sheets due to global warming. RSL records are scarce in many regions along the Pacific coast. Here, we present a Holocene RSL curve for the west coast of South Korea based on detailed analyses of four sediment cores and the synthesis of existing sea-level index points without correction by tectonic, sediment compaction and other effects. Our record shows that the local sea level rose rapidly during the early Holocene and then fell gradually toward the present position during the late Holocene. An apparent sea-level highstand of ca. 1–2 m occurred 7–4 cal kyr B.P. A rapid sea-level rise of ~1.4 cm yr−1 during the early Holocene is a manifestation of polar ice sheet decay, while the apparent mid-Holocene sea-level highstand appears to be a signal of the hydro-isostasy of the far-field continental shelf. The result was confirmed by a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model. Holocene RSL change on the west coast of South Korea was closely linked to global temperature and ice sheet decay, especially during the early Holocene. There is a close relationship between sea-level change in the study area and Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) decay."

bolding mine

You said you don't like word like"may", "Might", etc.
Yet Your paper is "Inferred" form the coast of [seismic] South Korea.
WTF!

And there is No necessary relevance to Current warming of a Holocene Anomaly.
Current warming has a known Cause in Evidnce.

All those wasted/DEFLECTION posts akhmed!
`

From the very first paper I have quoted TWICE now, here is the third time, to show that you didn't read it well:

"Our record shows that the local sea level rose rapidly during the early Holocene and then fell gradually toward the present position during the late Holocene."

bolding mine

By now it is clear you are anti science because you keep fighting it with your stupid evasions and accusations against me.

You are now into trolling land.

 

[abu afak]

[

No it is YOU who is TOO lazy to read the PUBLISHED science papers that covers the topic of the thread, which is about changeable sea level effects on cities.

It is hilarious that this clod actually thinks citing science research is plagiarizing/copying when the a link is provided for EACH paper, which often includes just the Abstract (a common practice), sometime quoting a section of the paper. It is well within fair use copyright laws fella.

You keep presenting evidence that you are a fool.

You never had a Point you Moron.

Your Dishonest attempt was based on the Idea that If Holocene was as warm or warmer that now, that current warming wouldn't be AGW.
Right?
Of course, that would not have affected my OP, and we know that premise is Wrong my inadequatcy complex/Dishonest clown friend.
NOAA

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

....In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming (aa: orbital changes), and we know without doubt that this proven "Astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.​

There goes ALL of your posts.
It's Sunset for Tommy.
Blow Me!
Bye!

 

[Sunsettommy]

The first working links summary:

"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

bolding mine

There you go making a fool of yourself .... again.

 

[abu afak]

Again:
Your Dishonest attempt was based on the Idea that If Holocene was as warm or warmer that now, that current warming wouldn't be AGW.
Right?
Of course, that would not have affected my OP, and we know that premise is Wrong my inadequatcy complex/Dishonest clown friend.
NOAA

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

....In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming (aa: orbital changes), and we know without doubt that this proven "Astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.​

There goes ALL of your posts/fake volume.
All those Cut-and-Pastes, Link dumping etc. All for naught.
Blow Me!

And that takes out virtually all the other 'natural' Clowns as well.
A 100% rebuttal.

Keep Digging Junior.

EDIT:
Note Pete4769 immediately below did not answer my rebuttal of his post on the last page.
The No-Brain FRAUD is just low-fiving/Licking SunsetTommy's lost cause instead.

(while SunsetTommy tries to figure out another stupid last-word post to save his wittle ego)
Gameover.

 

[Pete7469]

No it is YOU who is TOO lazy to read the PUBLISHED science papers that covers the topic of the thread, which is about changeable sea level effects on cities.

It is hilarious that this clod actually thinks citing science research is plagiarizing/copying when the a link is provided for EACH paper, which often includes just the Abstract (a common practice), sometime quoting a section of the paper. It is well within fair use copyright laws fella.

You keep presenting evidence that you are a fool.

Just a quick point on this.

Bed wetters like the OP do not and cannot "think".

"Thinking"; the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts

Bed wetters lack a functioning frontal lobe. While it has yet to be determined if some of them suffer from a birth defect, or if their frontal lobes withered away and died from a lack of use, it is clear we are dealing with "people" that are basically brain dead drones. They seem to function normally in that some of them are employed and perform menial labor in exchange for financial sustainment, they resent doing so and have been programmed to call it exploitation.

These are not cognizant people like you and I that are capable of learning or solving problems.

I just don't want you to get too caught up in trying to reason with them, or spend an unnecessary amount of time attempting to change their opinion with facts or logic.


.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No it is YOU who is TOO lazy to read the PUBLISHED science papers that covers the topic of the thread, which is about changeable sea level effects on cities.

It is hilarious that this clod actually thinks citing science research is plagiarizing/copying when the a link is provided for EACH paper, which often includes just the Abstract (a common practice), sometime quoting a section of the paper. It is well within fair use copyright laws fella.

You keep presenting evidence that you are a fool.

Just a quick point on this.

Bed wetters like the OP do not and cannot "think".

"Thinking"; the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts

Bed wetters lack a functioning frontal lobe. While it has yet to be determined if some of them suffer from a birth defect, or if their frontal lobes withered away and died from a lack of use, it is clear we are dealing with "people" that are basically brain dead drones. They seem to function normally in that some of them are employed and perform menial labor in exchange for financial sustainment, they resent doing so and have been programmed to call it exploitation.

These are not cognizant people like you and I that are capable of learning or solving problems.

I just don't want you to get too caught up in trying to reason with them, or spend an unnecessary amount of time attempting to change their opinion with facts or logic.


.

I do it to expose their shallow arguments with published science papers, then watch them ignore those published papers to defend the Media article or go to a warmist blog for half baked arguments to quote from.

I have been in climate science stuff since the 1970's, therefore it has become easy for me to spot the B.S. they spew out every day. I want to help others who visit here or lurk here, to think rationally and read the published science papers, the arguments about how poor the AGW conjecture really is using the IPCC's own words against them.

There have been several well DEMONSTRATED modeling failures already, which is enough for the honest scientists to drop the AGW crap and go on into something else.

 

[Pete7469]

EDIT:
Note Pete4769 immediately below did not answer my rebuttal of his post on the last page.
The No-Brain FRAUD is just low-fiving/Licking SunsetTommy's lost cause instead.

(while SunsetTommy tries to figure out another stupid last-word post to save his wittle ego)

That's because I'm ignoring you. I might happen to run across something you post from time to time and take the opportunity to ridicule you, but I'm not going to waste time trying to educate a goldfish.

I've diagnosed your problem in another post explaining why.

The globull warning hoax has been thoroughly debunked in numerous threads and I'm not here to continue beating that dead horse. I'm here to mock and ridicule mindless parasites like you for my own amusement.


.

 

[Pete7469]

I do it to expose their shallow arguments with published science papers, then watch them ignore those published papers to defend the Media article or go to a warmist blog for half baked arguments to quote from.

I have been in climate science stuff since the 1970's, therefore it has become easy for me to spot the B.S. they spew out every day. I want to help others who visit here or lurk here, to think rationally and read the published science papers, the arguments about how poor the AGW conjecture really is using the IPCC's own words against them.

There have several well DEMONSTRATED modeling failures already, which is enough for the honest scientists to drop the AGW crap and go on into something else.

I applaud your efforts.

When I was in my late teens I was an obnoxious environmental activist. I called anyone who disagreed a "nazi" (even though I was a socialist who condemned "jewish banksters" myself).

Once I took the time to research the subjects on my own I determined that I had been programmed. Some people do wake up, some refuse to. Leftists are genuinely and deliberately ignorant. My transformation happened shortly after the globull warning hoax was in full swing. Before that it was the ozone hole, and acid rain wiping out all of humanity. This was also before the internet was available, at least for me. I had to go to this place called a "Library", find these old artifacts called "books" and read them.

It is good that you're willing to spend the time and post logic, facts, and reasonable skepticism so that people who do have functioning frontal lobes can make their own conclusions. However if after several pages of links and counter-arguments you don't need to keep beating a dead horse to "deader". No matter what, the bed wetter will continue to strut around like a pigeon shitting all over the place and declare victory simply because it didn't have the ability to process the information.


.

 

[abu afak]

I have stopped replying him too, he has been Reported for a Serious Accusation he made against me.

Really?
What "serious accusation"?
Alas, I already documented it.
Somehow vanished, at least temporarily. But you saw it and had no reply/defense.

Where did your posts #21, #28, come/get copied from?
Would it be here? (or the like) Or did you read and excerpt the same studies identically and in sequence!?!
2m Higher Holocene Sea Levels
Where's the LINK?

Copied for future reposting if necessary.
`

 

[flacaltenn]

Sea Level Rise Will Flood Hundreds of Cities in the Near Future

Many shore communities in the U.S. face inundation in the coming decades.
Sea Level Rise Will Flood Hundreds of Cities in the Near Future
National Geographic - July 2017
`

Almost every assertion in that article and the LINKED articles is debateable and indeed IS being debated. The wild frenzy about "Antarctica Melting" is NOT due to surface temps. It''s due to fractures in ice shelves due to glacial motion. In FACT -- the Sea Surf Temp at Pine Island Glacier (ground zero for the panic) looks like this.

And the satellite surface air avg for Antarctica over the entire PERIOD of satellite measurement looks like this.

IN FACT -- the better explanation for calving of those shelves is that Pine Island and the REST of the west peninsula glaciers are positioned RIGHT ON TOP of active volcanic fractures. A fact that has gotten CLEARER in past 15 years or so..

But every paper you read about PIG will ADMIT that the studies of the FOOTING for this glacier are uncertain and IT SEEMS that the geology underlying the footing has been PRONE to slippage for quite some time.

All panic -- little "consensus"....

 

[deanrd]

It's all lies.

Sea levels don't change. Ask the Republicans. They know.

 

[Pete7469]

It's all lies.

Sea levels don't change. Ask the Republicans. They know.

Look at Venice.

Then EVERYONE knows.

Imbecile.

The earthworms along the cap metro rail await their nitrogen you piece of shit.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

A couple mods have been in here trimming on the personal exchanges. Stick to topic. Lay off the personal. It's actually a good discussion. Don't ruin it. .