At http://notrickszone.com/2015/07/20/surprise-no-sea-level-rise-at-tanzani… … there is a translation of an article by Dr S Luning and Prof Fritz Vahrenhalt, posted by Pierre Gosselin. The two authors wrote the book, The Kalte Sonne (the cold sun), which caused a bit of a stir a couple of years ago (there is now an English translation of their book). They were dedicated CAGW believers but after investigating the science, just as a matter of interest, they were astonished to find it was nonsense – and the rest is history (in Germany at least).
Global sea level has boon on the rise for 15,000 years – or this is the consensus belief. All we know for sure is that global sea levels have changed over time and simply constructing a graph showing exponential rise, how it progressed from A to B, is a bit like global warming models projecting a rise in temperature (in the future) – by drawing an upward pointing line. It is totally conjectural (and in the heads of the people constructing the graphs).
In spite of this assumed steady and consistent rise in sea levels scientists could not help but notice sea levels changed dramatically at around 6000BC – and since that date have not fluctuated to any great extent (even though estuaries around Europe have been flooded in more recent times). We can assume something pretty dramatic occurred around 6000BC – and Stephen Oppenheimer in 'Eden in the East' claimed many flood legends from around the world (in particular in SE Asia) go back to this time – otherwise the change in sea level would have been smoothed out by scientists (keeping strictly to their exponential graph of continuous unabated sea level rise). In other words, the early Holocene sea level rise may not have really been exponential – and may also have jumped, or changed abruptly – and steeply. It is a matter of faith that sea level rise has been exponential – the effect of gradualism on the science. Like evolution, sea level rise could have occurred in leaps and bounds. Horror of horrors – are we talking about real flooding events?
In spite of the above Luning and Vahrenhalt's article is based on the research of scientists at Durham University in the UK – but their article, and the research, favours the above scenario. This is because research in both Tanzania and the Seychelles discovered fluctuations in sea level during the Holocene. This is quite clever as it effectively eliminates the rapid sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age and seeks to establish a more agreeable and lesser rate of rise over the last 10,000 years (post Younger Dryas event). Climate scientists do this all the time – choosing the period they wish to stress infers global warming. In this case, the research was inclined to ignore the massive rise in sea levels (earlier) and only look at the more mundane rate of sea level rise during what was thought to be too dramatic – but yet it seems it was pretty dramatic. The findings were that sea levels rose exponentially in the early Holocene (referring to the gradualist graph) and established themselves at around 3.5m below today's level at 7900 years ago (which you will notice = 5900BC, very nearly 6000BC). Interesting the way they switch from BC to Years Ago.
Some 900 years later sea level was roughly little different to what it is today – which is a very important point as it suggests no significant changes in the equatorial bulge occurred after that date (Tanzania being in the tropics and not far removed from the equator). The 900 year may represent an artifact of the 6000BC event – a realignment of the equatorial bulge (perhaps).
An interesting point made by the researchers is that it cannot be excluded that sea levels exceeded the current level after this date. However, come 4400 years ago (roughly the Mandelkehr 2300BC event – which appears to have been shifted back to 2500BC via C14 calibration), and roughly coinciding with the First Intermediate Period in Egypt (for the consumption of revisionists) there has been falling (if it exceeded the current level) or stable sea levels (not withstanding a few blips but of small proportions). CAGW sceptics have seized on this to laugh at alarmist projections of sea level rise but in the context of Catastrophism it is much more important – it points out exactly where in the Holocene a major event occurred (which was greater than anything that superseded it, including the 2300-2150BC event). It was big – but not nearly as big as the Younger Dryas Event – or the end of the Ice Age (around 16000 years ago). What we do not know is the scale of the event (obviously global) or what triggered it. This can't be blamed on low sun spot numbers, super CME events, or cosmic particles from a supernova in a far corner of the universe. It caused the Earth to readjust the ocean basins (and sea level in the process).
From the perspective of CAGW, the alarmists will be disappointed as the study shows the findings concur with coastal tidal guages on Zanzibar (installed in 1984) which show no discernible evidence of sea level rise (to speak of). However, Hansen has recently reiterated that we can expect a ten foot rise in sea level by 2100. This is something of a revision as he is on record as saying a ten foot rise would occur as early as 2040. Presumably the idea is to push these wild ideas far into the future – long after he has died and his career is no more. CAGW is so comical – how can anyone take it seriously.