Have you guys ever heard of plate tectonics? To make these conclusions you must rule out uplifting from this influence. Very few in the scientific community, (if any), think higher ocean levels were present within that time period. They consider these kind of arguments as disinformation. Go
here to learn more about how plate tectonics explains why coral islands are above the surface. As for Oceanside, sedimentation is sufficient explanation, something that has been accelerated by human influence through agriculture. It is also tectonically active and is near a plate boundary where the plate resisted subduction and so has been uplifted.
I have heard of plate tectonics. I have an Earth & Planetary Sciences degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. I have also studied Sedimentary Basin Analysis (tectonics) at one of the most prestigious engineering universities in the U.S.
The wikipedia article you linked is so bad, that it is not even wrong.
"While isostatic response is important, an increase in the mean elevation of a region (bold mine) can only occur in response to tectonic processes of crustal thickening (such as mountain building events), changes in the density distribution of the crust and underlying mantle, and flexural support due to the bending of rigid lithosphere."It appears that this has been edited by a smart person, but that person DOES NOT have a strong background in the subject matter. This is a common malady on Wikipedia.
The entire Hudson Bay region is still exhibiting isostatic rebound from the last glacial period. I believe the current rate is still over 1 meter/century.
The wiki article should have been written to say that: no crustal tectonic plate can exhibit an increase in mean elevation
for the entire plate without being subjected to some tectonic uplift process.
At least 2.5 million square miles of land in Canada is currently moving upwards, primarily due to isostatic rebound. I consider the unit of a "region" to be smaller than almost the entirety of the second largest country in the world.
The wiki discussion of coral islands farther down is just a mess. It poorly describes the tectonic environment for a single type of coral island and then implies that condition applies to the general case.
That conclusion is demonstrably untrue. There are a multiplicity of tectonic environments that contain islands with carbonate deposits above sea level. Including islands that exhibit carbonate deposits above current sea level AND are located in tectonic environments that are currently undergoing subsidence.
Among those islands, fluctuating sea levels exert a powerful control on carbonate deposition. However, there are several other geological processes affecting sedimentation.
Some of which enable deposition above sea level. It is possible to find modern deposits of marine creatures above sea level. These carbonate-based marine fossils ARE NOT in situ, but have been emplaced as storm deposits and then subsequently cemented with carbonate minerals that were demonstrably formed in a freshwater vadose zone or phreatic zone.
However, the biggest reason that I spent the time to type this reply, is that
there are also modern MARINE carbonate sediments that were deposited above the current sea level in non-uplifting tectonic environments!There is abundant evidence of a global sea level highstand earlier in the Holocene!
Below is a link to over one hundred peer-reviewed publications documenting the previous sea level highstand.
Holocene Sea Level StudiesSome of these studies document the equivalent of walking up to a sandy shore at your pond and observing depressions and bowls in the sediments of the pond filled with spawning BG at depths of 1' to 4'. You then notice similar depressions in the sand that are located ABOVE the current water level. This is not PROOF that the water level was previously higher in your pond, but it is highly suggestive.
If another researcher can document rabbits making similar depressions adjacent to ponds and above the water level, then the elevation of existing depressions CANNOT be used to determine prior water levels. However,
speculation about rabbits IS NOT sufficient to overturn the use of depressions as an indicator of prior water levels of the pond. Calling such a hypothetical BG study "disinformation" based on speculation is a disservice to science and the scientific method.
The studies in the link above show different values for the previous sea level because the determination of eustatic sea level is exceedingly difficult to calculate based on all of the local influences on relative sea level. However, many of the studies clearly document evidence of higher sea levels in areas that ARE NOT experiencing tectonic uplift.
If anyone is interested, the link below goes to a good paper studying ONLY TWO FACTORS on marine carbonate deposits. You will quickly be able to discern for yourself that any "scientist" giving simplistic, one-dimensional answers on this topic is either uneducated or is attempting to deliberately mislead you.
Influence of Water Depth and Wave Energy on Marine Carbonate DepositionI personally get extremely worried when scientists dismiss other rigorous research as "disinformation" and then proceed without addressing the evidence presented. That is the domain of ideologues. True scientists must integrate all of the data when presenting an accurate representation of the actual physical world.
[I do not intend this post to step on anybody's toes, or to insult anyone's firmly held beliefs. However, any discussion that implicates "global warming" to any degree almost inevitably devolves into two dissenting camps influenced by political beliefs. I wish to avoid the outcome with all of my good friends on Pond Boss.]
Best wishes to all,
FishinRod