The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Science is nothing without action. The action, in the form of policy making, has to come from politics. Why else do you think all those people attended a 'March for Science' in Washington DC in April demanding political action on climate? Incidentally, there were a large number of scientists in the crowd, so the contention that science is not political fails the reality test immediately.

 

In the real world, science exists inside a framework of political actions, agendas and budgets. Those actions may support the science, or in some cases might be opposed to it.

 

If you want to believe in a Disneyfied version where pure and noble scientists use their discoveries to bring the awed peasantry into the sunlit uplands of enlightenment, go ahead.

 

But that's not the way the world works, in my experience.

Disneyfied?  Seriously?  Good gosh.

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Let's assume, for purposes of argument, that the hyper-alarmists are right in supposing that man-made climate change represents a clear and present danger to the future of humanity.

Then why has nothing been done, after 20 years and the expenditure of trillions of dollars?

Some things have been done in the past 20, 30, 40 years.  

Probably the most important thing that's been done is educating younger generations - about environmentalism, segueing to clean/safe energy, using less fossil fuels when possible, etc.

 

It's not difficult to impress upon youngsters; ideas of environmental husbandry.  Youngsters love animals, they love clean water, clean air, healthy/happy families, etc.  

 

Then there's the other side of the equation:  the people, like Trump fans, who espouse burning coal, using jets to fly a few people halfway across the country, so one man can walk out of a football game before it starts, .....and using very expensive jets to fly to golf courses every few days from Wash. DC.  The same folks who want to continue to give hand-outs to auto makers using fossil fuels, and do all they can to do away with subsidies for alternative/clean/safe energy projects.   

 

One of 1,000 Examples:   Solar was taking off in Nevada. Many homeowners were putting up PV solar on their houses.  Conventional energy corps were getting worried they'd be losing revenue, so they put out pretty web sites discussing solar.   Nevadans interested in solar went to those web sites.  There was a lot of data and pretty pictures, but no actual products or service.  In other words, the  Power Companies were purposefully wasting the consumers' time - with large online sites that led nowhere.  Wasted time, dashed hopes.  Many gave up in their search for solar.

 

[FreddieRoyle]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Some things have been done in the past 20, 30, 40 years.  

Probably the most important thing that's been done is educating younger generations - about environmentalism, segueing to clean/safe energy, using less fossil fuels when possible, etc.

 

It's not difficult to impress upon youngsters; ideas of environmental husbandry.  Youngsters love animals, they love clean water, clean air, healthy/happy families, etc.  

 

Then there's the other side of the equation:  the people, like Trump fans, who espouse burning coal, using jets to fly a few people halfway across the country, so one man can walk out of a football game before it starts, .....and using very expensive jets to fly to golf courses every few days from Wash. DC.  The same folks who want to continue to give hand-outs to auto makers using fossil fuels, and do all they can to do away with subsidies for alternative/clean/safe energy projects.   

 

One of 1,000 Examples:   Solar was taking off in Nevada. Many homeowners were putting up PV solar on their houses.  Conventional energy corps were getting worried they'd be losing revenue, so they put out pretty web sites discussing solar.   Nevadans interested in solar went to those web sites.  There was a lot of data and pretty pictures, but no actual products or service.  In other words, the  Power Companies were purposefully wasting the consumers' time - with large online sites that led nowhere.  Wasted time, dashed hopes.  Many gave up in their search for solar.

 

I'm not sure about solar - how easy are the panels to manufacture? How much damage to the earth is caused by the manufacture and transport of these panels, and the technicians that will fit it to your roof, their vehicles are consuming fossil fuels? Is it really beneficial to the environment?

 I have had a similar argument with environmentalists regarding wind turbines. These are very big structures made from several metals which must be mined and processed, and the manufacturing process takes one heck of alot of electricity, and the finished product must be transported to the installation site which causes the use of a huge amount of fossil fuels, often green land is cleared for installation, often even roads must be constructed to allow installation, and then these machines must be regularly maintained and have a short life span, and what of the backup power generation(often diesel generators)? This must all be maintained and serviced. Well, long and short is these wind turbines cause far more environmental damage than they solve and in terms of global warming they cause far more Co2 emmisions, rather than reduce them. But, and this is the main thing, they have made many people very very rich. These people that got stinking rich thanks to the business of saving the earth, well aren't they smug and virtuous?

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

I'm not sure about solar - how easy are the panels to manufacture? How much damage to the earth is caused by the manufacture and transport of these panels, and the technicians that will fit it to your roof, their vehicles are consuming fossil fuels? Is it really beneficial to the environment?

 I have had a similar argument with environmentalists regarding wind turbines. These are very big structures made from several metals which must be mined and processed, and the manufacturing process takes one heck of alot of electricity, and the finished product must be transported to the installation site which causes the use of a huge amount of fossil fuels, often green land is cleared for installation, often even roads must be constructed to allow installation, and then these machines must be regularly maintained and have a short life span, and what of the backup power generation(often diesel generators)? This must all be maintained and serviced. Well, long and short is these wind turbines cause far more environmental damage than they solve and in terms of global warming they cause far more Co2 emmisions, rather than reduce them. But, and this is the main thing, they have made many people very very rich. These people that got stinking rich thanks to the business of saving the earth, well aren't they smug and virtuous?

No easy answers.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Disneyfied?  Seriously?  Good gosh.

 

He's right and belittling him doesn't make him not right.

 

I'm not a global warming/climate change denier.  I'm prepared to believe makind's activities may be a contributing factor to that. 

 

I grew up revering scientists. I have two Bachelor of Sciences degrees and at least one of my children will be a scientist. Anyhow, I hope I've convinced you I'm not anti science or a denier of the scientific method.  

 

That said, I'm left to wonder why the purveyors of the GW/CC apocalypse that's coming don't seem to believe it themselves?  Why aren't they demanding we stop trading with countries that contribute the most to the coming disaster?  Why aren't we returning factories to my state where the air and water have gotten cleaner each and every day for the past 30 years. Where we have tough environmental standards to prevent the dire outcomes they predict. Why isn't anyone calling for policies to limit growth? Why are products not made close to the resources used to produce them and the consumers who will consume them. The materials in some products currently cross the ocean 3-4 times before being purchased. Wouldn't that be low hanging fruit in the battle against global warming/climate change? Seems they want to charge us for the bullet they want to shoot us with.

 

I'll give you a couple of personal anecdotes.

 

Two weeks ago I got an email from City Hall in a city I own an office building in. The Title : Sea Level Rise Response Planning. I called my buddy in the planning department to see what's up and since I've known him since high school he told me. He said there will be six such mailings before the request to place a surcharge on my property taxes of 12%.  I asked him what are you going to do with the money, as you're not going to stop sea level rise with that amount of money. he said no, they know that but 45% of their budget goes to pay for pensions and benefits of people that have already retired....

 

Another one.  The wharf in town where ships ttie up is constructed on huge galvanized steel pilings.  Welded om to one of these pilings is the "Mean Tide Level". It has not changed since 1974 when the wharf was constructed.

 

My second home here is in the 100 year flood plain. I don't care because that's where the beauty is. Anyway, as of January 17, 2018  because of a new FEMA datum survey it is getting shifted to the 500 year flood plain and my Lloyds policy goes down by about 60%.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

25 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

No easy answers.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

Answer's pretty easy actually

 

Quote

The manufacturing is mostly located in China, and the panels are often installed in Europe or the United States. At double the carbon intensity, it takes twice as long to compensate for the greenhouse-gas emissions as it does to pay back the energy investments.

 

https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

 

 

[Airbagwill]

"Science is nothing without action." - nonsense - science is study knowledge and skepticism.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/162-features/top10/2789-turkey-submerged-byzantine-basilica

Only 100 miles from Istanbul, the ancient city of Nicaea, on the shores of Turkey’s Lake Iznik, is not remote or unknown. So archaeologist Mustafa Sahin was in for a shock when a routine aerial survey of the lake revealed traces of a fifth-century basilica. “I did not believe my eyes when I saw it under the helicopter,” says Sahin. “I thought to myself, ‘How did nobody notice these ruins before?’” The site is now slated to become an underwater archaeological museum.

 

I'm not sure if that works as an example of sealevel rising. Quite like the other, 'ports have moved to inland'. 

 

Turkey has few fault lines and experiences frequent earthquakes. This moves local plates up and down, but doesn't have a global effect. 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

Having lived on the East coast of Britain for the last 45 years, I can honestly say the North sea has not risen one inch, How come when a bottle of milk freezes it expands and when thor's it goes back to its original level, So would it be safe to say the water will not rise.

The rising sea levels fcom from different factors.

1) Ice on landmasses. Practically Greenland, Antarctica and northern glaziers. Melted water adds directly to the sea levels.

     When ice melts, the pressure on the ground releases, which rises the land which was previously underneath the ice. This can been seen happening in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia.

 

2) While melting the ice on top of the sea doesn't add any water to the sea, it still rises the sea levels.

     This is because ice is a pretty great reflector of Sun's radiation. When this reflector is removed, the dark sea is an excellent absorber of the radiation. This heats the oceans and when water gets hotter, it expands. While water expands only tiny amounts locally, the oceans are huge. 

 

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

I'm not sure about solar - how easy are the panels to manufacture? How much damage to the earth is caused by the manufacture and transport of these panels, and the technicians that will fit it to your roof, their vehicles are consuming fossil fuels? Is it really beneficial to the environment?

 I have had a similar argument with environmentalists regarding wind turbines. These are very big structures made from several metals which must be mined and processed, and the manufacturing process takes one heck of alot of electricity, and the finished product must be transported to the installation site which causes the use of a huge amount of fossil fuels, often green land is cleared for installation, often even roads must be constructed to allow installation, and then these machines must be regularly maintained and have a short life span, and what of the backup power generation(often diesel generators)? This must all be maintained and serviced. Well, long and short is these wind turbines cause far more environmental damage than they solve and in terms of global warming they cause far more Co2 emmisions, rather than reduce them. But, and this is the main thing, they have made many people very very rich. These people that got stinking rich thanks to the business of saving the earth, well aren't they smug and virtuous?

Yes, manufacturing anything takes resources and power.  a plastic speed bump takes a lot of fossil fuel and weighs as much as tens of thousands of plastic bags.  

Re; solar:  it's the long term benefits that matter:  Once installed, they produce zero emissions and can last decades.  There's no sound, no soot, no grease for joints.  Indeed, if you open the hood of an electric car, you won't see the black grease stains which affect all fossil fuel vehicles.  

 

I wrote a book about nuke plants (and why Thailand should not go nuclear), and mentioned the large amounts of fossil fuel it takes to manufacture and maintain, and close down a nuke plant.  

A side issue:  a nuke plant near Sacramento California (Rancho Seco) was permanently closed down, when it was just a few years old.  The alleged reason:  workers were smoking pot.   The real reason:  locals didn't want a potential Chernobyl/Fukishima in their back yards.

 

Windmills have their drawbacks, but taking it all on balance, I'd rather see windmills than not see them - particularly if they're going to replace coal and fossil fuel plants.

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

27 minutes ago, oilinki said:

1) Ice on landmasses. Practically Greenland, Antarctica and northern glaziers. Melted water adds directly to the sea levels.

Doesn't if seem, sometimes, like we're explaining these things to 2nd graders?

[FreddieRoyle]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 

Windmills have their drawbacks, but taking it all on balance, I'd rather see windmills than not see them - particularly if they're going to replace coal and fossil fuel plants.

 

 

 

 Well that is undeniably your right, but I suggest the majority of people want electricity available 24/7 and not only when the wind is blowing at just the right speed (too little wind the blades will not turn thus no electricity generated) and too much wind and the blades lock to stop damage being done. 

 

 Talk about feeling like explaining stuff to 2nd graders, phew!

[ExpatOilWorker]

27 minutes ago, oilinki said:

The rising sea levels fcom from different factors.

1) Ice on landmasses. Practically Greenland, Antarctica and northern glaziers. Melted water adds directly to the sea levels.

     When ice melts, the pressure on the ground releases, which rises the land which was previously underneath the ice. This can been seen happening in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia.

 

2) While melting the ice on top of the sea doesn't add any water to the sea, it still rises the sea levels.

     This is because ice is a pretty great reflector of Sun's radiation. When this reflector is removed, the dark sea is an excellent absorber of the radiation. This heats the oceans and when water gets hotter, it expands. While water expands only tiny amounts locally, the oceans are huge. 

 

Back when I went to school we learned two important things, science and the ability to think for ourselves.

From 0 degree to 4 degree C water actually contract, but heck why let a bit of fact get in the way of the big propaganda machine.

 

[boomerangutang]

Try this:   ask a foreman at a nuclear power plant - whether there are grave dangers to the surrounding community.  Invariably, he will tell you, "Oh no.  There were some glitches in other plants.  But we've fixed all those.   There is no problem here.  Don't worry."

 

That's what you would have heard from the directors at Chernobyl or Fukishima, ....the day before their respective plants spewed radioactivity over a wide region, poisoning people, plants and animals for generations.

 

Have you seen some of the photos of babies born in the Chernobyl region?  Sad indeed.  There are some kids with the sides of their heads ballooning out grossly.  IQ of a vegetable.  

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Back when I went to school we learned two important things, science and the ability to think for ourselves.

From 0 degree to 4 degree C water actually contract, but heck why let a bit of fact get in the way of the big propaganda machine.

 

 

I finally learned something I didn't already know. Thanks

[ExpatOilWorker]

14 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Doesn't if seem, sometimes, like we're explaining these things to 2nd graders?

Yeah, it is funny and you still don't get it.

 

43 minutes ago, oilinki said:

The rising sea levels fcom from different factors.

1) Ice on landmasses. Practically Greenland, Antarctica and northern glaziers. Melted water adds directly to the sea levels.

     When ice melts, the pressure on the ground releases, which rises the land which was previously underneath the ice. This can been seen happening in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia.

 

2) While melting the ice on top of the sea doesn't add any water to the sea, it still rises the sea levels.

     This is because ice is a pretty great reflector of Sun's radiation. When this reflector is removed, the dark sea is an excellent absorber of the radiation. This heats the oceans and when water gets hotter, it expands. While water expands only tiny amounts locally, the oceans are huge. 

 

Why would it melt? A more moist climate could also add more snowfall to the arctic regions.

 

There were several warmer (than now) periods in the past 400,000 years, still the polar caps did NOT melt then and will NOT melt now.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[boomerangutang]

2 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Well that is undeniably your right, but I suggest the majority of people want electricity available 24/7 and not only when the wind is blowing at just the right speed (too little wind the blades will not turn thus no electricity generated) and too much wind and the blades lock to stop damage being done. 

 Talk about feeling like explaining stuff to 2nd graders, phew!

Are you joking?  If not, you're showing your ignorance.  Battery storage tech has progressed admirably in the past decade.  Try to stay abreast of what's happening.   You may also believe that solar only provides electric when the sun is shining bright.  Another silly fallacy that makes Oil Execs smile gladly (it proves their billion dollar propaganda campaigns are effective).

 

There are other ways to store electric.  Some are analog.  Example: a garage-sized air tank with a rubber diaphram.  When excess power is being generated, air is pumped in.  When needed, pressurized air is released which produces power.  Thai scientists could be at the vanguard of such developments, except Thai scientists don't see outside the box. They're too focused on trying to get a new recipe for whitening cream, to add to the 378 recipes already on the market.

 

Thailand will get with the alternative power trend, but as usual, it will be decades behind countries (like Denmark) which are at the vanguard.  So Thailand won't be licensing any tech, but instead paying for (or stealing) tech from scientists/corps in western countries who are at the cutting edge of innovation.

 

Thailand could put together 'Innovation Labs' nationwide - to encourage tech innovation, but it hasn't even thought of that concept.  It's too busy buying blimps that don't work, and overpriced Chinese subs which won't be effective in 7 meters of water.

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Back when I went to school we learned two important things, science and the ability to think for ourselves.

From 0 degree to 4 degree C water actually contract, but heck why let a bit of fact get in the way of the big propaganda machine.

I'm quite aware of this phenomena. It's actually the how the lakes up north get oxygen surge during the times when the surface water is heavier than water in the bottoms of the lakes. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/lake-turnover/

 

I'm also aware that water is pretty able to conduct heat and distribute it further. On oceans, which are interconnected, this heat travels to other parts of the oceans, expanding the water further.

 

Naturally this heat expansion works in everywhere where the Sun's radiation hits the ocean surface.

 

[JimmyJ]

6 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Yeah, it is funny and you still don't get it.

 

Why would it melt? A more moist climate could also add more snowfall to the arctic regions.

 

There were several warmer (than now) periods in the past 400,000 years, still the polar caps did NOT melt then and will NOT melt now.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/25/arctic-ice-melt-trigger-uncontrollable-climate-change-global-level

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/world/polar-bears-arctic-climate-change/index.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html

 

Etc., etc.

 

 

Plenty of facts, but no problem - ExpatOilWorker says it will NOT melt.

 

As someone mentioned in the thread today, there is not a debate over this in the scientific community. It is fact.

 

People can deny facts, but scientific truths remain true whether people disagree or agree.

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

Just now, JimmyJ said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/25/arctic-ice-melt-trigger-uncontrollable-climate-change-global-level

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/world/polar-bears-arctic-climate-change/index.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html

 

Etc., etc.

 

 

Plenty of facts, but no problem - ExpatOilWorker says it will NOT melt.

 

As someone mentioned in the thread today, there is not a debate over this in the scientific community. It is fact.

 

People can deny facts, but scientific truths remain true whether people disagree or agree.

 

 

How do you explain that we have 400,000 years core samples from Greenland and 800,000 years old core samples from Antarctica?

Guess what, they didn't melt!

 

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, JimmyJ said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/25/arctic-ice-melt-trigger-uncontrollable-climate-change-global-level

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/world/polar-bears-arctic-climate-change/index.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html

 

Etc., etc.

 

 

Plenty of facts, but no problem - ExpatOilWorker says it will NOT melt.

 

As someone mentioned in the thread today, there is not a debate over this in the scientific community. It is fact.

 

People can deny facts, but scientific truths remain true whether people disagree or agree.

 

 

 

I feel ya, but not to put too fine a point on it, something cannot be considered a fact until it actually happens. Until then it is speculation or presumption.

[IAMHERE]

If it doesn't fit your thesis, ridicule or ignore it.  

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

I'm not sure if that works as an example of sealevel rising. Quite like the other, 'ports have moved to inland'. 

 

Turkey has few fault lines and experiences frequent earthquakes. This moves local plates up and down, but doesn't have a global effect. 

When I was in Malta, they said it use to be connected to Africa.  You could walk there.  Not any more! LOL

 

There's an area where you can clearly see roads leading down to a now submerged ancient harbor.  I've seen the same thing in Lebanon.  You can still make out the old walls.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

If it doesn't fit your thesis, ridicule or ignore it.  

You've been reading the Green/Left Climate Action Playbook, haven't you?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Yeah, it is funny and you still don't get it.

 

Why would it melt? A more moist climate could also add more snowfall to the arctic regions.

 

There were several warmer (than now) periods in the past 400,000 years, still the polar caps did NOT melt then and will NOT melt now.

 

"Why would it melt?"  Well, when water gets above 0 degrees C, it melts.

 

The polar caps have grown and receded many times.  The Arctic caps have receded to a degree unseen in history.  Ships are sailing where they couldn't before.  Do you deny this?

[canuckamuck]

4 hours ago, oilinki said:

I'm not sure if that works as an example of sealevel rising. Quite like the other, 'ports have moved to inland'. 

 

Turkey has few fault lines and experiences frequent earthquakes. This moves local plates up and down, but doesn't have a global effect. 

Also it is an inland lake, But I get his point, lots of sunken coastal artifacts. The ocean has gone up and down a few times since you could get season tickets to throwing Christians to the lions.

[pkspeaker]

19 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

a bit more on poverty:  a hill tribe family, friends of mine, resided by a creek (family was put there via a Bkk relocation program).  For 3 months every year, there would be between 50 and 100 cm of water flooding around their crappy bamboo and thatch dwelling which was about 50 cm above grade.  I gave then some money to build a meter higher.   Now they're better off, but they still have to wade through knee high water to get to the outhouse which is 2 meters from the middle of the creek.   They're in a packed community where houses are willy nilly built within meters of each other, and many suffer the same flooding problems and, or course, abject poverty.

 

During the day, about 10 moms hang out in the tiny general store, all with their little babies, and nothing to do except talk and tend to babies.   

 

I mention this, not so much re; GW, but because we touched on the topic of poverty - and I sense that T.Visa posters are out of touch with what poverty is.  We've become innured in our cuccoons of retirement checks, ATM cards, and comfort.  I'm not saying that's bad, but it doesn't qualify many here to talk intelligently about the hundreds of millions of folks ww, who are being (and many more will be) affected by the adverse affects of a warming planet.

 

Deniers are split into groups:  Some admit there is warming, but say it can't be human-affected because we're so small and the planet is so big.

There are other deniers who claim there is no warming, and instead there may be a global cooling.

 

Look at the data without a jaundiced eye.  The indications are many: the planet is warming and humans are part of the equation.  Each human produces, on average, a ton of CO2 annually.   That's around 7 billion tons, with a 'B.'    That's a lot of CO2. Plants soak up some, but much isn't soaked up.  ...and then there's methane, which is many times more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  All indications show increasing amounts of methane being released, particularly from ocean depths and permafrost regions.  What can happen with methane, is a tipping point, where large releases take place in a relatively short time.

Your not linking to any 'data'.  I have repeatedly linked to real data from the DMI that shows more ice in Greenland and Antarctica as well as rebounding Arctic Ice, I also demonstrated 2 days ago how the Univ. of Ill. simply deleted an entire section of the website when N. Canadian ice charts started showing sharp increases in ice.

 

As far as temp data, the world is in the middle of a ElNino/LaNina (warm/cold) cycle; as soon as this cycle completes in a couple of years-not only is it a warming pause, it will be an actual cooling trend.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/12/satellite-data-post-el-nino-global-surface-cooling-continues-pause-extends-to-20-years/#sthash.2XPmxaYl.Ie9f7u9L.dpbs

Edited November 20, 2017 by pkspeaker

[pkspeaker]

10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed.  Sadly, the naysayers cling to these few cranks to help push their views forward.  Click bait, IMHO.

 

This statement is totally misleading, from the OP:

I've been to many port cities where the original port is now underwater.  Had some great boat tours of the sunken cities off the coast of Turkey a few years ago.

 

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/162-features/top10/2789-turkey-submerged-byzantine-basilica

Only 100 miles from Istanbul, the ancient city of Nicaea, on the shores of Turkey’s Lake Iznik, is not remote or unknown. So archaeologist Mustafa Sahin was in for a shock when a routine aerial survey of the lake revealed traces of a fifth-century basilica. “I did not believe my eyes when I saw it under the helicopter,” says Sahin. “I thought to myself, ‘How did nobody notice these ruins before?’” The site is now slated to become an underwater archaeological museum.

months ago on this thread I had already linked to the science that shows sea levels were METERS higher than they are today several thousand years ago, Like during the holocene maximum.  The world was much warmer 5-7 thousand years ago, this is basic climate science.  Even the Michael Mann types were only claiming that the world was as hot or hotter now than it was 1000 years ago (which is baloney) but the OP is talking about way back during Egyptian & Roman times.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/21/10000-to-5000-years-ago-global-sea-levels-were-3-meters-higher-temperatures-4-6-c-warmer/#sthash.xUikMH4L.dpbs

Edited November 20, 2017 by pkspeaker

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, pkspeaker said:

Your not linking to any 'data'.  I have repeatedly linked to real data from the DMI that shows more ice in Greenland and Antarctica as well as rebounding Arctic Ice,.....

excerpt from nsidc.org/greenland-today/ (National Snow and Ice Data Center)

 

Late season melt in southern Greenland / September 28, 2017
"Surface melt spiked in mid-September in southern Greenland. A surge of warm air from the central Atlantic fueled the late melt event, which was confined to the southwestern and southeastern coasts and peaked on 15 September 2017. The late season spike is one of the largest to occur in September on satellite record (since 1978). 

Beginning 13 September 2017, the southern peripheral regions of the Greenland ice sheet began to show significant surface melt, an unusual event for this late in the season. The total melt area rapidly increased before culminating on September 15, when more than 15 percent of the ice sheet surface (263,000 square kilometers; 101,500 square miles) had satellite evidence of snowmelt. By September 18, surface temperatures fell back below freezing across the island."   - source -

- - - - - 

From TheVerge.com

Warm waters tripled the amount of ice lost in these Antarctic glaciers — and that's bad for sea level rise. Between 2008 and 2012, warmer than usual waters caused four glaciers in Western Antarctica to flow toward the sea faster than any other glacier on the continent. The glaciers also lost more than three times the amount of ice than usual, according to new research. All these changes are bad news for Antarctica — and us. As grounded glaciers melt, sea levels around the world rise.
 Researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) found that 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than usual waters in the area doubled the glaciers’ speed toward the sea, and more than tripled the amount of ice they lost — up to 33 feet a year, from 7 to 10 feet a year.   - source -

 

[observer90210]

There is definately global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and it is of a big worry for me....the ice in my Jack Pepsi Lime melts much faster by the pool !!