Hard Evidence of Sudden Rise of Ocean Levels in Antiquity

I linked to this data last Fall deep in another thread, but decided it merits its own thread and discussion as it is point-blank the most compelling data that shows that pre-historic ocean levels did NOT RISE GRADUALLY.

Why is this so important? Because the 'gradual rise of ocean levels' is the most common supposition the skeptics around here use when denying the possibility of a sudden cataclysm that would have wiped out earlier civilizations.

To them I say, read it and weep!

The discovery of ancient mangrove forest remains under the Great Barrier Reef has cast doubt on some theories about how quickly the sea level rose after the last ice age.
Most scientists believe it was a gradual rise over the past 9,000 years. But the existence of relic mangroves 70cm (27in) below the floor of the Barrier Reef, some with leaves and branches still intact, suggests an abrupt rise.

Dan Alongi, a biologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said it appeared that sea levels rose about 3 metres in less than 30 years, drowning forests and flooding estuaries, 20 times faster than previously thought.

To get sense of how dramatic a 3 METER rise is, consider that the worst case scenario in ocean rise for this century, which would displace well over a billion people, is 50-88 cm.

What we are looking at here is some type of sudden event which dramtically rasied ocean levels. Quite simply the implications of this are vast and damning to traditional dating methods and certainly open the door to global cataclysm being not only possible, but likely.

Have at it!
TWISI

I have always felt that his planet can shake us off like fleas if it so "choose" to. This planet is so old, we have forests under the ocean, and oceans on mountain tops. I have no doubt that the oceans could rise "in no time". I live in area no too threatened. i dont have to go far to avoid this kind of rise. I hope I dont have to experience it, but have always dreamt of surviving off the land, and trying to regroup with other humans. A very constant dream, one that I had before seeing movies like MadMax etc....

One day all will be revealed, whether in death or in catacylism,

SF

Well,

How many cultures have the story of the "great flood"?

Quite a few.... Geysers of water erupting from the earth and such.

Not hard to believe that this has happened before at all.

Interesting find, but if you want some REALLY wild changes in sea level, take a look at Tahiti's changes during the 8000 BP era! :

www.globalwarmingart.com...:Holocene_Sea_Level_png" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

(Argh. I can't insert this on the Media because it's a copyrighted image. Maybe if you paste this into your browser... :www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level_png

You have to stare at the chart for awhile and interpret all the little weird plusses to see how different it was for different areas) -- but there's huge rises and falls in the sea levels there. It's a geologically active area, so land is constantly rising and falling, making it hard to get a very accurate measurement.

Great find, and tends to confirm the data that there were a lot of changes

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Byrd]

reply to post by infolurker


Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.

This data was published in 2005, it was a rigourous study done by a reputable Marine biologist who works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He stumbled on this suddenly buried forest in 2002 while taking core samples around the Great Barrier Reef. He was astonished with what the samples were showing, and went back with a larger team in 2005.

This is peer reviewed data and no one is challenging what he found or his conclusions.... Just ignoring the implcations. :shk:

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
This is peer reviewed data and no one is challenging what he found or his conclusions.... Just ignoring the implcations.

Not really. But if you read the link I posted, the sea level rose differently in different areas. His data is in the textbooks if you study Australian marine geology... which most folks don't.

Hi posters...

For whom has read Velikovsky's books, it's NOT a scoop that the Ocean's level went up and down suddenly and many times in HISTORICAL days.
Which means, during the last 12,000 years ...

Also, HANCOCK's books are a good read. ("Flooded Civilizations" ...)

Personally, I was very amazed to see in CRETA island, a ROMAN harbour (let's say ... 2400 years ago) wich warfs sea-level was 7 meters ABOVE the level of the sea.

In the contrary, we have in Europe, many examples of towns which are to-day UNDER the level of the sea ( Google YS town in France, for example)

TOWNS, which means less than 2000 years ago ...

Yes, Earth's history is much more agitated than what we've been told at school ...



[edit on 5-4-2009 by orkson]

Here's the linck for Graham Hancock :

Graham Hancock

Hi Byrd - I was posting when you were and did not see your first post until after I put the one below it up. Your link is not working. Is it displaying sea level rises due to landmass shifts? Because I am not getting the impression that his studies are revealing a shifting landmass being the cause for the rise he recorded.

All of the articles that discuss that data say that what is so compelling about it is that it shows a sudden ocean rise and there was/is great concern as to its implications for us today and our rising oceans globally based in the data he extracted.


@Orkson - Velivkovsky, Hancock, et al are pretty common sources for a lot of the theories that go up around here, but they are not considered valid in a scholaraly way by our esteemed skeptics, for various reasons, some of which I agree with. But I do think that there is ample anomolous data that turns up in either underwater mega-structures, various OOPARTS and evidence of human settlement and migration patterns that fly in the face of 'conventional wisdom', and said wisdom often drags its feet and/or buries its head when confronted with it.

Interesting link also :

Paleoclimate and Paleogeography

[edit on 5-4-2009 by orkson]

Great link, thanks for that!

I am going to go through it now.

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


Hi, ThewayIseeIt ...

It is always the same thing ...

As soon as the name of Velikovsky is pronounced, somebody comes and says "Na... it's not a serious guy !..."

For me, it's simply THE author everybody should have read before emitting any advice on the last 10,000 years of Earth...

For those doubting of gigantic floods having reshaped Earth 8,500 years ago :

www.theotherside.co.uk...

Yes, France and England were on the same land 8.500 years ago, when men were hunting and building towns.

I am going to put Hancock's last BBC documentary up that is based on his latest book -- that Orkson was referencing -- "Underworld".

I think that we are better off for GH's efforts, and while it is easy for the skeptics to dismiss him with the bias of his not being an archaeologist or geologist, he is still an educated articulate man whose early career was as a top-shelf investigative journalist and has dedicated a large portion of his adult life seeking out those who are educated in those fields in an effort to piece together how we have all of these anomolous data/structures/myths, etc.

This film in particular is very conservative compared to his previous hypothesis' and I would ask our resident skeptics to take a look before throwing the usual stones.

Enjoy!

Google Video Link

Here's Pt. 2

Google Video Link

[edit on 5-4-2009 by TheWayISeeIt]

Thanks for this, another member is demanding I produce evidence of super floods in another thread and this evidence you posted is exactly the kind that supports my case of what destroyed the Aryan civilisation, after which it just dispersed all over the world, mainly Indo-Europe and took its oral tradition with it.

Howdy Twisi

It is interesting, a scientists found the data, published it and as Byrd pointed out its now in the text books.

Science at its best

What you are failing to understand is that a local event doesn't mean it was world wide. You are also discounting the effect of subsidence, the land sinking while the water rises. What does the paper say about that?

Thirty years is pretty quick, geologically speaking, however that works out to a earthshattering 4 inches (10 centimeters) a year. Fast, geologically, but nothing even the dimmest villager couldn't avoid by picking up his belonings and moving to higher ground.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find places on the planet were the water level fell, as the land rose. That would certainly be true for areas in volcanic and fault areas.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Thirty years is pretty quick, geologically speaking, however that works out to a earthshattering 4 inches (10 centimeters) a year. Fast, geologically, but nothing even the dimmest villager couldn't avoid by picking up his belonings and moving to higher ground.

True... It's hardly like a city that disappears over night. Though there is a chance that for example Atlantians where the absolutely and mindnumbingly dumbest and most retarded people on the face of the Earth, so they just stood there and sank. That's why there is so little evidence, the rest of the world was embarrased at the time that they erased all evidence of them.

reply to post by merka



Howdy Merka

There have been rapid raising and lowering of land mass, usually during earthquakes. Anchorage in 1964 comes to mind, Port Royal in 1692, parts of Lisbon in 1755, Madrid (USA) 1811-1812,etc, rapid up and downs associated with water have occurred all over the earth. I can think of half dozen ancient cities also lost. The key point is all this is specific to one small area it isn't world wide.

Interesting trivia quesiton (for which I don't know the answer) what is the largest up or down movement of land (mass of) in recorded history?

However, Hanslune, you must admit that the mechanism for rising and falling wwater levels due to geological stressors COULD very easily be expanded to a much larger scope, in the case of massive upwelling due to cometary impact (of which we know of a few that have occurred).

Here is the thing: TWISI (as well as myself) believes that an event occurred that was nearly global in extent (at least, over the northern hemisphere) that was likely caused by a cometary impact. The evidence for this impact was absorbed in the ice shelf.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yes I know you guys are kinda desperate to find something on that. You'll need a lot more evidence for the rise of water all over the globe to prove that concept. However this evidence may be masked by the general rise in water during that period of time. A melting of a small portion of the NA ice sheet would have been insignificant world wide.

However I thought you were trying to prove this to provide a provable agent for the destruction of Atlantis?

However it is going to take 10-15 years for all the data to come in on the comet strike. A friend of mine at Hull University is having some of his grad students looking thru old excavation records in England and Ireland for traces of it. Similar efforts are underway across NA I do believe. There was a presentation on this subject at:

March 20th "Clovis Comet" Lecture by Dr. Kennett at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge which is being discussed at the Hall of Ma'at in this thread:

Da thread

This is a link to a bibliography of recent materials on this subject

www.pbs.org...

PBS show on the subject www.pbs.org...

Good luck on your hunt



[edit on 6/4/09 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by infolurker

 

Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.

This data was published in 2005, it was a rigourous study done by a reputable Marine biologist who works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He stumbled on this suddenly buried forest in 2002 while taking core samples around the Great Barrier Reef. He was astonished with what the samples were showing, and went back with a larger team in 2005.

This is peer reviewed data and no one is challenging what he found or his conclusions.... Just ignoring the implcations. :shk:

They never challenge data like his.
They just never acknowledge it at all and hope no one else will read it. (IE the public)
If they challenged this there would be other researchers that would check to get there own findings and then 'out' the critics that challenged the original research.
That would be a story that would draw more research on the data and make it a bigger story.

You see the same thing with global warming.
Any research that shows that global warming is not caused by man is immediately labeled "payed for by the oil companies" and the pro man caused global warming people never come up with any research that proves the anti man caused research wrong.