Earth Sciences Today is hot

[Total Power]

Well yeah, you could say I disagree. Two posts suggesting Mauna Loa is measuring the effect of local emissions which weren't worth responding to. Manua Loa was chosen (by Keeling) as a site where the atmosphere is representative of the entire northern hemisphere.

There's been no lagging effect, there's been no effect at all despite CO2 emissions being down about 7% across the globe. If climate is as fragile as some suggest, I would expect it to register. We're talking about rate of increase of CO2 concentration here, not total CO2.

But scientists have said 3 months is not enough to have such an effect.

If emissions reductions of 20% to 30% were sustained for six to 12 months, then the rate of increase of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa would slow, according to the Scripps scientists.

Carbon dioxide can stay in the air for centuries, so the short-term reductions of new carbon pollution for a few months didn't have much of a big picture effect, said NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans.

Atmospheric CO2 levels rise sharply despite Covid-19 lockdowns

Scientists find coronavirus crisis has had little impact on overall concentration trend

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ron The Bear]

Carbon dioxide can stay in the air for centuries

Sure, but again, I'm not referring to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but the rate of change. It's like speed v acceleration.

Atmospheric CO2 levels rise sharply despite Covid-19 lockdowns

Scientists find coronavirus crisis has had little impact on overall concentration trend

www.theguardian.com

Yes I have seen these vague explanations in various places, but they are wholly unconvincing. Why should there be a threshold of emission reduction before the effect is suddenly visible?

carbonbrief.org estimated in May that there would be an 11% decrease for 2020.

Nov 2018 408.02
Nov 2019 410.25 +2.23
Nov 2020 412.89 +2.64

I'm sure there is a plausible scientific explanation out there. I just haven't heard it.

 

[Total Power]

Sure, but again, I'm not referring to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but the rate of change. It's like speed v acceleration.

Yes I have seen these vague explanations in various places, but they are wholly unconvincing. Why should there be a threshold of emission reduction before the effect is suddenly visible?

carbonbrief.org estimated in May that there would be an 11% decrease for 2020.

Nov 2018 408.02
Nov 2019 410.25 +2.23
Nov 2020 412.89 +2.64

I'm sure there is a plausible scientific explanation out there. I just haven't heard it.

Cause no one measured the effect of lockdown before. It never happened in history that the whole world been locked down. As this paper explains:


"Although temporary changes can help, you need to reduce CO2 permanently to make a dent in global warming," said Prof Piers Forster from the University of Leeds.
"CO2 is long lived in the atmosphere, so you effectively need to reduce emissions to zero for a long-time before you begin to cancel out the effects from decades of past emissions."
Harriet Forster, who co-authored the paper with her father, said that while the recent impacts won't last, there is a golden opportunity for governments to change course.
"Our paper shows that the actual effect of lockdown on the climate is small. The important thing to recognise is that we've been given a massive opportunity to boost the economy by investing in green industries - and this can make a huge difference to our future climate," she explained.
Right now, road traffic is still down in many countries say the authors, with the Google data showing all modes of UK transport still 25% or so down, while the official UK government data has cars still 12% down, but with buses and trains running at less than 50%.

Climate change: Lockdown has 'negligible' effect on temperatures

New research says that the lockdown, by itself, will make little difference to climate change.

www.bbc.com

He's also suggesting it's a lagging indicator. But what will happen is it will force us to think. Like i (and many other employers) have realised that working from home can save cost while bearing the same output. That will help reduce emissions as well. I am working on a circular economy model (on the financial side, not on the technical side), will make EU carbon neutral by 2050. This is a true solution, lockdown for 3 months is hardly significant. I haven't seen a credible scientist who argued otherwise.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Climate change: Lockdown has 'negligible' effect on temperatures

New research says that the lockdown, by itself, will make little difference to climate change.

www.bbc.com

That is very interesting, the suggestion that global temps will be 0.01 degree cooler by 2030 as a result of the economic slowdown. I'm assuming from this conclusion either that a slowing in rate of increase of CO2 will be visible in future years, or that the rate of increase is only loosely coupled with temperature.

Naturally the message is that emissions must be kept down, in line with the narrative. That is coming through loud and clear.

FWIW I'm happy to work from home where possible, although some personality types may require workplace social interaction to maintain mental health.

 

[Total Power]

That is very interesting, the suggestion that global temps will be 0.01 degree cooler by 2030 as a result of the economic slowdown. I'm assuming from this conclusion either that a slowing in rate of increase of CO2 will be visible in future years, or that the rate of increase is only loosely coupled with temperature.

Naturally the message is that emissions must be kept down, in line with the narrative. That is coming through loud and clear.

FWIW I'm happy to work from home where possible, although some personality types may require workplace social interaction to maintain mental health.

Still a projection based on very little data. We haven't seen this level of slowdown since the records began. My opinion is that unless we resort to sustainable farming/agriculture (like i mentioned circular economy), we will not see a half a decent drop in CO2 ppm, as we will continue to produce through inefficient means.

Thanks to bigfooty and specially thanks to the likes of Snakey, i got into CC a couple of years ago and got an opportunity to invest into EU backed circular economy which is already generating good returns for me while maintaining the proposed levels of emissions curb in a couple of EU countries where the pilot is taking place. Who said it's a waste of time to post here?

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Now I'm not advocating that we use anecdotal evidence to support our beliefs, but...

Apparently it is the hottest day on record (according to my wife's reading of the the BOM site) here in Queensland. I suppose this probably means that the average temperature of the state is highest on record. Although it just may be that this is the hottest average temperature recorded on this date???

She also tells me that this comes after the hottest year on record (2016) and the hottest decade on record where 9 of the hottest 10 years recorded were recorded in the last decade.

All I know is that it is hot. Hotter than I have ever experienced before and looking at the trend - it will only get hotter.

Is this the world we want to bequeath to our kids?

Science, if you want to consult it, will tell you that the temperatures we are experiencing today are several degrees (at least) cooler than has been the case for the vast majority of the last 10,000 years. The warmer periods (medieval, Roman, and neolithic) were closely associated with major advancements in human populations and civilizations.
Nature and people have shown absolutely no signs of any significant decline due to the warmer temperatures that existed in the past 10,000 years. If our neolithic ancestors could thrive in a world signicantly warmer than now, i think your kids will be just fine.

 

[Kildonan]

Cause no one measured the effect of lockdown before. It never happened in history that the whole world been locked down. As this paper explains:


"Although temporary changes can help, you need to reduce CO2 permanently to make a dent in global warming," said Prof Piers Forster from the University of Leeds.
"CO2 is long lived in the atmosphere, so you effectively need to reduce emissions to zero for a long-time before you begin to cancel out the effects from decades of past emissions."
Harriet Forster, who co-authored the paper with her father, said that while the recent impacts won't last, there is a golden opportunity for governments to change course.
"Our paper shows that the actual effect of lockdown on the climate is small. The important thing to recognise is that we've been given a massive opportunity to boost the economy by investing in green industries - and this can make a huge difference to our future climate," she explained.
Right now, road traffic is still down in many countries say the authors, with the Google data showing all modes of UK transport still 25% or so down, while the official UK government data has cars still 12% down, but with buses and trains running at less than 50%.

Climate change: Lockdown has 'negligible' effect on temperatures

New research says that the lockdown, by itself, will make little difference to climate change.

www.bbc.com

He's also suggesting it's a lagging indicator. But what will happen is it will force us to think. Like i (and many other employers) have realised that working from home can save cost while bearing the same output. That will help reduce emissions as well. I am working on a circular economy model (on the financial side, not on the technical side), will make EU carbon neutral by 2050. This is a true solution, lockdown for 3 months is hardly significant. I haven't seen a credible scientist who argued otherwise.

CO2 is released into the atmosphere, but it was difficult to corelate the amount of CO2 emitted / released with the levels of CO2 measured in the atmosphere. I believe this is because there are other compartments where CO2 is stored. Mostly this is in oceans and other bodies of water that have reached an "equilibrium". These will probably remain in equilibrium by emitting CO2 back into the atmosphere if the total CO2 of the atmosphere is reduced, but it is a complex process where air movement and water temperature play a role. We know that a substantial amount of CO2 is dissolved as it chemically interacts with water to form carbonic acid, this is measurable by change in pH and can be demonstrated by its effect on marine and aquatic life. One can also see the accelerating degradation of metal and stone structures on land, by dissolved CO2.

 

[daniologist]

Science, if you want to consult it, will tell you that the temperatures we are experiencing today are several degrees (at least) cooler than has been the case for the vast majority of the last 10,000 years. The warmer periods (medieval, Roman, and neolithic) were closely associated with major advancements in human populations and civilizations.
Nature and people have shown absolutely no signs of any significant decline due to the warmer temperatures that existed in the past 10,000 years. If our neolithic ancestors could thrive in a world signicantly warmer than now, i think your kids will be just fine.

So, I consulted Science. Well actually I consulted New Scientist, but that's close enough for me.

"What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence – such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers – is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years"

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...riod-with-vineyards-in-england/#ixzz6sBWUx64p

The article is from 2007, just like the myth you're peddling.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

So, I consulted Science. Well actually I consulted New Scientist, but that's close enough for me.

"What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence – such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers – is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years"

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...riod-with-vineyards-in-england/#ixzz6sBWUx64p

The article is from 2007, just like the myth you're peddling.

Medieval Warm Period - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Roman Warm Period Was 2°C Warmer Than Today, New Study Shows - Net Zero Watch

The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, that was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked

www.thegwpf.com

You are incorrect. I've copied in two simple to read articles that you should be able to handle. I won't bother sending you the O18 and tree ring data which corroborates the shoreline, fauna and historical anecdotal evidence that all shows these periods were significantly warmer than the present. Doubt it would get through. No credible scientist disputes this data and it's interpretation.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

So, I consulted Science. Well actually I consulted New Scientist, but that's close enough for me.

"What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence – such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers – is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years"

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...riod-with-vineyards-in-england/#ixzz6sBWUx64p

The article is from 2007, just like the myth you're peddling.

I'm still waiting for a response. You are peddling a complete false narrative contrary to science. If you get sick of reading your worthless media agenda articles... Check out the 018, tree ring data etc. But maybe just google Roman Seaforts or ports now inland...there's loads of them in the UK. I've been to many of them.. some 4ks inland now... Looking forward to your explanation.

 

[Clems Knee]

Medieval Warm Period - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Roman Warm Period Was 2°C Warmer Than Today, New Study Shows - Net Zero Watch

The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, that was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked

www.thegwpf.com

You are incorrect. I've copied in two simple to read articles that you should be able to handle. I won't bother sending you the O18 and tree ring data which corroborates the shoreline, fauna and historical anecdotal evidence that all shows these periods were significantly warmer than the present. Doubt it would get through. No credible scientist disputes this data and it's interpretation.

Hmm. Gwpf stands for Global Warming Policy Forum and harvests articles that support its aim to show “Common Sense in Climate Change” ie promote climate skepticism (and make a shitload of money out of the oil industry and poor stupid saps like you). In this case the article was the Daily Mail, a publication known for its unreliability.

There was certainly a medieval warm period as well as the Little Ice age. This Wikipedia article has references to show its sources and has good graphics to show changes in temperature over several different timescales.

Global temperature record - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Point is that global temperatures are measurably hotter now than over the last 30, 100, and 2000 years. The Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the last 10 years.

I'm still waiting for a response. You are peddling a complete false narrative contrary to science. If you get sick of reading your worthless media agenda articles... Check out the 018, tree ring data etc. But maybe just google Roman Seaforts or ports now inland...there's loads of them in the UK. I've been to many of them.. some 4ks inland now... Looking forward to your explanation.

I found a hilarious pseudoscientific piece of crap by someone called David Noel calling it the great sea level swindle.
Very funny.
Some coastlines eg Busselton have sediment being deposited while others have sediment being eroded. It has always been so, although these patterns are likely to change with changing currents and sea level.
One of the famous Roman ports and castles on the Mediterranean coastline that is now inland is Aigues Mortes. In fact it was always in a swamp (hence the name referring to no drinkable water) and used to be on a canal that silted up. Sometimes the real story is more interesting than the pretend one.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Hmm. Gwpf stands for Global Warming Policy Forum and harvests articles that support its aim to show “Common Sense in Climate Change” ie promote climate skepticism (and make a shitload of money out of the oil industry and poor stupid saps like you). In this case the article was the Daily Mail, a publication known for its unreliability.

There was certainly a medieval warm period as well as the Little Ice age. This Wikipedia article has references to show its sources and has good graphics to show changes in temperature over several different timescales.

Global temperature record - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Point is that global temperatures are measurably hotter now than over the last 30, 100, and 2000 years. The Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the last 10 years.



I found a hilarious pseudoscientific piece of crap by someone called David Noel calling it the great sea level swindle.
Very funny.
Some coastlines eg Busselton have sediment being deposited while others have sediment being eroded. It has always been so, although these patterns are likely to change with changing currents and sea level.
One of the famous Roman ports and castles on the Mediterranean coastline that is now inland is Aigues Mortes. In fact it was always in a swamp (hence the name referring to no drinkable water) and used to be on a canal that silted up. Sometimes the real story is more interesting than the pretend one.

Omg, you've included a graph you googled and found on Wikipedia. , This should be fun.
You made your agenda and Blinkers
apparent in your first paragraph. You are a believer... you believe the information fed to you as long as it's a consensus narrative..
I don't have an agenda other than actually understanding the science and challenging the bullshit narratives of Armageddon if the world is 3 degrees warmer.
Now, if you could understand my previous posts pointing out that consensus science confirms that their have been 3 long periods in the last 10,000 years where temperatires are hotter than they are now. The Wikipedia graph you put up starts measuring temperature in 1860. You know a lot so I'm sure you this that 1860 was inside a climate period referred to as " the.mini ice age". Can you work out the implications that has for your interpretation of the graph you posted?
Roman forts on solid land that were once overlooking the English Channel, now 4km inland... And this is due to silting up you say? Ok tell me more.its a fascinating new piece of earth science you think you've discovered.
I guess the large bay where William the conqueror landed which is now dry land was the result of silting up too. Tell me then where these immense quantities of silt came from in a geomorhically stable place like the UK.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Hmm. Gwpf stands for Global Warming Policy Forum and harvests articles that support its aim to show “Common Sense in Climate Change” ie promote climate skepticism (and make a shitload of money out of the oil industry and poor stupid saps like you). In this case the article was the Daily Mail, a publication known for its unreliability.

There was certainly a medieval warm period as well as the Little Ice age. This Wikipedia article has references to show its sources and has good graphics to show changes in temperature over several different timescales.

Global temperature record - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Point is that global temperatures are measurably hotter now than over the last 30, 100, and 2000 years. The Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the last 10 years.



I found a hilarious pseudoscientific piece of crap by someone called David Noel calling it the great sea level swindle.
Very funny.
Some coastlines eg Busselton have sediment being deposited while others have sediment being eroded. It has always been so, although these patterns are likely to change with changing currents and sea level.
One of the famous Roman ports and castles on the Mediterranean coastline that is now inland is Aigues Mortes. In fact it was always in a swamp (hence the name referring to no drinkable water) and used to be on a canal that silted up. Sometimes the real story is more interesting than the pretend one.

You need to zoom out first before you zoom in to understand climate change. This just shows how regular and extreme temperature changes are as a natural phenomena on this planet. The graph below it is a zoom in to the last 10,000 years. My point is not that man made climate change is not a concern... it's that i'ts potential impacts on mankind is overstated by fear mongers and contrary to what we already know i.e. Human have thrived in warmer climates than today, with far less technological capability. The driven doomsday narrative that the media and politicians are plugging is simply false. The earth will not be an uninhabitable desert wasteland full of wildfires, tsunamis, hurricanes if it is 2-3 degrees warmer than now. The real threat lies in the consequences of isostatic rebound if the icesheets continue melting..and that never gets a mention. There are a lot of good reasons to discontinue with burning fossil fuels. You really don't have to make up BS doomsday stories to support it.





This an excerpt from a study into UK coast line changes. It focusses on St Michaels mount which is a tidal flat now. In Roman times it was a navigable port. It has not silted up.
"St Michaels Mount remains a tidal island today, although the studies seem to indicate that after 2000 years it should now be surrounded by sea at all stages of the tide due to land movement alone-irrespective of the notion of modern sea level rise. The tide window today for a fairly deep draught ship who had travelled some distance and who would be unwilling to hove to in treacherous waters is still fairly small-a matter of a few hours in each tidal cycle. If the port was bustling 2000 years ago it is reasonable to suppose that tidal access was less limited then than it is today-or was at least as good. Consequently the evidence suggests that in 350BC there was probably a little more water than exists today in order for it to be a worthwhile place to ship cargo from, and therefore current ocean volume (glacier melt and thermal expansion) is less now than then, to take into account the known land changes. There was speculation that in Phoenician times the island was still connected to the mainland by a spine of land (Bloch et al) but that can not be authenticated by recent archaeological evidence, and as other accounts clearly describe it as a tidal island the apparent higher sea levels of the Roman age- compared to today- can be fairly attributed as factual, as we shall try to verify by looking further afield, after this more recent historic snippet."
document (wordpress.com)

 

[Clems Knee]

Omg, you've included a graph you googled and found on Wikipedia. , This should be fun.
You made your agenda and Blinkers
apparent in your first paragraph. You are a believer... you believe the information fed to you as long as it's a consensus narrative..
I don't have an agenda other than actually understanding the science and challenging the bullshit narratives of Armageddon if the world is 3 degrees warmer.
Now, if you could understand my previous posts pointing out that consensus science confirms that their have been 3 long periods in the last 10,000 years where temperatires are hotter than they are now. The Wikipedia graph you put up starts measuring temperature in 1860. You know a lot so I'm sure you this that 1860 was inside a climate period referred to as " the.mini ice age". Can you work out the implications that has for your interpretation of the graph you posted?
Roman forts on solid land that were once overlooking the English Channel, now 4km inland... And this is due to silting up you say? Ok tell me more.its a fascinating new piece of earth science you think you've discovered.
I guess the large bay where William the conqueror landed which is now dry land was the result of silting up too. Tell me then where these immense quantities of silt came from in a geomorhically stable place like the UK.

I didn’t include a graph from Wikipedia. I included a link from Wikipedia, which is a thousand times better than the pathetic Climate denial site that you posted a link to. Posting laughing emojis doesn’t help your case either.
As I said before, the link I posted has multiple graphs showing that your suggestion the Medieval warm period was warmer than now is clearly wrong. You missed that though.

Just because you say you don’t have an agenda doesn’t mean it’s true. If you don’t accept a consensus view of scientists, you’d better have good evidence to upend the consensus. In your case you have a claim that Roman forts are inland. Care to expand on that? I’ve been to the site of a coastal Roman fort in England (Portchester) It’s still right on the coast. Others such at Pevensey have been associated with marshes that have silted up or been reclaimed. That’s a process that can occur easily in hundreds of years.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

I didn’t include a graph from Wikipedia. I included a link from Wikipedia, which is a thousand times better than the pathetic Climate denial site that you posted a link to. Posting laughing emojis doesn’t help your case either.
As I said before, the link I posted has multiple graphs showing that your suggestion the Medieval warm period was warmer than now is clearly wrong. You missed that though.

Just because you say you don’t have an agenda doesn’t mean it’s true. If you don’t accept a consensus view of scientists, you’d better have good evidence to upend the consensus. In your case you have a claim that Roman forts are inland. Care to expand on that? I’ve been to the site of a coastal Roman fort in England (Portchester) It’s still right on the coast. Others such at Pevensey have been associated with marshes that have silted up or been reclaimed. That’s a process that can occur easily in hundreds of years.

Nothing you've posted shows anything bud. There are graphs out there that say the world is cooling... they are bullshit... same as the ones you put up. Your characterisation of anything that contains scientific material contrary to your indoctrinated "opinion" as "pathetic climate denial" shows how unintelligent and closed minded you are. You haven't posted anything of scientific substance nor refuted any of the points I've made. The consensus view of scientists IS that the earth was warmer during the Neolithic, Roman and Medieval warm periods or. The proxies for temperature data show that quite clearly in core samples from all over the globe. They are of course just best estimates, but together with the historical/archaeological records they paint a pretty clear general picture.
I see you can't answer the where did the vast quantities of silt come from question.
I have travelled to all these places in the UK and seen then for myself. Article below explains the Richboro Roman fort which was a port... now 4 km inland. English heritage archaeologists good enough sources for you champ? Looking forward to your explanation of where the 4km of new land created came from. Where in Kent or Sussex do you think such massive deposits of silt could come from to create so much land and locate these forts so far inland? Isn't the obvious answer... the sea was higher back then? as confirmed by numerous historic accounts, archaeology, and the climate proxy estimates.?
Archaeologists Discover Roman Coastline - Two Miles Inland | Culture24
Pevensey Castle | English Heritage (english-heritage.org.uk)

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Just because you say you don’t have an agenda doesn’t mean it’s true. If you don’t accept a consensus view of scientists, you’d better have good evidence to upend the consensus. In your case you have a claim that Roman forts are inland. Care to expand on that? I’ve been to the site of a coastal Roman fort in England (Portchester) It’s still right on the coast. Others such at Pevensey have been associated with marshes that have silted up or been reclaimed. That’s a process that can occur easily in hundreds of years.

Re.. Pevensey. There's loads of research on UK coastlines.. all conclude sea levels were higher. The funny thing is... you think this is not a consensus view
A logical discussion of why the high tide mark in Anglo Saxon times was 5 metres higher(Pevensey). (saxonhistory.co.uk)

 

[Scritchyscroony]

As I said before, the link I posted has multiple graphs showing that your suggestion the Medieval warm period was warmer than now is clearly wrong. You missed that though.

Guess you know more than the head scientist of the Greenland core drilling project: He's obviously a crazy glaciologist professor climate denier

Greenland Ice Sheet Yielding Clues of Climate Change | Voice of America - English (voanews.com)



ANND because you're a Wikipedia kind of guy... this chart is straight from their "Holocene" page. Look it up. Weird how even a consensus site like Wikipedia has a graph like this dispelling your narrative. It's a collective of global proxies.. Clearly shows temperatures at Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Neolithic warm periods were at or above current temperatures. In the case of the Neolithic period, considerably above. And as I originally said... humanity thrived during these warm periods.... as opposed to during the ice age.. Pretty non controversial Id've thought. But we live in weird times. You go on believing what 60 minutes tells you bud.

 

[Clems Knee]

Re.. Pevensey. There's loads of research on UK coastlines.. all conclude sea levels were higher. The funny thing is... you think this is not a consensus view
A logical discussion of why the high tide mark in Anglo Saxon times was 5 metres higher(Pevensey). (saxonhistory.co.uk)
View attachment 1105645

Where did you get the map of Pevensey from? It wasn’t in the link you provided. It appears to be a made up map based on sea level plus 5m and a whole load of guesswork that any place name ending with -eye must have been an island surrounded by open water (as opposed to land surrounded by marshlands).
Interestingly if you use the sea level +5m promoted by the “logical” link you provided then Roman seaside forts such at Portsea would have been 4m underwater.

One of the links that your link gave was of a Durham University text/thesis, which was quite interesting.

Margins of the East Fen: Historic Landscape Evolution - Durham University

www.dur.ac.uk

From this scholarly investigation it is clear that coastline changes are not a simple matter of sea levels being higher in the past as you have suggested, but a combination of historical sea level changes (rises and falls) sedimentation, ecological succession of wetlands and human wrought changes (eg Roman exploitation of Peat and flooding for salt harvesting).
I’ll give you a relevant quote -
“A sea-level curve for the southern North Sea published by Behre7suggests much lower rises above the continental datum lines used in that study: he postuates a peak of about 0.8m in 500 cal AD, with a regression of 0.25m until a further peak at 0.8m in 725 cal AD. If true of England, the Early Saxon occupation would have taken place against the background of a falling sea-level but Middle Saxon settlement would have contended with rising levels; the Viking occupation of 870 came in a time of falling sea-level. However, this work has been strongly criticised and seems not to include factors such as the size of embayments, sediment supply, storm incidence and indeed human impact;8 there may also be data problems and is countered by the general finding that 'relatively small coastal areas (less than 50km in diameter) all have their own sea-level history and that sealevel index points from different coastal sectors should not be integrated in the data plot of one overall curve.'9 Thus the current opinion seems to be that changes in Holocene stratigraphy do not necessarily mean changes in RSL”

In other words, you are trying to shoehorn some simple observations into a wider nonsensical explanation that environmental damage due to anthropogenic climate change is not a threat.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Where did you get the map of Pevensey from? It wasn’t in the link you provided. It appears to be a made up map based on sea level plus 5m and a whole load of guesswork that any place name ending with -eye must have been an island surrounded by open water (as opposed to land surrounded by marshlands).
Interestingly if you use the sea level +5m promoted by the “logical” link you provided then Roman seaside forts such at Portsea would have been 4m underwater.

One of the links that your link gave was of a Durham University text/thesis, which was quite interesting.

Margins of the East Fen: Historic Landscape Evolution - Durham University

www.dur.ac.uk

From this scholarly investigation it is clear that coastline changes are not a simple matter of sea levels being higher in the past as you have suggested, but a combination of historical sea level changes (rises and falls) sedimentation, ecological succession of wetlands and human wrought changes (eg Roman exploitation of Peat and flooding for salt harvesting).
I’ll give you a relevant quote -
“A sea-level curve for the southern North Sea published by Behre7suggests much lower rises above the continental datum lines used in that study: he postuates a peak of about 0.8m in 500 cal AD, with a regression of 0.25m until a further peak at 0.8m in 725 cal AD. If true of England, the Early Saxon occupation would have taken place against the background of a falling sea-level but Middle Saxon settlement would have contended with rising levels; the Viking occupation of 870 came in a time of falling sea-level. However, this work has been strongly criticised and seems not to include factors such as the size of embayments, sediment supply, storm incidence and indeed human impact;8 there may also be data problems and is countered by the general finding that 'relatively small coastal areas (less than 50km in diameter) all have their own sea-level history and that sealevel index points from different coastal sectors should not be integrated in the data plot of one overall curve.'9 Thus the current opinion seems to be that changes in Holocene stratigraphy do not necessarily mean changes in RSL”

In other words, you are trying to shoehorn some simple observations into a wider nonsensical explanation that environmental damage due to anthropogenic climate change is not a threat.

If you re-read the article it says high tides were 5m higher. That's a big difference to sea levels being 5m higher. I've given you a number of scholarly studies that conclude higher sea levels, your silt explanation does not stack up unless you can explain where all the silt came from in the flat settled land and small streams that flow into Pevensey bay. Your point about the "ea" villages being Marsh Islands is a good one. But I fail to see how William the Conqueror managed to sail his ships to a coastal fort that now sits 4km inland if the area was marshland as you are suggesting.

I presume you mean Portchester. This photo of it today shows it would not be under 4m of water as you suggest, even if I was actually suggesting sea levels were 5m higher (as opposed to tides).


Of course there are different reasons for changes in different situations and coastal locations and across time... not to mention differing opinions and interpretations of the forces at work. That's the complexity of earth sciences. I'm not the one saying "the science is settled" here and clearly I have not said "climate change is not a threat" as you state. I have said it is definitely not the level of threat being promoted by politicians and media though, as it has happened to us before and we've adapted just fine, without present day technology. So if you are going to disingenuously put false words in my mouth... not a good reflection on you and not much point in continuing a discussion.

Non of what you've said changes the sound research and extensive evidence which strongly suggests generally higher coast lines and warmer climates at that time. If, as the data shows, the Greenland ice sheet was warmer at these times then of course you'd expect sea level rises accompanying it. That is the exact argument being made now by climate scientists;(Greenland is melting, Atlantic sea levels rising as a result); which is not in dispute; (although current sea levels don't seem to be responding as expected).