It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exceptional Rise in Ancient Sea Levels Revealed

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I've seen this before

I have a few questions with regards to Neanderthals and Denisovans that it doesn't really cover in details. I believe there is more to the story of the interactions and interbreeding and what they both and possibly other yet to be named and discovered may have contributed to our species and history on the whole.




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hans...

Thanks for the quick reply.

1,200 years give or take is as you know not very long geologically speaking. Let's consider my hypothesis that these events occurred sometimes rapidly and sometimes as been accepted slowly over years. Why couldn't these events have happened in both manners just that the remaining physical evidence is hard to distinguish between to two?

I believe all the events [and I have more but have not presented] are linked or are at the very least very closely related.


edit on 7-6-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


I actually think this the key, as WHOI indicated in their research. Some areas experienced rapid and far reaching sea level change, others experienced more gradual, manageable change. They evidenced this with rate of vegetation change, recorded in sea bed sediments, etc at various locations around the globe.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Yes its probably a crude implement in understanding what happened back then, however the end of the story is known even though we cannot read the words with precision, the water rose, if people were living there they moved away or we lost.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
A comet impact could have substantially raised sea levels. We have observed comets that contain ocean water, and many scientists theorize that our oceans on earth originally came from comet impacts, so it's very possible that an impact could do this. Perhaps the comet impact is actually what triggered the end of the last ice age. It would probably be connected with several floods which were reported by legends.
edit on 8-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
A comet impact could have substantially raised sea levels. We have observed comets that contain ocean water, and many scientists theorize that our oceans on earth originally came from comet impacts, so it's very possible that an impact could do this. Perhaps the comet impact is actually what triggered the end of the last ice age. It would probably be connected with several floods which were reported by legends.
edit on 8-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Over two-thirds of the water on the planet is estimated to have come from impacts from comets, but also, a large comet impact would have created, depending upon where it hit, a chain reaction of seismic and vulcanic activity, which could just as easily have led to a nuclear winter. There are a number of crater sites in the Near East but most of them are reasonably small, having broken up during entry to the atmosphere creating a spread impact, and they are, the ones that have been found and studied too small, but, further north, one hidden under ice (another of Dan Brown's novels, Deception Point, springs to mind)...who knows it could have set off a reaction that led to rapid defreeze and flooding, but most comets, those carrying water, don't do so sufficently to add more water in one go, and instead, tend to disperse it at high altitudes. I personally feel, that there is an argument to be had, that the atmosphere itself has evolved, defensively, to combat such impacts, or alternatively, that existent comets, have since their creation, lost much of the water they were carrying...but a big one certainly could have caused some localised flooding. I think though it is reasonably unlikely, all things considered.

But good point either way and well worth raising



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


Ocean impacts by celestial objects could be the source events for several regionalized flood myths, certain native American myths may recall the proposed impact on the Laurentide ice sheet some 12 k years ago, that would have caused a massive meltwater pulse. Another,possible impact that resulted in flooding and myth making is the proposed burkle crater impact in the Indian ocean, that would have been contemporary with event that led to flood tale that made its way into the bible via sumerian records.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


You may find this of interest Punkinworks

The floods of Mesopotamia



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
A few years ago I read about the Dogger people. A Mesolithic community who lived in the lowlands off the east coast of the UK.
They got flooded out over time as the sea level rose until their land was entirely swallowed by the North Sea.
whoflungdung.hubpages.com...

Worth a read, as it ties in with a fair bit of the old flood myths.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Someone explain to me why there are not more fish?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


You may find this of interest Punkinworks

The floods of Mesopotamia
thanks for that Hans, it was an awsome read.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Some of us believe that the sea level rose rapidly at times possibly forcing ancient man from his then coastal cities or villages to move inland up fresh water river valleys to start again possibly founding some of our oldest cultures/civilization while those possible ancient cities/villages lie submerged to this day.

Your thoughts?


The largest increase, known by paleoclimatologists as 'Melt-Water Pulse 1A', proved to be enigmatic in many respects.


I'll be blunt. The research team that did the study has got to be wrong. They put the scale at minus -120 meters at the LGM. They start their clock at 14,650 years ago and claim that sea levels rose 14 meters in 350 years. Which means that they are claiming that sea levels were 106 meters 14,300 years ago. That just doesn't match up with Paleolithic archeology, nor the first maritime groups that invented boats.

I'd have to agree with the other team arguing against it. That the figures are off.

There's always a problem with trying to date the sea levels with underwater finds. Sometimes I think groups do it on purpose, as if they have Noah's Ark stuck in their mind and think of an instant flood across the world. Only that Bible story never happened. It was a slow and gradual sea rise over 14,000 years.

I'll give two examples of problems with dating the flooding coastlines from underwater means.

Example #1: Lambeck et al

Lambeck and his team claimed to collect underwater material to date when the coasts flooded. Their conclusion based on their "scientific" research was that allegedly sea levels were minus -5 meters at the bronze age and allegedly sea levels were at present levels in Ancient Greece.

Problem with Lambeck et al
Their alleged scientific data doesn't match up with known underwater archeological finds. The Roman built section of Alexandria sits between minus -12 to -8 meters on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. In Sicily, a city destroyed by the Romans sits at minus -12 meters off the coast of Favignana island. So.. Roman Empire coastlines were definitely -12 to -8 meters with known underwater archeological finds... so how can Lambeck et al claim to have gathered underwater materials to "date" them placing the coast at 5 meters below present at the bronze age?

Obviously Lambeck's underwater dating methods have to be wrong. Roman Empire Coastline was -12 meters to -8 meters. Ancient Greece would be roughly minus -12 meters to -18 meters. Sea levels were roughly minus -20 meters c. 1000 BCE to before the Archaic Age (based on Cambay Bay finds at -20 meters). And so forth...

Pottery at the Sunken Site of Dwaraka in the Bay of Cambay

Some people tried different dating methods by bringing up pottery found in the Bay of Cambay in the sunken city of Dwaraka. Except, when they tried to date the pottery it doesn't match up with known pottery periods of the same style on land. In some cases the pottery brought up and dated were thousands of years younger than the same pottery style dated on land. What happened?

Most likely when they brought up the pottery, there had been underwater microorganisms living on them. Thus when they dated the pottery, they were also dating all the microorganisms that had lived on them under the sea. The end result is that they appeared to be thousands of years younger than the same pottery styles dated on land.

------------

I take some of these underwater dating methods with a grain of salt sometimes. Some of them get really skewed and don't match up with known land archeology.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
If I recall a show I watched correctly on Egypt, isn't there a whole area or two under water from the higher tides?
If I recall one is on the coast and the other affected the Nile.They had divers bringing up artifacts and many are to large to lift.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
How often is an ice age?

How long has modern man existed?

How old is our oldest cultures & civilizations?


Ice Ages have occurred in cycles ever since the dinosaurs. The freeze peak to melt and back to the freeze peak happens approximately every 120,000-125,000 years. Same roughly for each melt peak. Right now we are in a melt. The last melt was the Eemian Melt about 125,000 years ago.

Each freeze isn't necessarily the same temperatures. Some freezes had more mild temperatures than others. Some melts were warmer than the present melt, some melts were cooler than the present melt.

That means that sea levels might not be the same for each freeze and each melt cycle. During the Eemian melt, sea levels were a minimum of 6 meters up to 15 meters higher than present sea levels. There were previous freezes where sea levels dropped below the Last Glacial freeze. So it fluctuates each 125,000 year cycle.

Modern man or homo sapiens sapiens is said to have surface between 35,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago (with the larger cranium). However, the previous species which is just regular homo sapiens had been around for millions of years.

The main factor of human evolution, in my opinion, is that during each freeze there's land bridges to islands on all continents. And during each melt humans were stuck on those islands evolving differently than the mainland groups. Then each freeze would happen again and those human groups stuck on islands would rejoin the land groups bringing in new genes that they had developed while stuck on islands in a concentrated environment.

The appearance of modern man with the larger cranium or homo sapiens sapiens appears when sea levels are about minus -80 meters, suggesting that the new influx of genes came off the groups of humans stuck on islands at the Eemian melt. So when the big glacial freeze began and sea levels dropped 50,000 years ago, land bridges to the islands opened up and new sets of human genes came off the islands onto the mainland.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
I'm talking cultural not geologically, for a culture that is long time for geology a mere flick. I would suspect that surges of water would still have been restrained, especially those thousands of miles away from the point of the waters entry. Additionally people rarely live right at the waters edge , they also tend to have contacts or food resources inland.


?? Hanslune, I'm surprised that you think this or maybe it was just worded wrong.

The opposite is true. The bulk of the world's population lives along the coasts all over the planet. I think the figure is somewhere between 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the world's population lives along the coasts. The minority of people live inland.

Even today, some land lover like from Iowa goes to California... sees the coast and falls in love with the ocean and moves. There's something about the human species that they fall in love with the ocean.

The irony is that in the past, land lovers who flocked to the coast used to come up with the mythology that the sea was the "end of the world", hence, all the flat world mythology. They'd move to the coast and fall in love with the sea, but thought that they'd drop off the planet if they went out into the sea. Human minds are an odd thing.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
There is only ONE Atlantis. The story is Greek, not English, not South American, not Indian, not Chinese, not Japanese, not American. The story is GREEK, and only Greek, about an island colony that built Athina/Athens as told in a play by the GREEK playwright Plato.

Every nincompoop on the planet has tried to twist the GREEK story to fit their non-Greek nationality, when the story only pertains to the Greeks and no one else but the Greeks. The worst offenders of twisting the story were the British aristocracy of the 1800s who translated the Greek into English. Nor does the story pertain to South nor Central America (even if the Greek was botched in its translation into English).

The story is Greek, it's a Greek island. The original language of the story is Greek. So, everyone needs to stop claiming the story is about all these other places and stop insulting the Greeks. There are plenty of sunken cities and sunken coastlines and sunken islands, but there was only ONE Greek Atlas/Atlantis.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MapMistress

?? Hanslune, I'm surprised that you think this or maybe it was just worded wrong.

The opposite is true. The bulk of the world's population lives along the coasts all over the planet. I think the figure is somewhere between 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the world's population lives along the coasts. The minority of people live inland.


Yes in the modern world, you need to think back to the time period we are talking about. Just look where the earliest civilizations were, on rivers.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 


With a few exceptions sea coasts are notoriously hard to make a living along,very much so the more primative the society. To quote a famous poem" Water, water everywhere and not drop to drink." that statement is very true for most coast lines of the world. So when our early ancestors spread out in the world and were moving along the coasts, the places they stopped were the rivers and streams that flowed out to sea. The reasons are very simple WATER and food. In the case of the earliest peoples into the new world, the archeological and linguistic evidence clearly indicates that even though those people were a maritime culture, they relied heavily on the rivers they found. They followed the salmon inland to colonize continent and settled along those rivers. While completly inland peoples were making thier way through the interior of the continent, and where did they settle? along the rivers and lakes. Fresh water brings life in the form of fish and game and usable plants.
The model for the population of east Asia is very much the same, you have proper moving along the coast and following the rivers inland, likely following fish as well. At the same time people were moving from the interior own stream along the rivers, again following the fish.
As societies progress and develop long distance relationships rivers became the main conduit of trade and expansion.
On an interesting side note, I just read about a group of ancient cities in the dardenells, in turkey,
even though these towns would be considered "seaside" communities they are all built up on bluffs and several miles from the ocean. One theory is that this was a response to the occasional tsunamis that have devastated the shores of the eastern med.
After reading that it struck me that maybe the massive walls of troy were built for the same reasons.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
One thing that has not popped up in this conversation is the role tectonics plays in "apperant" sea levels.
In areas with very active geology, such as portions of the med basin and southeast Asia, seismic events can raise or lower vast pieces land , with respect to the oceans. The 2004 Indonesian quake and the 1964? Quake in alaska are perfect examples of this with both have huge vertical movments of land. In the case of Alaska some areas went up 9meters while others dropped 2-1/2m. In Indonesia the Andaman qnd Nicobar islands dropped several meters.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Oops
edit on 14-6-2012 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


That might be true, about the walls, but I would think that having hostile neighbors inspired the need for walls.

Other comments: One way to track human use of the coast line is through middens. The earliest known midden is 140,000 years old but they really became more common around 8,000 years ago

Summary of the archaeological importance of middens

Do note that some of these middens were directed at fresh water shellfish
edit on 14/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join