Thus, it begs the question of whether water levels are rising, land levels are decreasing, or that the Romans were so technologically advanced that they built the world's first underwater city.
"Begging the question" is NOT analysis, it's the fact that current analysis about global warming IGNORES the evidence that within the last 2,000 years a city that was formerly, and assumably, ABOVE sea level, has become submerged.
Now if the land mass on the coast of the Northern Sinai has sunk that far within the past 2,000 years, where should be some tectonic evidence for that (fault lines.. etc).
Now here's something else for you...
Evidence of an ancient "lost river civilisation" has been uncovered off the west coast of India, the country's minister for science and technology has announced. Local archaeologists claim the find could push back currently accepted dates of the emergence of the world's first cities.
Underwater archaeologists at the National Institute of Ocean Technology first detected signs of an ancient submerged settlement in the Gulf of Cambay, off Gujarat, in May 2001. They have now conducted further acoustic imaging surveys and have carbon dated one of the finds.
The acoustic imaging has identified a nine-kilometre-long stretch of what was once a river but is now 40 metres beneath the sea. The site is surrounded by evidence of extensive human settlement. Carved wood, pottery, beads, broken pieces of sculpture and human teeth have been retrieved from along the river banks, according to a report in the Indian Express newspaper. Carbon dating of one of the wooden samples has dated the site to around 7500 BC.
"The carbon dating of 7500 BC obtained for the wooden piece recovered from the site changes the earlier held view that the first cities appeared in the Sumer Valley [in Mesopotamia] around 3000 BC," said B Sasisekaran of India's National Science Academy.....
newscientist.com
.....The key events seem to relate to quaternary tectonics and the rise of sea levels about 10,000 years ago. The peninsula of Saura_s.t.ra is an earthquake-prone zone, subject to earthquakes caused by plate tectonics since the region is very close the plate boundaries between the Indian Plate and the European Plate. As the continent of Bha_rata has been moving upwards for millions of years and jutting up with the European Plate on the Tibetan plateau, Himalayas are reckoned as the youngest mountain ranges in the world which still continue to rise at the rate of 1 cm per year, thanks to the clash of plates of the earth's crust.
sulekha.com
Now assuming that their has been tectonic subduction equally 1 cm per year on average, over the past 10,000 years, that STILL ONLY EQUATES TO 33 FEET!! (10000cm / 25cm / 12in = 33ft)
So.. in the course of 5,000 to 10,000 years, the piece of land sank 160 feet??
Or did the oceans RISE 160 feet??
It has to be one or the other....
As for the Norther Sinai, is does not lie on an active fault, but rather pretty much smack dab in the middle of the overall Sinai tectonic plate. And those plate movements to the north have been on the order of Milimeters per year, not centimeters.
Field study during 5 field seasons of the entire northern Nile Delta coast and delta plain was initiated in l985 (includes collection of about l00 long sediment borings, to 60 m, and surficial sediments). The major result to date is recognition of rates of subsidence locally to 0.5 cm per year, and a projected minimal incursion of the sea to 30 km inland by the year 2100 in the northeastern Delta. Coring, mapping and laboratory analyses of surface and subsurface samples will provide rates of subsidence across the delta plain, from east to west of Alexandria.
gcrio.org
Thus, at 0.5cm per year, it's hard to say that tectonic subsidence/subduction is the cause of the submergence of this Roman city on the sea within the mere space of 2,000 years.
Thus, the odds are that the oceans have been rising during that time period.. which is the primary point.
There may be global warming that is melting the ice cap and causing sea levels to rise, but is it a history and natural warming of the earth, or strictly man-made??
The question is important because if this is a natural warming, then our response to it must be FAR DIFFERENT than merely enacting Kyoto and eliminating all output of greenhouse gases. We may have to undertake some major "terraforming" projects aimed at countering the natural process.
And of course, such an undertaking will be VERY CONTROVERSIAL to the liberals. Most of the conservatives and pragmatists will say.. "do whatever you have to do".
Hawk |
