How to Edit Your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of Online On the Fly
Follow the step-by-step guide to get your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of edited with efficiency and effectiveness:
- Hit the Get Form button on this page.
- You will go to our PDF editor.
- Make some changes to your document, like signing, highlighting, and other tools in the top toolbar.
- Hit the Download button and download your all-set document into you local computer.
We Are Proud of Letting You Edit Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of Seamlessly
How to Edit Your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of Online
If you need to sign a document, you may need to add text, complete the date, and do other editing. CocoDoc makes it very easy to edit your form with the handy design. Let's see how to finish your work quickly.
- Hit the Get Form button on this page.
- You will go to our PDF editor webpage.
- When the editor appears, click the tool icon in the top toolbar to edit your form, like inserting images and checking.
- To add date, click the Date icon, hold and drag the generated date to the target place.
- Change the default date by changing the default to another date in the box.
- Click OK to save your edits and click the Download button to use the form offline.
How to Edit Text for Your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of with Adobe DC on Windows
Adobe DC on Windows is a useful tool to edit your file on a PC. This is especially useful when you prefer to do work about file edit without using a browser. So, let'get started.
- Click the Adobe DC app on Windows.
- Find and click the Edit PDF tool.
- Click the Select a File button and select a file from you computer.
- Click a text box to make some changes the text font, size, and other formats.
- Select File > Save or File > Save As to confirm the edit to your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of.
How to Edit Your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of With Adobe Dc on Mac
- Select a file on you computer and Open it with the Adobe DC for Mac.
- Navigate to and click Edit PDF from the right position.
- Edit your form as needed by selecting the tool from the top toolbar.
- Click the Fill & Sign tool and select the Sign icon in the top toolbar to customize your signature in different ways.
- Select File > Save to save the changed file.
How to Edit your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of from G Suite with CocoDoc
Like using G Suite for your work to complete a form? You can integrate your PDF editing work in Google Drive with CocoDoc, so you can fill out your PDF without worrying about the increased workload.
- Go to Google Workspace Marketplace, search and install CocoDoc for Google Drive add-on.
- Go to the Drive, find and right click the form and select Open With.
- Select the CocoDoc PDF option, and allow your Google account to integrate into CocoDoc in the popup windows.
- Choose the PDF Editor option to open the CocoDoc PDF editor.
- Click the tool in the top toolbar to edit your Contribute Research Articles For First Issue Of Frontier Journal Of on the specified place, like signing and adding text.
- Click the Download button to save your form.
PDF Editor FAQ
Is there any scientific proof that vaccines cause autism?
This answer briefly summarizes some overarching inferences,Autism - Wikipedia / Autism spectrum - Wikipedia (Autism Spectrum Disorders, ASD) rates started greatly increasing in some countries such as the US and UK since the 1980s even as doctors little understood these conditions and offered little of value to increasingly anxious parents desperately seeking definitive answers. Thus, in such an Autism causation vacuum, Andrew Wakefield - Wikipedia et al's 1998 Lancet report (1), the first to offer an explanation for the 'autism epidemic', became a convenient crutch for many frustrated parents who felt either ignored or condescended to by the medical establishment.However, in ~20 years, there's surprisingly scant scientific evidence to support the contention that 'vaccines cause autism'. Surprising because 20 years is a long enough period to be able to bolster the argument with solid data sets.Even taken at face value, many risk factors about Autism/ASD simply cannot be explained by a 'vaccines cause autism' notion. The more facts it can explain about a given phenomenon, the stronger a given hypothesis. That is just not the case with the 'vaccines cause autism' notion, which is simply inherently scientifically weak.On a topic so controversial as a potential vaccine(s)-Autism link, it may be best to start by scrutinizing the original data that got this particular idea started. In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and 12 co-authors published a Lancet article on 12 children, claiming they had identified in them evidence of a novel syndrome they called Autistic enterocolitis - Wikipedia (1).To digress just a bit at first, it's somewhat surprising that there isn't yet an agreed-upon consensus on the etiquette regarding scientific papers that have been retracted (2, 3). Specifically, should they continue to be cited in the literature or not? For example, this Wakefield et al paper continues being cited, 85 times already over six months in 2017 according to Google Scholar.This answer however requires not just citing this paper but also looking at what it actually says since it subsequently served as the launchpad for a purported vaccine(s)-Autism link. While 8 of these 12 children (67%) had received the MMR vaccine by the time of their symptom onset, the authors concluded (see below from 1, emphasis mine),'We identify associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers...We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described...If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence22 or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.23'Since these authors did suggest 'a rising incidence [of their newly coined syndrome] might be anticipated after the introduction of this [MMR] vaccine in the UK in 1988', if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their autistic enterocolitis concords to some extent with Autism, what do epidemiological data show so far? In a nutshell, nothing that supports their supposition. On the contrary, such studies haven't found a link between vaccines and Autism.A 1999 study of children in North Thames, London, found rising cases of ASD since 1979 without a sharp increase after MMR was introduced in 1988 (4).A 2001 British study found that while Autism rates in 2 to 5 year olds had increased from 8 boys per 10000 to 29, a 3.6-fold increase, from 1988 to 1993, rates of MMR vaccination had remained stable across these birth cohorts, meaning it wasn't possible to attribute the Autism rate increase to the MMR vaccine (5).Thus an examination of the original paper that jump-started the vaccines-Autism controversy finds it did not even make such an assertion and that subsequent studies found no evidence of such a link either. OTOH, one detailed review after another has since found that the MMR vaccineIs safe (6, 7).Is unlinked to Autism (8).The furore, notoriety and controversy about a link between vaccines and Autism begins with this one study of a mere 12 children, only 8 of whom had received the MMR vaccine by the time of their symptom onset, and it turns out the study didn't even make that claim. Also more accurately, the paper explores not a link between vaccines and Autism in general but rather one specifically between the MMR vaccine and autistic enterocolitis, a syndrome that isn’t listed in medical textbooks.So, how did a link between vaccines and Autism even get made? Turns out to have been a subsequent interpretation (3), perhaps helped along by an immediate press conference when this paper was published followed by copious contemporaneous sensationalist front-page coverage by several British newspapers (9) of a kind that suggests (3) many couldn't even be bothered to read what was actually in the paper.Subsequent uncovering of undisclosed conflicts of interest behind Wakefield's study followed by predictable establishment backlash against him then cast him in the potent 'martyr' mode, which further solidified and enhanced his reputation among parents desperately seeking definitive answers to their children's Autism/ASD diagnosis, and who also felt Wakefield took them seriously while feeling the medical establishment didn't (9).How Autism's Causation Vacuum was Fertile Soil for Wakefield's Vaccine-Autism Supposition to take RootOn the face of it, it seems astounding that one small study on 12 patients should have had such an outsize impact. And yet, maybe not so surprising from a sociological perspective. At the time the Wakefield et al paper came out, Autism/ASD rates had already been spiking for several years with no satisfactory explanation from the medical establishment. Perhaps unwittingly, this state of affairs helped stoke and sustain this particular controversy.Autism diagnosis remains the purview of behavioral scientists who base the diagnosis on a highly subjective checklist, not an impartial, objective, quantitative diagnostic test.Even as they tweaked and improved their diagnostic toolkit, which in turn led to increasing rates of diagnosis, doctors had no clear answer for why steadily increasing numbers of children were being diagnosed with Autism from the 1980s, especially in the US and UK.Still little understood, neither reliable objective diagnosis nor specific treatment, let alone cure, yet existed for Autism/ASD, a situation little changed in the years since.With increasing numbers of parents desperately seeking answers to their children's predicament, a causation vacuum concerning Autism was precisely calamitous and in hindsight, the Wakefield paper appears to have arrived at just the right moment to fill it with something that no one had proposed thus far, a 'medical explanation for the autism epidemic' (see below from 9, emphasis mine).'However, the fact that there was no other reported or known reason for the ‘epidemic’ did not exactly help matters. Whatever their overall validity, vaccine hypotheses did plug a gaping hole in scientific knowledge about this condition that everyone thought had been measured so precisely and accurately with a wealth of new measurement tools and scales. How could it be that no one actually knew why autism was increasing?...Wakefield’s work was so popular because it promised so much. It promised to fully explain the autism epidemic, thus it was particularly ironic that epidemiological sciences never supported his claims.’Autism/ASD having historically been and tending to remain the purview of behavioral scientists may, in the grand scheme of things, turn out to have been a major stumbling block that stymied accelerated understanding of these conditions.Ironically, by highlighting gastrointestinal issues in autistic children, Wakefield may have done Autism/ASD research a huge service. After all, ~20 years on, the gut microbiota-brain link is so much better appreciated now and indeed gut Dysbiosis - Wikipedia is today well-recognized as a cardinal feature in substantial numbers of Autism/ASD patients (10, 11).There was and is an urgent need for a more multi-disciplinary approach for both research and diagnosis in the Autism/ASD field. Gastroenterologists, immunologists, microbiologists, geneticists and other specialists would only help not impede better understanding of these conditions by helping develop more scientifically robust diagnostic approaches and helping tailor more targeted therapies.Even in 2017, such cross-disciplinary research on Autism/ASD is sorely lacking. A simple literature search is a clear indication of this. My search for 'Autism' in both Nature Reviews Immunology and Nature Reviews Microbiology together turned up a total of only 24 articles, 2001-2017 (12), only 19 in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology, though through 2006-2017, which suggests the gut-microbiota-brain axis is becoming a bigger focus of research (13), while the same search in Nature Reviews Neuroscience turned up almost 10X higher articles (219), 2001-2017 (14). For context, the Nature Reviews series are typically considered among the most influential science review journals for various subjects.History also suggests the Wakefield idea fills the Autism/ASD causation vacuum rather like a square peg in a round hole. After all, it is inherently scientifically weak since there are so many Autism/ASD risk factors that effects of vaccines, adverse or otherwise, simply cannot explain.So many Autism/ASD Risk Factors that Vaccines can't explainHow could vaccines possibly explainWhy Autism/ASD is more common in boys than girls, ranging from ~4:1 in the 1990s (15) to ~9:1 by the 2010s (16, 17, 18)? If vaccines 'cause' autism, a person's gender shouldn't matter.Why Autism/ASD rates are so much higher in monozygotic (identical) (70-90% concordance) compared to dizygotic (fraternal) (0-30% concordance) twins (19, 20, 21)?Found in disparate populations such as in the UK (22) as well as in Scandinavia (23).Monozygotic twin concordance for autism is a long-standing feature, being observed right from the 1970s in pioneering studies by Michael Rutter - Wikipedia (24).Autism thus has an unmistakably strong genetic component (22), something that could not be explained by environmental factors alone such as effects of vaccine(s), adverse or otherwise.If vaccines 'cause' autism, a person's genetic background shouldn't matter.Autism/ASD connection with maternal and child antibiotic use reported in several studies (25, 26, 27)? This alludes to a different environmental trigger, namely, changes in gut microbiota composition.Consistently identified Autism risk factors such as exposure to traffic-related air pollutants, increased parental age, maternal obesity, diabetes and folic acid deficiency, prenatal viral infection, C-section, preterm birth, low birth weight, limited or absent breastfeeding, abnormal melatonin synthesis, hyperbilirubinemia, zinc deficiency, and maternal immigrant status (28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)? These factors and vaccines are simply unconnected.Autism/ASD are clearly multi-factorial, with both genetic and environmental factors intersecting in as-yet undeciphered ways, and since rates started to increase dramatically since the 1980s, clearly some environmental factor(s) are key. However, those factors still remain stubbornly unclear. Rather than vaccines, however, multiple studies since at least 2004 have consistently reported altered gut microbiota composition in ASD subjects (10, 11). Whether that's cause or effect still remains to be determined.CodaBasing anti-vaccine sentiment on a purported vaccines-autism link is reckless and dangerous since it inflicts real cost in the form of needless deaths from vaccine preventable diseases. Consider measles where the vaccine is historically one of the safest on record. In June 2017, a six year old Italian leukemia patient died from measles complications after reportedly catching it from his older brother, whom his parents had decided not to vaccinate (34), the latest in a measles 'tragedy' that has so far taken 35 lives across Europe (35).Bibliography1. Wakefield, Andrew J., et al. "RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children." (1998): 637-641. http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0.pdf2. da Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira, and Judit Dobránszki. "Highly cited retracted papers." Scientometrics 110.3 (2017): 1653-1661.3. Collins, Harry M., Luis Reyes‐Galindo, and Paul Ginsparg. "A note concerning primary source knowledge." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68.5 (2017): 1105-1110. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1605/1605.07228.pdf4. Taylor, Brent, et al. "Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association." The Lancet 353.9169 (1999): 2026-2029. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brent_Taylor3/publication/12921734_Autism_and_Measles_Mumps_and_Rubella_Vaccine_No_Epidemiological_Evidence_for_a_Causal_Association/links/02e7e51d45c2c59b90000000.pdf5. Kaye, James A., Maria del Mar Melero-Montes, and Hershel Jick. "Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis." Bmj 322.7284 (2001): 460-463. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4657/f7bf358ca0d1c5aa341ed33a63df84e52da7.pdf6. Halsey, Neal A., and Susan L. Hyman. "Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder: report from the New Challenges in Childhood Immunizations Conference convened in Oak Brook, Illinois, June 12–13, 2000." Pediatrics 107.5 (2001): e84-e84. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/107/5/e84.full.pdf7. Demicheli, Vittorio, et al. "Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4.4 (2005). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlo_Di_Pietrantonj/publication/221834605_Vaccines_for_measles_mumps_and_rubella_in_children/links/00463517a5aa79a22b000000/Vaccines-for-measles-mumps-and-rubella-in-children.pdf8. Stratton, Kathleen, et al. "Immunization safety review: measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism." (2001). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223376/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK223376.pdf9. Evans, Bonnie. The metamorphosis of autism. Manchester University Press, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK436841/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK436841.pdf10. Mayer, Emeran A., David Padua, and Kirsten Tillisch. "Altered brain‐gut axis in autism: Comorbidity or causative mechanisms?." Bioessays 36.10 (2014): 933-939.11. Hsiao, Elaine Y. "Gastrointestinal issues in autism spectrum disorder." Harvard review of psychiatry 22.2 (2014): 104-111. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce91/0afdf1c3da4cb6dc814170733a0204611180.pdf12. nature.com search13. nature.com search14. nature.com search15. Baron-Cohen, Simon, and Jessica Hammer. "Is autism an extreme form of the" male brain"?." Advances in Infancy research 11 (1997): 193-218. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad8c/4b5c9e91059d95e98649c94c7569c492a3f2.pdf16. Whiteley, Paul, et al. "Gender ratios in autism, Asperger syndrome and autism spectrum disorder." Autism Insights 2 (2010): 17. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Whiteley/publication/51018620_Gender_Ratios_in_Autism_Asperger_Syndrome_and_Autism_Spectrum_Disorder/links/0ecba90a0ad20b9df3097710.pdf17. Ruzich, Emily, et al. "Sex and STEM occupation predict autism-spectrum quotient (AQ) scores in half a million people." PloS one 10.10 (2015): e0141229. Sex and STEM Occupation Predict Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) Scores in Half a Million People18. Baron-Cohen, Simon, et al. "Elevated fetal steroidogenic activity in autism." Molecular psychiatry 20.3 (2015): 369. https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n3/pdf/mp201448a.pdf19. Muhle, Rebecca, Stephanie V. Trentacoste, and Isabelle Rapin. "The genetics of autism." Pediatrics 113.5 (2004): e472-e486. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Isabelle_Rapin/publication/8583430_The_genetics_of_autism/links/00463521b8de571cdd000000/The-genetics-of-autism.pdf20. Rosenberg, Rebecca E., et al. "Characteristics and concordance of autism spectrum disorders among 277 twin pairs." Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 163.10 (2009): 907-914. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rebecca_Rosenberg2/publication/26871866_Characteristics_and_Concordance_of_Autism_Spectrum_Disorders_Among_277_Twin_Pairs/links/561f019a08aec7945a271a75.pdf21. Hallmayer, Joachim, et al. "Genetic heritability and shared environmental factors among twin pairs with autism." Archives of general psychiatry 68.11 (2011): 1095-1102. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3c04/5560f824473172027c89eaeefa46260afe55.pdf22. Bailey, Anthony, et al. "Autism as a strongly genetic disorder: evidence from a British twin study." Psychological medicine 25.1 (1995): 63-77. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emily_Simonoff2/publication/15407569_Autism_as_a_Strongly_Genetic_Disorder_Evidence_from_a_British_Twin_Study/links/591d4f3c45851540595c8e43/Autism-as-a-Strongly-Genetic-Disorder-Evidence-from-a-British-Twin-Study.pdf23. Steffenburg, Suzanne, et al. "A twin study of autism in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 30.3 (1989): 405-416.24. Folstein, Susan, and Michael Rutter. "A Twin Study of Individuals with Infantile Autism." Autism. Springer US, 1978. 219-241.25. Konstantareas, M. Mary, and Soula Homatidis. "Brief report: Ear infections in autistic and normal children." Journal of autism and developmental disorders 17.4 (1987): 585-594.26. Niehus, Rebecca, and Catherine Lord. "Early medical history of children with autism spectrum disorders." Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 27.2 (2006): S120-S127.27. Adams, James B., et al. "Mercury, lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus controls." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 70.12 (2007): 1046-1051.28. Landrigan, Philip J. "What causes autism? Exploring the environmental contribution." Current opinion in pediatrics 22.2 (2010): 219-225. http://www.autism-society.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Autism-and-Environment.pdf29. Rossignol, Daniel A., and Richard E. Frye. "A review of research trends in physiological abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders: immune dysregulation, inflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and environmental toxicant exposures." Molecular psychiatry 17.4 (2012): 389. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/552b/c0709407afc962369a322a41d2ae605a8b16.pdf30. Grabrucker, Andreas M. "Environmental factors in autism." Frontiers in Psychiatry 3 (2012). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreas_Grabrucker/publication/235368604_Environmental_Factors_in_Autism/links/0c96052f1f836e4fc0000000.pdf31. Rossignol, D. A., S. J. Genuis, and R. E. Frye. "Environmental toxicants and autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review." Translational psychiatry 4.2 (2014): e360. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3944636/pdf/tp20144a.pdf32. Ornoy, A., L. Weinstein-Fudim, and Z. Ergaz. "Prenatal factors associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)." Reproductive Toxicology 56 (2015): 155-169. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Asher_Ornoy/publication/277408501_Prenatal_factors_associated_with_Autism_Spectrum_Disorder_ASD/links/55756d7d08aeb6d8c01959b7/Prenatal-factors-associated-with-Autism-Spectrum-Disorder-ASD.pdf33. Ng, Michelle, et al. "Environmental factors associated with autism spectrum disorder: a scoping review for the years 2003-2013." Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada 37.1 (2017). http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/hpcdp-pspmc/37-1/assets/pdf/ar-01-eng.pdf34. Child's death from measles caught from unvaccinated brother reignites debate in Italy35. Measles 'tragedy' kills 35 across Europe - BBC NewsThanks for the R2A, Marcos Santiago.
I spend days just to come up with one sentence. How to achieve the writing of research articles?
The best advice that has worked perfectly for me and my friends comes from this ELSVIER article below. Sorry it is long but a scientific writer needs it all.11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriouslyA seasoned editor gives advice to get your work published in an international journalBy Angel Borja, PhD Posted on 24 JuneHow to Prepare a Manuscript for International Journals — Part 2In this monthly series, Dr. Angel Borja draws on his extensive background as an author, reviewer and editor to give advice on preparing the manuscript (author's view), the evaluation process (reviewer's view) and what there is to hate or love in a paper (editor's view).This article is the second in the series. The first article was: "Six things to do before writing your manuscript."The AuthorAngel Borja, PhDDr. Angel Borja is Head of Projects at AZTI-Tecnalia, a research center in the Basque Country in Spain specializing in marine research and food technologies. Formerly he was also Head of the Department of Oceanography and Head of the Marine Management Area. His main topic of investigation is marine ecology, and has published more than 270 contributions, from which 150 are in over 40 peer-reviewed journals, through his long career of 32 years of research. During this time he has investigated in multiple topics and ecosystem components, having an ample and multidisciplinary view of marine research.Dr. Borja is the Editor of several journals, including Frontiers in Marine Ecosystem Ecology, Revista de Investigación Marina, Elsevier's Journal of Sea Research and Continental Shelf Research. In addition, he is a member of the editorial boards of Elsevier's Marine Pollution Bulletin, Ecological Indicators and Ocean & Coastal Management.Read more about his work on ResearchGate, ORCID and LinkedIn, and follow him on Twitter (@AngelBorjaYerro).Watch a related tutorial by Publishing Connect.When you organize your manuscript, the first thing to consider is that the order of sections will be very different than the order of items on you checklist.An article begins with the Title, Abstract and Keywords.The article text follows the IMRAD format, which responds to the questions below:Introduction: What did you/others do? Why did you do it?Methods: How did you do it?Results: What did you find?AndDiscussion: What does it all mean?The main text is followed by the Conclusion, Acknowledgements, References and Supporting Materials.While this is the published structure, however, we often use a different order when writing.Steps to organizing your manuscriptPrepare the figures and tables.Write the Methods.Write up the Results.Write the Discussion. Finalize the Results and Discussion before writing the introduction. This is because, if the discussion is insufficient, how can you objectively demonstrate the scientific significance of your work in the introduction?Write a clear Conclusion.Write a compelling introduction.Write the Abstract.Compose a concise and descriptive Title.Select Keywords for indexing.Write the Acknowledgements.Write up the References.Next, I'll review each step in more detail. But before you set out to write a paper, there are two important things you should do that will set the groundwork for the entire process.The topic to be studied should be the first issue to be solved. Define your hypothesis and objectives (These will go in the Introduction.)Review the literature related to the topic and select some papers (about 30) that can be cited in your paper (These will be listed in the References.)Finally, keep in mind that each publisher has its own style guidelines and preferences, so always consult the publisher's Guide for Authors.Step 1: Prepare the figures and tablesRemember that "a figure is worth a thousand words." Hence, illustrations, including figures and tables, are the most efficient way to present your results. Your data are the driving force of the paper, so your illustrations are critical!How do you decide between presenting your data as tables or figures? Generally, tables give the actual experimental results, while figures are often used for comparisons of experimental results with those of previous works, or with calculated/theoretical values (Figure 1).Figure 1. An example of the same data presented as table or as figure. Depending in your objectives, you can show your data either as table (if you wish to stress numbers) or as figure (if you wish to compare gradients). Note: Never include vertical lines in a table.Whatever your choice is, no illustrations should duplicate the information described elsewhere in the manuscript.Another important factor: figure and table legends must be self-explanatory (Figure 2).Figure 2. In a figure or table, all the information must be there to understand the contents, including the spelling out of each abbreviation, the locations mentioned in the text and coordinates.When presenting your tables and figures, appearances count! To this end:Avoid crowded plots (Figure 3), using only three or four data sets per figure; use well-selected scales.Think about appropriate axis label sizeInclude clear symbols and data sets that are easy to distinguish.Never include long boring tables (e.g., chemical compositions of emulsion systems or lists of species and abundances). You can include them as supplementary material.Figure 3. This is an example of how to best present your data. In the first figure (left), data are crowded with too many plots. In the second figure (right), data are separated into two datasets, and plots show gradients, which can be useful for discussion.If you are using photographs, each must have a scale marker, or scale bar, of professional quality in one corner.In photographs and figures, use color only when necessary when submitting to a print publication. If different line styles can clarify the meaning, never use colors or other thrilling effects or you will be charged with expensive fees. Of course, this does not apply to online journals. For many journals, you can submit duplicate figures: one in color for the online version of the journal and pdfs, and another in black and white for the hardcopy journal (Figure 4).Figure 4. An example of the use of color and black and white, for the same data, using the dataset in Figure 1.Another common problem is the misuse of lines and histograms. Lines joining data only can be used when presenting time series or consecutive samples data (e.g., in a transect from coast to offshore in Figure 5). However, when there is no connection between samples or there is not a gradient, you must use histograms (Figure 5).Figure 5. Example on the use of lines (top left, for time series; lower left for gradients) and histograms (right). Figures on the lower left and right are presenting the same data: the left should be used in the case of gradients (e.g., a latitudinal transect), and the bar format if there is no gradient.Sometimes, fonts are too small for the journal. You must take this into account, or they may be illegible to readers (Figure 6).Figure 6. Example of the small fonts used when preparing a draft. The first figure shows charts where the numbers are illegible, compared to the second figure, where they are large enough to read.Finally, you must pay attention to the use of decimals, lines, etc. (Figure 7)Figure 7. Inadequate use of lines, number of decimals, decimal separators (use always dots, not commas) and position of units (above) and its adequate use (below) for a more clear table.Step 2: Write the MethodsThis section responds to the question of how the problem was studied. If your paper is proposing a new method, you need to include detailed information so a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment.However, do not repeat the details of established methods; use References and Supporting Materials to indicate the previously published procedures. Broad summaries or key references are sufficient.Length of the manuscriptAgain, look at the journal's Guide for Authors, but an ideal length for a manuscript is 25 to 40 pages, double spaced, including essential data only. Here are some general guidelines:Title: Short and informativeAbstract: 1 paragraph (<250 words)Introduction: 1.5-2 pagesMethods: 2-3 pagesResults: 6-8 pagesDiscussion: 4-6 pagesConclusion: 1 paragraphFigures: 6-8 (one per page)Tables: 1-3 (one per page)References: 20-50 papers (2-4 pages)Reviewers will criticize incomplete or incorrect methods descriptions and may recommend rejection, because this section is critical in the process of reproducing your investigation. In this way, all chemicals must be identified. Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds.To this end, it's important to use standard systems for numbers and nomenclature. For example:For chemicals, use the conventions of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry and the official recommendations of the IUPAC–IUB Combined Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature.For species, use accepted taxonomical nomenclature (WoRMS: World Register of Marine Species, ERMS: European Register of Marine Species), and write them always in italics.For units of measurement, follow the International System of Units (SI).Present proper control experiments and statistics used, again to make the experiment of investigation repeatable.List the methods in the same order they will appear in the Results section, in the logical order in which you did the research:Description of the siteDescription of the surveys or experiments done, giving information on dates, etc.Description of the laboratory methods, including separation or treatment of samples, analytical methods, following the order of waters, sediments and biomonitors. If you have worked with different biodiversity components start from the simplest (i.e. microbes) to the more complex (i.e. mammals)Description of the statistical methods used (including confidence levels, etc.)In this section, avoid adding comments, results, and discussion, which is a common error.Step 3: Write up the ResultsThis section responds to the question "What have you found?" Hence, only representative results from your research should be presented. The results should be essential for discussion.Statistical rulesIndicate the statistical tests used with all relevant parameters: e.g., mean and standard deviation (SD): 44% (±3); median and interpercentile range: 7 years (4.5 to 9.5 years).Use mean and standard deviation to report normally distributed data.Use median and interpercentile range to report skewed data.For numbers, use two significant digits unless more precision is necessary (2.08, not 2.07856444).Never use percentages for very small samples e.g., "one out of two" should not be replaced by 50%.However, remember that most journals offer the possibility of adding Supporting Materials, so use them freely for data of secondary importance. In this way, do not attempt to "hide" data in the hope of saving it for a later paper. You may lose evidence to reinforce your conclusion. If data are too abundant, you can use those supplementary materials.Use sub-headings to keep results of the same type together, which is easier to review and read. Number these sub-sections for the convenience of internal cross-referencing, but always taking into account the publisher's Guide for Authors.For the data, decide on a logical order that tells a clear story and makes it and easy to understand. Generally, this will be in the same order as presented in the methods section.An important issue is that you must not include references in this section; you are presenting your results, so you cannot refer to others here. If you refer to others, is because you are discussingyour results, and this must be included in the Discussion section.Step 4: Write the DiscussionHere you must respond to what the results mean. Probably it is the easiest section to write, but the hardest section to get right. This is because it is the most important section of your article. Here you get the chance to sell your data. Take into account that a huge numbers of manuscripts are rejected because the Discussion is weak.You need to make the Discussion corresponding to the Results, but do not reiterate the results. Here you need to compare the published results by your colleagues with yours (using some of the references included in the Introduction). Never ignore work in disagreement with yours, in turn, you must confront it and convince the reader that you are correct or better.Write a clear Conclusion.Write a compelling introduction.Write the Abstract.Compose a concise and descriptive Title.Select Keywords for indexing.Write the Acknowledgements.Write up the References.
Why is climate change causing problems for Kiribati?
Not true. The great deception is the fear mongering about exaggerated sea level rise by the likes of alarmist Al Gore made without supporting science. The ghost of climate refugees from the Pacific Isles created public apprehension, notwithstanding it is false without evidence. This great lie about sea levels should be a warning to all that alarmists media are willing to fabricate false news in their effort to cover the pseudo-science of the global warming scare.Sadly the lies continue today in so called respected media like the Washington Post with this false headline.The WorldPostOpinionOur island is disappearing but the president refuses to actBy Anote Tong and Matthieu RytzOct. 24, 2018 at 12:21 p.m. PDThttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/10/24/kiribati/UNTRUE. I have first hand experience with this issue as I worked in Cook Islands in the early 1960s and travelled to most of the 18 atolls, including Manihiki where I worked for a year in 1963. I have returned to the Cooks recently to see the fears of sinking islands are unfounded.Jim Matkin and friend making cement the hard way with coral rocks and palm logs Manihiki 1963.Living by the seaside on Manihiki Atoll 1963 when there was no airport.In fact Manihiki is so unafraid of the sinking into the seas threat that the government constructed the island’s first airport runaway in 2010.Other Cook Atolls in the far North Group including Penrhyn and Pukapuka also benefit from fine new airport runways because the land on these atolls is completely stable and even rising.Recent research confirms not only are the islands stable, but in fact they are growing.How does this fake news about Kiribati ‘disappearing’ published by the Washington Post happen?ANSWER:“The public, politicians, and the media are mostly scientific ignoramuses easily fooled into believing that fake science is rock-solid science. There is an alliance driven by the money-greed of the science mandarins and the socialist dreams of the political Left. It is not an accident that the many ecological catastrophes predicted by rogue science get political support from the Left.”SEE - https://principia-scientific.org/scientocracy-the-tangled-web-of-public-science-and-public-policy/The Nation of Kiribati is Growing, Not SinkingFlickr/Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade/AusAID/Lorrie GrahamIn this Nov. 6, 2013, photo, a building is seen next to the coast in Tarawa, Kiribati.By JAMES AGRESTI Published on September 11, 2018 • 4 CommentsJames AgrestiJournalists are traveling to the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, because they believe that global warming is causing it to sink into the ocean, and it will soon be gone. However, the people of Kiribati are telling reporters this is not the case. A newsman has chalked this up to a “mental block” that makes the locals unwilling to face the truth. Yet, the facts of the matter prove that the people of Kiribati are correct, and the journalists are disconnected from reality.The nation of Kiribati is comprised almost entirely of coral reef islands. These are typically found in the Pacific Ocean and are primarily made of gravel, silt and sand that has accumulated on coral reefs. Because these islands are only slightly above sea level and are made of loosely bound sediments, they are considered to be among the most vulnerable places on Earth to rising sea levels.In a recent Washington Post feature entitled “The Sinking State,” Joshua Keating, a staff writer and editor at Slate, claims that “not that long from now” rising seas caused by global warming will “probably” destroy Kiribati. He also says:it may be “one of the first” nations “wiped out by the effects of climate change.”the entire nation could become little more than “a reinforced platform with a flag perched in the open ocean.”its capital city of “Tarawa, where nearly half the country’s 110,000 residents live, could soon be substantially underwater.”To support these predictions, Keating quotes a 2015 report that the administration of Kiribati’s former president sent to the United Nations. It says that “within a century” the nation’s farmland “will be largely submerged, while other islands and atolls will … disappear altogether.” This report contains no citations or links to document these allegations. It also repeatedly mentions the financial resources that Kiribati wants from others to mitigate these catastrophes.Kiribati Has Actually GrownIn contrast to those claims, the authors of a 2010 paper in the journal Global and Planetary Change used aerial and satellite photographs to conduct “the first quantitative analysis of physical changes” in 27 central Pacific coral reef islands. This included those in Kiribati.The study examined four islands in Tarawa over periods of 31–65 years and found that:all four islands exhibited an increase in island area. Notably the three urbanized islands of Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai increased in area by 30, 16.3 and 12.5% respectively. Buariki in the north of the atoll exhibited an increase of 2%.The study also found that these circumstances are not unique to Kiribati, and among the 43 islands surveyed:43% remained stable.15% decreased in area, with changes ranging from 3% to 14%.43% increased in area, with changes ranging from 3% to 30%.In the words of the paper, the “results of this study contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to recent sea level rise.”Likewise, the authors of a 2013 paper in the journal Sustainability Science used aerial and satellite photographs to examine “changes in shoreline position on the majority of reef islands” in Tarawa from 1943 to 2007. They found that these islands “substantially increased in size” and:Despite the widely held perception that reef islands around the perimeter of coral atolls are eroding and will disappear as a consequence of sea-level rise resulting from global warming, this study shows that the total area of reef islands on Tarawa Atoll has increased over recent decades.The study determined that the vast majority of this increase was from human activities. For example, people have filled in marine areas with materials from nearby beaches and shore areas to create new land. Yet, even in rural areas where natural processes dominate, the study found that “most reef islands show stability” and have had “modest natural rates” of growth.The same paper notes that some individuals observe “evidence of erosion of reef islands” and “infer” that they “are threatened by sea-level rise” from global warming. “However,” as the authors explain, “these trends have often been shown to be cyclic” natural changes that have nothing to do with global warming.Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »Journalists and activists frequently point to short-term or local trends as proof that humans are causing harmful changes in the earth’s climate, but long-term, inclusive data often shows that these changes are well within the bounds of natural variation. Beyond coral reef islands, they have done this with diverse subjects like hurricanes, temperature changes, famines, rainfall, and ice conditions.Since long before humans began using fossil fuels, the earth and its climate have been changing. As stated in the college textbook Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks, “Every area of the continents has been at one time covered by the sea, and there are some places that show clear record of being submerged at least 20 separate times.”Global Versus Local TrendsData from tide gauges show that the average global sea level has been generally rising since 1860 or earlier. Since 1993, instruments on satellites have also shown a rise in the average global sea level.That does not mean that sea level has risen everywhere. The ocean’s vast waters are not evenly distributed like they are in small bodies like lakes. For instance, the sea level in the Indian Ocean is about 330 feet below the worldwide average, while the sea level in Ireland is about 200 feet above average. Even though all the oceans are connected, such variations are caused by gravity, winds, and currents.Also, the practical effects of these phenomena are dynamic. For example, between 1992 and 2010, sea level rose by about 6 inches in the tropical Western Pacific while falling by about the same amount in San Francisco.In other words, local sea level trends commonly differ from global ones. Hence, it is a mistake to assume that the average global trend applies to everywhere on earth.It is also a mistake to assume that a rise in the average global sea level translates to a net loss in coastal land. Per a 2016 study published in the journal Nature, the earth gained a net total of 5,000 square miles of coastal land area from 1985 to 2015.Mental BlocksNear the end of his piece, Keating frets that the citizens of Kiribati “seem no more troubled about the issue” of climate change “than people in the United States are.” Reporting on his visit to Kiribati and interviews with the locals, he writes:“Most people I met weren’t making plans to relocate anytime soon.”“Instead, I heard a lot of frustration that the rest of the world seems to take notice of the I-Kiribati only to tell them they’re doomed.”“Several people I spoke with had already given interviews about climate change to foreign reporters. ‘In my case, you are the fifth person,’ remarked Teewata Aromata…. ‘People come and ask us the same questions. They see pictures of us and think we are drowning in the ocean.’ ”Instead of considering the possibility that these people are correct, Keating evaluates the situation and psychoanalyzes them as follows:Yet the stubborn facts remain. Countries like the Maldives and Kiribati are probably disappearing — and not that long from now. I came to Kiribati expecting to find a place planning for its own destruction, but instead I found something more dispiriting: a place that, with a few exceptions, wasn’t even contemplating that destruction. …The mental block that prohibits thinking about what will happen when the islands are no longer inhabitable seems to be a major impediment to planning for that eventuality. In this regard, too, Kiribati is a microcosm of the world’s unwillingness to face the reality of the future.This episode highlights the media’s propensity to embrace false narratives and look down their noses at others who don’t. Given the effects of media on the public and governments, this can waste enormous resources on fake problems, while diverting them from real ones.James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a think tank dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues.The Nation of Kiribati is Growing, Not Sinking | The Stream'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: studyMap showing Tuvalu in the Pacific.The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose."We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," he said."The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion."It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future."On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu's islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged," Kench said."While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."The study's authors said island nations needed to find creative solutions to adapt to climate change that take into account their homeland's evolving geography.Suggestions included moving populations onto larger islands and atolls, which have proved the most stable and likely to grow as seas rise."Embracing such new adaptation pathways will present considerable national scale challenges to planning, development goals and land tenure systems," they said."However, as the data on island change shows there is time (decades) to confront these challenges."https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.htmlThere are many scientific research papers that also expose the sea rise lies of the National Post story.RESEARCH ARTICLE JUNE 01, 2015Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atollP.S. Kench D. Thompson M.R. Ford H. Ogawa R.F. McLeanGeology (2015) 43 (6): 515-518.https://doi.org/10.1130/G36555.1AbstractThe geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.Tuvalu is rising not sinking no migration here!Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atollInternational Journal of Engineering Science Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 – 6734, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 6726 UGC Approved Journal ||Volume 6 Issue 8|| August 2017 || PP. 48-51Sea Level Manipulation*Nils-AxelMörner 1 1 (Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden) Corresponding Author: Nils-AxelMörnerAbstract:Sea level changes is a key issue in the global warming scenario. It has been widely claimed that sea is rising as a function of the late 20th’s warming pulse. Global tide gauge data sets may vary between +1.7 mm/yr to +0.25 mm/yr depending upon the choice of stations. At numerous individual sites, available tide gauges show variability around a stable zero level. Coastal morphology is a sharp tool in defining ongoing changes in sea level. A general stability has been defined in sites like the Maldives, Goa, Bangladesh and Fiji. In contrast to all those observations, satellite altimetry claim there is a global mean rise in sea level of about 3.0 mm/yr. In this paper, it is claimed that the satellite altimetry values have been “manipulated”. In this situation, it is recommended that we return to the observational facts, which provides global sea level records varying between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr; i.e. values that pose no problems in coastal protection. Keywords: Manipulation, observational facts, satellite altimetry, sea level change, tide gauges --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Submission: 26-07-2017 Date of acceptance: 05-08-2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.ijesi.org/papers/Vol(6)8/Version-1/G0608014851.pdfDr Judith Curry …Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics50,640 views•9 Aug 201796531SHARESAVE“Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. …. There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017Florida coastal sea levels are stable with no change contrary to fake media stories.Relative Sea Level Trend8723170 Miami Beach, FloridaThe relative sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.NOAA TIDES AND SEASONS DATAThe false claims of human induced global warming are contradicted by evidence that temperatures are not rising more than natural and many glaciers are expanding particularly the largest at the Antarctica. NASA reluctantly publishes this research about Greenland.Major Greenland Glacier Is GrowingJune 6, 2019JPEGJakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland is notorious for being the world’s fastest-moving glacier. It is also one of the most active, discharging a tremendous amount of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet into Ilulissat Icefjord and adjacent Disko Bay—with implications for sea level rise. The image above, acquired on June 6, 2019, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8, shows a natural-color view of the glacier.Jakobshavn has spent decades in retreat—that is, until scientists observed an unexpected advance between 2016 and 2017. In addition to growing toward the ocean, the glacier was found to be slowing and thickening. New data collected in March 2019 confirm that the glacier has grown for the third year in a row, and scientists attribute the change to cool ocean waters.“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.“Groundbreaking New Paper Finds Global Warming, Ice Melt ‘Not Related To Sea Level Rise’”By Kenneth Richard on 26. March 20181 – 2 Meters Of Sea Level Rise By2100 A ‘Highly Erroneous’ ClaimGeophysicist and tectonics expert Dr. Aftab Khan has unearthed a massive fault in the current understanding of (1) rapid sea level rise and its fundamental relation to (2) global-scale warming/polar ice melt.Succinctly, Dr. Khan concludes the two have little to nothing to do with one another.That’s because land height changes — subsidence (sinking) or uplift (rising) — connected to the Earth’s gravitational attraction and shifting plates assume the dominant role in determining sea level rise and fall. The extent to which thermal expansion from Rising Ocean heat contributes to sea level rise is, as Dr. Khan indicates, “definitely a conjecture”.Uplift And Subsidence Occurring TodayAlong the coast of Juneau, Alaska, for example, the land surface has been rapidly rising due to gravitational uplift for many decades. Consequently, relative sea levels are plummeting in this region at a rate of over -13 mm/yr (-5 inches per decade) according to NOAA.The opposite is occurring along the U.S. Gulf coast (Grand Isle, Louisiana), where the land area is sinking and thus sea levels are rising at a rate of over +9 mm/yr.Sea Level Rise Trends Not Determinative Of Shoreline ChangesMany other scientists have also concluded that “sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling the shoreline changes” in regions where sea level rise is quite high. Even at rates exceeding 5 mm/yr, sea levels aren’t rising fast enough to overcome the much more pronounced changes in coastal expansion due to accretion and uplift.Testut et al., 2016“We show that Grande Glorieuse Island has increased in area by 7.5 ha between 1989 and 2003, predominantly as a result of shoreline accretion [growth]: accretion occurred over 47% of shoreline length, whereas 26% was stable and 28% was eroded. Topographic transects and field observations show that the accretion is due to sediment transfer from the reef outer slopes to the reef flat and then to the beach. This accretion occurred in a context of sea level rise: sea level has risen by about 6 cm in the last twenty years and the island height is probably stable or very slowly subsiding. This island expansion during a period of rising sea level demonstrates that sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling the shoreline changes. This paper highlights the key role of non-climate factors in changes in island area, especially sediment availability and transport.”Kench et al., 2015“The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013).”This is not just a local phenomenon, either. Instead of shrinking coasts and submerged shorelines due to global sea level rise and polar ice melt, scientists have found that the land area above sea level has been growing across the world since the 1980s (Donchyts et al., 2016) . . . during the same period of time that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were rising.BBC press release“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart. “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”Modern Sea Level Change Rates Almost Undetectable Relative To PastSince 1958, sea levels have only been rising at a rate of between 1.3 and 1.5 millimeters per year, a rate of about 5 to 6 inches per century (Frederiske et al.,2018).Meltwater from the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets combined has contributed just 0.59 of an inch to global sea levels during this period (Frederiske et al.,2018).Between 16,500 years ago and 8,200 years ago, by comparison, the average rate of global sea level rise was 1.2 meters per century (12 mm/yr), which is more than 800% faster than the rate achieved since 1958. Included in that rate average is the “meltwater pulse” epoch around 14,500 years ago, when sea levels rose at rates of 4 meters per century (40 mm/yr).Cronin et al., 2017“Rates and patterns of global sea level rise (SLR) following the last glacial maximum (LGM) are known from radiometric ages on coral reefs from Barbados, Tahiti, New Guinea, and the Indian Ocean, as well as sediment records from the Sunda Shelf and elsewhere. … Lambeck et al. (2014) estimate mean global rates during the main deglaciation phase of 16.5 to 8.2 kiloannum (ka) [16,500 to 8,200 years ago] at 12 mm yr−1 [+1.2 meters per century] with more rapid SLR [sea level rise] rates (∼ 40 mm yr−1) [+4 meters per century] during meltwater pulse 1A ∼ 14.5–14.0 ka [14,500 to 14,000 years ago].”Donoghue (2011) provides a visualization of the insignificance of modern changes relative to the past.Donoghue, 2011“For much of the period since the last glacial maximum (LGM), 20,000 years ago, the region has seen rates of sea level rise far in excess of those experienced during the period represented by long-term tide gauges. The regional tide gauge record reveals that sea level has been rising at about 2 mm/year for the past century, while the average rate of rise since the LGM has been 6 mm/year, with some periods of abrupt rise exceeding 40 mm/year [4 meters per century].”“Sea level has at times risen at rates more than 20 times that of today, more than 40 mm/year. At such rates, the regional shorelines would have retreated by as much as 40 m/year, or more than 75 cm/week.”Scientists affirm that an anthropogenic fingerprint in sea level rise trends are currently still “too small to be observable”.Palanisamy et al., 2015“[B]y making use of 21 CMIP5 coupled climate models, we study the contribution of external forcing to the Pacific Ocean regional sea level variability over 1993–2013, and show that according to climate models, externally forced and thereby the anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry.”“Furthermore, regressed CMIP5 MME-based sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific over the altimetry period do not display any positive sea level trend values that are comparable to the altimetry based sea level signal after having removed the contribution of the decadal natural climate mode. This suggests that the residual positive trend pattern observed in the western tropical Pacific is not externally forced and thereby not anthropogenic in origin.”New Paper: Meter-Scale Sea Level Rise Only Related To Large-Scale Geologic EventsIn a new paper published in the journal Geoscience Frontiers, Dr. Khan concludes that “both regional and local sea-level rise and fall in meter-scale is related to the geologic events only and not related to global warming and/or polar ice melt.”Obviously this leaves no room for global warming and polar ice melt to contribute to the alarming sea level rise predicted to materialize by the end of the century. Modeled predictions of 1 to 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 are deemed “highly erroneous.”Hence, suggestions of an anthropogenic influence on sea level change — the scariest aspect of climate modeling predictions — may be significantly undermined by scientific observation.Why would sea-level rise for global warming and polar ice-melt?Khan, 2018Summary•”Geophysical shape of the earth is the fundamental component of the global sea level distribution. Global warming and ice-melt, although a reality, would not contribute to sea-level rise. Gravitational attraction of the earth plays a dominant role against sea level rise.”•”As a result of low gravity attraction in the region of equatorial bulge and high gravity attraction in the region of polar flattening, melt-water would not move from polar region to equatorial region. Further, melt-water of the floating ice-sheets will reoccupy same volume of the displaced water by floating ice-sheets causing no sea-level rise. Arctic Ocean in the north is surrounded by the land mass thus can restrict the movement of the floating ice, while Antarctic in the south is surrounded by open ocean thus floating ice can freely move to the north. Melting of huge volume of floating sea-ice around Antarctica not only can reoccupy volume of the displaced water but also can cool ocean-water in the region of equatorial bulge thus can prevent thermal expansion of the ocean water.”•”Melting of land ice in both the polar region can substantially reduce load on the crust allowing crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift causing sea level to drop relatively. Palaeo-sea level rise and fall in macro-scale are related to marine transgression and regression in addition to other geologic events like converging and diverging plate tectonics, orogenic uplift of the collision margin, basin subsidence of the extensional crust, volcanic activities in the oceanic region, prograding delta buildup, ocean floor height change and sub-marine mass avalanche.”•”Claim and prediction of 3 mm/yr rise of sea-level due to global warming and polar ice-melt is definitely a conjecture.”•”Prediction of 4–6.6 ft sea level rise in the next 91 years between 2009 and 2100 is highly erroneous.”Thermal Expansion Claimed Or Opined To Be Dominant Contributor To Sea Level Rise•”It is also claimed that ocean thermal expansion and glacier melting have been the dominant contributors to 20th century global mean sea level rise. It is further opinedthat global warming is the main contributor to the rise in global sea level since the Industrial Revolution (Church and White, 2006).”•”According to Cazenave and Llovel (2010) rising of air temperature can warm and expand ocean waters wherein thermal expansion was the main driver of global sea level rise for 75 to 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution. However, the share of thermal expansion in global sea level rise has declined in recent decades as the shrinking of land ice has accelerated (Lombard et al 2005). Lombard et al. (2006) opined that recent investigations based on new ocean temperature data sets indicate that thermal expansion only explains part (about 0.4 mm/yr) of the 1.8 mm/yr observed sea level rise of the past few decades. However, observation claim of 1.8 mm/yr sea level rise is also limited in scope and accuracy.”Are Thermal Expansion–>Sea Level Change Models Accurate?•”Lombard et al. (2006) opined that recent investigations based on new ocean temperature data sets indicate that thermal expansion only explains part (about 0.4 mm/yr) of the 1.8 mm/yr observed sea level rise of the past few decades. However, observation claim of 1.8 mm/yr sea level rise is also limited in scope and accuracy.”•”According to Domingues et al. (2008) sea level rose about 0.8 mm/yr for the period 1993–2003. On the other hand, the climate threat investigation using a combination of atmosphere–ocean modeling, information from paleoclimate data, and observations of ongoing climate change revealed that modeling is an imperfect representation of the climate system, paleo-data consist mainly of proxy climate information usually with substantial ambiguities, and modern observations are limited in scope and accuracy (Hansen et al., 2016).”•”According to Zhang (2007) thermal expansion in the lower latitude is unlikely because of the reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass.”Sea Level Changes Linked To Large-Scale Geological Events•”There are good number of publications about the post glacial isostatic rebound of the polar region. Works of Fleming et al. (1998) and Milne et al. (2005) are based on the vertical geologic motions associated with the post-glacial continental and isostatic rebound. Johansson et al. (2002) conducted research on a project BIFROST (Baseline Inferences for Fennoscandian Rebound Observations, Sea-level, and Tectonics) that combines networks of continuously operating GPS receivers in Sweden and Finland to measure ongoing crustal deformation due to glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). They have found the maximum observed uplift rate 10 mm/yr for Fennoscandian region analyzing data between August 1993 and May 2000. Sella et al. (2007) and Lidberg et al. (2010) suggested that postglacial rebound continues today albeit very slowly wherein the land beneath the former ice sheets around Hudson Bay and central Scandinavia, is still rising by over a centimeter a year, while those regions which had bulged upwards around the ice sheet are subsiding such as the Baltic states and much of the eastern seaboard of North America.”•”Snay et al. (2016) have found large residual vertical velocities [land uplift], some with values exceeding 30 mm/yr, in southeastern Alaska. The uplift occurring here is due to present-day melting of glaciers and ice fields formed during the Little Ice Age glacial advance that occurred between 1550 A.D. and 1850 A.D.”•”Alaska is undergoing crustal deformation of uplift and subsidence each year within elastic-plastic phase associated with ice melt and ice cover formation. When ice melts, load from the crust is reduced and it is uplifted and when ice cover builds-up, load onto the crust is increased and it is subsided. Hence, pattern of the sea level curve of Alaska is oscillatory. Secondly, for each uplift and subsidence there remains a residual value between uplift and subsidence which is positive, hence, the corresponding sea level curve is negative.”•”When the land area shrinks globally, this corresponds to a global rise in sea level. From the curve it is certain that sea level has changed in geologic time scale due to geologic events.”•”Because global cycles of sea level changes are the records of geotectonic, glacial, and other large-scale processes, they reflect major events of Phanerozoic (Mesozoic to Present) history. These events are related mostly to the large-scale orogenic (mountain building) movement such as trans-Himalayan orogeny, sedimentary basins formation such as Bengal Basin and Gulf Coast Basins. The Phanerozoic history of North America from the Late Triassic or Early Jurassic, corresponds to the Pangea breakup phase, during which North America drifted westwards. The eastern continental margin became the modern extensional Atlantic margin basins, while the western margin underwent tectonism and accretionary prism formation leading to the assembly of the Cordilleran orogen. Similar extensional basins and sedimentary accretionary prism leading to orogens developed along the eastern margin of the Atlantic Ocean in Africa and Europe, and in some region of Asia. These mega events of the earth led to major sea-level rise and fall in terms of hundreds of meters as oceans suffered regional transgressions and regressions. Hence, when a region undergoes major subsidence can cause relative sea level (RSL) rise to the tune of tens of meters. Examples of mid-Holocene (about 8000 years ago) subsidence forming Ganges depression, Jamuna depression and Meghna depression in the Bengal Basin causing major marine transgression to signify sea level rise in terms of 10 s of meters (Khan et al., 2000).”Visual Evidence Of Uplift/Subsidence Determining Sea Level Rise/Fall•”Geological processes are responsible of two types of major movements of the crustal block viz., uplift and subsidence. Hence, the relation of sea level and crustal motion is attributed to sea level drops when there is an uplift while it rises when there is subsidence.”Fig. 13 showing A to HFigure 13. (A) Layered beach at Bathurst Inlet, Nunavut signifying post-glacial isostatic rebound (B) Some of the most dramatic uplift is found in Iceland. Evidence of isostatic rebound (C) Massive coral (Pavona clavus) exposed in 1954 by tectonic uplift in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (D) Beach ridges on the coast of Novaya Zemlya in arctic Russia, an example of Holocene glacio-isostatic rebound (E) A beach in Juneau, Alaska where sea level is not rising, but dropping due to glacial isostatic adjustment (F) Boat-houses in Scandinavia now considerably farther away from the water's edge where they were built demonstrates land uplift (G) An 8000-year old-well off the coast of Israel now submerged, which is a land mark of crustal subsidence (H) The “City beneath the Sea”; Port Alexandria on the Nile delta and the drowned well off the coast of Israe (panel (G), both subsided due to subduction-pull of the downgoing African crustal slab as it enters trench.Venice is vanishing because of tectonics (subduction rollback of Adriatic slab) wherein down-going crustal segment causing subsidence of Venice, rather than sea level rise associated with global warming and/or polar ice melt.”Meter-Scale Sea Level Changes Only Related To Geologic Events, Not Global Warming•”Transgression commences when continental block undergoes subsidence with respect to continental shelf and abyssal plain, while regression occurs when this process is reverse i.e., when continental block is uplifted with respect to continental shelf and abyssal plain. Prograding delta system in low lying areas and other geologic events may cause local/relative sea-level fall as new sedimentary deposition advances as accretion pushing sea further down the coast irrespective of global warming and polar ice-melt.”•”Hence, both regional and local sea-level rise and fall in meter-scale is related to the geologic events only and not related to global warming and/or polar ice melt.”•”Information on relative sea-level rise over the past ∼8000 years obtained from a variety of geological indicators exhibit vertical land movement at tide-gauges resulting from glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) theory. Although if it is generally thought that paleo sea level change of 10s to 100s m or future prediction of sea level rise more than 1 m in 100 years are due to the continuous process of the Earth, it is rather an abrupt or sudden geological process of fault rupture to result in crustal uplift and subsidence causing a visible sea level change. So a visible measure of the sea level change is possible only after sudden fault rupture displacement between continent and ocean/sea. Although a continuous deformation process prior to the uplift and subsidence could progress, a visible deformation of the crust would occur only due to sudden rupture (fault) of the crust.”•In conclusion, global warming, both polar and terrestrial ice melts, and climate change might be a reality but all these phenomena are not related to sea level rise and fall.”http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/26/groundbreaking-new-paper-finds-global-warming-ice-melt-not-related-to-sea-level-rise/#sthash.BtLHwayP.dpbshttp https://climatechangedispatch.com/70-papers-show-there-is-nothing-unusual-about-todays-sea-level-rise-and-rate/#more-270+ Papers Show There Is Nothing Unusual About Today’s Sea Level Rise And RateAn alarmist’s vision of the future if CO2 levels continue to rise is an overwhelming sea level rise.70+ Papers: Holocene Sea Levels 2 Meters Higher – Today’s Sea Level Change Indistinguishable From Noise1. Are Modern ‘Anthropogenic’ Sea Levels Rising At An Unprecedented Rate? No.Despite the surge in CO2 concentrations since 1900, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that global sea levels only rose by an average of 1.7 mm/yr during the entire 1901-2010 period, which is a rate of just 0.17 of a meter per century.During the 1958 to 2014 period, when CO2 emissions rose dramatically, a recent analysis revealed that the rate of sea level rise slowed to between 1.3 mm/yr to 1.5 mm/yr, or just 0.14 of a meter per century.Frederiske et al.,2018 “Anthropogenic” Global Sea Level Rise Rate (1958-2014): +0.14 of a meter per century“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors.”2. ~15,000 – 11,000 Years Ago, Sea Levels Rose At Rates Of +4 to +6 Meters Per CenturyIn the past few thousand years, sea levels in some regions rose and fell at rates of + or – 0.5 to 1.1 meters per century. Sea levels during the Medieval Warm Period were+170 centimeters higher than today.Hansen et al., 2016 Denmark, +1.7 meters higher than present during the Medieval Warm Period“Continuous record of Holocene sea-level changes … (4900 years BP to present). … The curve reveals eight centennial sea-level oscillations of 0.5-1.1 m superimposed on the general trend of the RSL [relative sea level] curve [relative sea levels ~1.7 m higher than present from 1400 to 1000 years ago].”Cronin et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (14,500 to 14,000 years ago)“Rates and patterns of global sea level rise (SLR) following the last glacial maximum (LGM) are known from radiometric ages on coral reefs from Barbados, Tahiti, New Guinea, and the Indian Ocean, as well as sediment records from the Sunda Shelf and elsewhere. … Lambeck et al. (2014) estimate mean global rates during the main deglaciation phase of 16.5 to 8.2 kiloannum (ka) [16,500 to 8,200 years ago] at 12 mm yr−1 [+1.2 meters per century] with more rapid SLR [sea level rise] rates (∼ 40 mm yr−1) [+4 meters per century] during meltwater pulse 1A ∼ 14.5–14.0 ka [14,500 to 14,000 years ago].”Abdul et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century(11,450 to 11,100 years ago)“We find that sea level tracked the climate oscillations remarkably well. Sea-level rise was fast in the early Allerød (25 mm yr-1), but decreased smoothly into the Younger Dryas (7 mm yr-1) when the rate plateaued to <4 mm yr-1here termed a sea-level “slow stand”. No evidence was found indicating a jump in sea level at the beginning of the Younger Dryas as proposed by some researchers. Following the “slow-stand”, the rate of sea-level rise accelerated rapidly, producing the 14 ± 2 m sea-level jump known as MWP-1B; occurred between 11.45 and 11.1 kyr BP with peak sea-level rise reaching 40 mm yr-1 [+4 meters per century].”Ivanovic et al., 2017 Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Rise Rate: +3.5 to +6.5 meters per century (~14,500 years ago)“During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as the climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [3.5 to 6.5 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].”Zecchin et al., 2015 Regional Sea Level Rise Rate: +6 meters per century(14,500-11,500 years ago)“[M]elt-water pulses have punctuated the post-glacial relative sea-level rise with rates up to 60 mm/yr. [6 meters per century] for a few centuries.”3. Over 70 Papers Affirm Sea Levels Were 2+ Meters Higher Than Now A Few Thousand Years Ago When CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’70+ Papers: Sea Levels 2+ m Higher 9,000-4,000 Years Ago While CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’ (265 ppm) More HereBefore the advent of the industrial revolution in the late 18th to early 19th centuries, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations hovered between 260 to 280 parts per million (ppm).Within the last century, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically. Just recently they eclipsed 400 ppm.Scientists like Dr. James Hansen have concluded that pre-industrial CO2 levels were climatically ideal. Though less optimal, atmospheric CO2 concentrations up to 350 ppm have been characterized as climatically “safe”.However, CO2 concentrations above 350 ppm are thought to be dangerous to the Earth system. It is believed that such “high” concentrations could lead to rapid warming, glacier and ice sheet melt, and a harrowing sea level rise of 10 feet within 50 years.To reach those catastrophic levels (10 feet within 50 years) predicted by proponents of sea level rise alarmism, the current “anthropogenic” change rate of +0.14 of a centimeter per year (since 1958) will need immediately explode into +6.1 centimeters per year.The likelihood of this happening is remote, especially considering Greenland and Antarctica combined only contributed a grand total of 1.54 cm since 1958 (Frederiske et al., 2018).It is becoming more and more apparent that sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentrations.And if an anthropogenic signal cannot be conspicuously connected to sea level rise (as scientists have noted), then the greatest perceived existential threat promulgated by advocates of dangerous man-made global warming will no longer be regarded as even worth considering.https://climatechangedispatch.com/70-papers-show-there-is-nothing-unusual-about-todays-sea-level-rise-and-rate/#more-201380138://notrickszone.com/2018/03/26/groundbreaking-new-paper-find https://climatechangedispatch.com/70-papers-show-there-is-nothing-unusual-about-todays-sea-level-rise-and-rate/#more-20138s-global-warming-ice-melt-not-related-to-sea-level-rise/#sthash.8Lrh9sb0.HbKYddmB.dpbsOn holiday I recently visited the famous archeology remains of the ancient harbor at KOMMOS, CRETE providing port needs of Phaestus, Crete about 2000 BC. The port is no longer at the edge of the sea. Far from it. There is a dramatic sea level fall SLF as photos show the old port is hundreds of meters away. Why?Locals claim there has been a rising uplift of the land. Deglaciation is an explanation for SLF in Alaska, Canada and Scandinavia, but not Crete.The Role of Kommos in Phoenician Routes9th July 2017Judith Muñoz Sogas, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona)[email protected] Introduction‘Any Phoenicians sailing to the western Mediterranean would have been foolish to avoid the Aegean’ and especially the island of Crete [Fig. 1.1]. Even though trade between Crete and other Mediterranean regions had already been established before the tenth century BC, it was throughout this century that maritime traffic from Phoenicia to the west intensified due to the tribute demand from Assyria following its growth in the eighth century BC. Cypro-Levantine objects started to appear in many places, such as Sardinia and Italy, north-west Africa and southern Spain, as well as the Aegean. Even though many Levantine exports are not of Phoenician origin, it is thought that they were likely carried by Phoenician sailors. Cultural encounters, social interactions and negotiations between Phoenicians and locals from the areas mentioned took place in a so-called middle ground, where a phenomenon of glocalisation (the adoption of foreign practices in local communities) occurred, beliefs were transmitted and practices were shared and imitated.Strategic trading and stopping points started to develop across the Mediterranean, in which Near Eastern cultural and religious values were transferred due to trading contacts, for instance the port-town of Kition in Cyprus or Kommos and Knossos in Crete. Phoenician contacts with Crete could have been an end in themselves, although they probably happened as they were going to the west. The main east-west routes that the Phoenician merchants followed were through the Cyclades to Euboea and Attica, crossing the isthmus of Corinth, or through the south of Crete, where Phoenician installations were supplied. Therefore, the site of Kommos appears to have played an important role in east-west Phoenician routes and this article will analyse whether Kommos was a Phoenician installation.2. The siteKommos [Fig. 2.1 and 2.2] is a port site in the south of Crete. According to the Odyssey, describing the place of Menelaos’ shipwreck, Kommos is identified as the ancient harbour of Phaistos, even though other sources identify Phaistos with Matala. Kommos is thought to have been, together with Kition (Cyprus), a Phoenician trading installation, as will be discussed later, and its temple should be compared to religious centres like those of Delos, Delphi and Olympia, places from which the Greeks absorbed oriental elements and beliefs, as confirmed by the archaeological record from the second to the first millennium BC. The focus of this article however, will be on the finds from the first millennium BC. By the end of the eleventh century BC a rectangular construction identified as a small temple was built upon the ruins of Minoan civic structures. The building, called Temple A, was replaced by a larger one, Temple B [Fig. 2.3], during the ninth century BC, which was in turn replaced by another one, Temple C, towards the end of the fourth century BC. Temple B, as explained below, has an oriental structure and it is associated with the Phoenician merchants who came to Kommos on their route to the west. Near Eastern objects, including Phoenician pottery such as amphorae and drinking vessels, were found in this structure as well as in surrounding buildings.These observations have led to speculation about the nature of the Phoenician presence at Kommos. Negbi argues that Phoenician traders were permanently living at the site, as they had a permanent religious building, whilst Aubet claims they lived there only semi-permanently in order to trade. Kourou also mentions that craftsmen, as well as traders, were inhabiting the site. The use of Temple B is also questioned by Aubet, who defends its economic role, whereas other scholars such as Papalardo support its religious function.The archaeological site of Kommos is located 4km west of Phaestus, near Pitsidia and Matala. Kommos (or Komos) was a small Minoan town founded in 2000BC and served the port needs of Phaestus, with which it was linked by road. Kommos was probably destroyed by an earthquake in 1700BC, but survived up to the Hellenistic period.The excavations in the period 1976-1996 by the archaeologists Joseph Shaw and Mary Koutroubaki unearthed several Minoan houses, public buildings, warehouses, well maintained facilities of olive presses, a large courtyard and the first known shipyards in Crete.THE FACTS1. Sea levels are fallingIn the global warming crusade by the UN IPCC and Al Gore dramatic sea levels rise has been their primary fear mongering prediction. Ridiculous exaggerations have been blamed on fossil fuel Co2 emissions without any evidence.‘For example, Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water,’ Booker noted.Global sea level data is more fiction than fact because of the limited tide stations and natural variations at the regional level. Scientists deride the alarmist fearmongering on sea rise and admit over the past 130 years 7″ rise is imperceptible.Sea-level rise is not accelerating, and has not accelerated since the 1920s.There are about sixty good-quality, 100+ year records of sea-level around the world, and they all show the same thing: there has been no statistically significant acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in the last 85 years or more. That means anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not measurably affect sea-level rise, and predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise are based on superstition, not science.Here are two very high quality sea-level measurement records, one from the Pacific and one from the Atlantic:They show no activity that could be related to increase fossil fuel emissions.A fortiori as lawyers would say is the fact that recently the global sea level data has gone negative to the point that NASA has been forced to explain falling sea levels -On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism(https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-s...), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm.Here is the same data presented in a shorter timeline.This is too short to say it is a trend but it certainly rebuts the fictional and wildly ridiculous claims of Al Gore et al.It is relevant that sea levels today are the lowest in the history of our planet and yet they are very stable.Highlights• Global warming and polar ice-melt not contribute to sea level rise.• Melting of huge volume of floating sea-ice around polar region cool ocean-water preventing thermal expansion.• Polar ice melting re-occupy same volume of the displaced water causing no sea level rise.• Gravitational attraction of the earth plays a dominant role against sea level rise.• Melting of land ice in the polar region allow crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift should cause sea level to drop relatively.AbstractTwo major causes of global sea level rise such as thermal expansion of the oceans and the loss of land-based ice for increased melting have been claimed by some researchers and recognized by the IPCC. However, other climate threat investigators revealed that atmosphere–ocean modeling is an imperfect representation, paleo-data consist of proxy climate information with ambiguities, and modern observations are limited in scope and accuracy. It is revealed that global warming and polar ice-melt although a reality would not contribute to any sea level rise. Floating-ice of the polar region on melting would reoccupy same displaced volume by floating ice-sheets. Land-ice cover in the polar region on melting can reduce load from the crust to activate elastic rebound that would raise land for its isostatic equilibrium. Such characteristics would not contribute to sea level rise. Equatorial bulge, polar flattening, elevation difference of the spheroidal surface between equator and pole with lower in the pole, strong gravity attraction of the polar region and week gravity attraction of the equatorial region, all these phenomena would play dominant role in preventing sea level rise. Palaeo-sea level rise and fall in macro-scale (10–100 m or so) were related to marine transgression and regression in addition to other geologic events like converging and diverging plate tectonics, orogenic uplift of the collision margin, basin subsidence of the extensional crust, volcanic activities in the oceanic region, prograding delta buildup, ocean floor height change and sub-marine mass avalanche. This study also reveals that geophysical shape, gravity attraction and the centrifugal force of spinning and rotation of the earth would continue acting against sea level rise.Graphical abstractDownload high-res image (574KB)Download full-size imageDownload high-res image (806KB)Download full-size imageFigure 14. (A) Sea level curve of 9452210 Juneau, Alaska with mean sea level trend prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show a monthly mean sea level (B) Stress-strain diagram signify continuous deformation in the elastic-plastic phase and permanent deformation by an abrupt fault rupture for uplift and subsidence.6. ConclusionGeophysical shape of the earth is the fundamental component of the global sea level distribution. Global warming and ice-melt, although a reality, would not contribute to sea-level rise. Gravitational attraction of the earth plays a dominant role against sea level rise. As a result of low gravity attraction in the region of equatorial bulge and high gravity attraction in the region of polar flattening, melt-water would not move from polar region to equatorial region. Further, melt-water of the floating ice-sheets will reoccupy same volume of the displaced water by floating ice-sheets causing no sea-level rise. Arctic Ocean in the north is surrounded by the land mass thus can restrict the movement of the floating ice, while, Antarctic in the south is surrounded by open ocean thus floating ice can freely move to the north. Melting of huge volume of floating sea-ice around Antarctica not only can reoccupy volume of the displaced water but also can cool ocean-water in the region of equatorial bulge thus can prevent thermal expansion of the ocean water. Melting of land ice in both the polar region can substantially reduce load on the crust allowing crust to rebound elastically for isostatic balancing through uplift causing sea level to drop relatively. Palaeo-sea level rise and fall in macro-scale are related to marine transgression and regression in addition to other geologic events like converging and diverging plate tectonics, orogenic uplift of the collision margin, basin subsidence of the extensional crust, volcanic activities in the oceanic region, prograding delta buildup, ocean floor height change and sub-marine mass avalanche.“Contrary to expectations, climate scientists continue to report that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades.”INTERESTING to see how the warmist community will spin the “science” from these latest inconvenient findings that contradict IPCC climate model predictions and the endless “Hottest Year Evah“ PR claims.NO doubt, Climate Crisis Inc … and the UN IPCC won’t go near it. And don’t expect to see empirical evidence of globally cooling oceans and thickening glaciers gleefully reported on CNN, BBC or ABC Australia. Any climate news that doesn’t fit the human-caused warming narrative is expressly ignored by the #FakeNews mainstream media, using their favoured and most effective propaganda weapon – confirmation bias.MORE from Kenneth Richard via Pierre Gosselin’s excellent site NoTricksZone :12 New Papers: North Atlantic, Pacific, And Southern Oceans Are Cooling As Glaciers Thicken, Gain MassBy Kenneth Richard on 11. September 2017Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-Duchez-2016.jpgGraph Source Duchez et al., 2016Contrary to expectations, climate scientists continue to report that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades.According to Dieng et al. (2017), for example, the global oceans underwent a slowdown, a pause, or even a slight cooling trend during 2003 to 2013. This undermines expectations from climate models which presume the increase in radiative forcing from human CO2 emissions should substantially increase ocean temperatures.The authors indicate that the recent trends in ocean temperatures “may just reflect a 60-year natural cycle“, the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), and not follow radiative forcing trends.Dieng et al., 2017 We investigate the global mean and regional change of sea surface and land surface temperature over 2003–2013, using a large number of different data sets, and compare with changes observed over the past few decades (starting in 1950). … While confirming cooling of eastern tropical Pacific during the last decade as reported in several recent studies, our results show that the reduced rate of change of the 2003–2013 time span is a global phenomenon. GMST short-term trends since 1950 computed over successive 11-year windows with 1-year overlap show important decadal variability that highly correlates with 11-year trends of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index. The GMST 11-year trend distribution is well fitted by a Gaussian function, confirming an unforced origin related to internal climate variability.We evaluate the time derivative of full-depth ocean heat content to determine the planetary energy imbalance with different approaches: in situ measurements, ocean reanalysis and global sea level budget. For 2003–2013, it amounts to 0.5 +/− 0.1 W m−2, 0.68 +/− 0.1 W m−2 and 0.65 +/− 0.1 W m−2, respectively for the three approaches. Although the uncertainty is quite large because of considerable errors in the climate sensitivity parameter, we find no evidence of decrease in net radiative forcing in the recent years, but rather an increase compared to the previous decades.We can note that the correlation between GMST [global mean surface temperature] trends and AMO trends is quite high. It amounts 0.88 over the whole time span. At the beginning of the record, the correlation with PDO trends is also high (equal to 0.8) but breaks down after the mid-1980s. The GMST and AMO trends shown in Figure 6 show a low in the 1960s and high in the 1990s, suggestive of a 60-year oscillation, as reported for the global mean sea level by Chambers et al. (2012). Thus the observed temporal evolution of the GMST [global mean surface temperature] trends may just reflect a 60-year natural cycle driven by the AMO.Global-Ocean-AMO-Temperature-Correlation-1950-to-2014-Dieng-2017.jpgSubpolar North Atlantic Cooling Rapidly Since 2005According to Piecuch et al. (2017) there has been no net warming of the North Atlantic Ocean in the last quarter century. The warming that occurred in the 10 years from 1994-2004 has been completely negated by an even more pronounced cooling trend since 2005. The predominant (87%) cause of the warming was determined to be of the same natural (non-anthropogenic) origin as the subsequent cooling: advection, the movement/circulation of heat via internal processes. In fact, human CO2 emissions are never mentioned as even contributing to the the 1994-2004 warming.Piecuch et al., 2017 The subpolar North Atlantic (SPNA) is subject to strong decadal variability, with implications for surface climate and its predictability. In 2004–2005, SPNA decadal upper ocean and sea-surface temperature trends reversed from warming during 1994–2004 to cooling over 2005–2015. … Over the last two decades, the SPNA has undergone a pronounced climate shift. Decadal OHC and SST trends reversed sign around 2004–2005, with a strong warming seen during 1994–2004 and marked cooling observed over 2005–2015. These trend reversals were pronounced (> 0.1 °C yr−1 in magnitude) in the northeastern North Atlantic (south and west of Iceland) and in the Labrador Sea. … To identify basic processes controlling SPNA thermal variations, we diagnose the SPNA heat budget using ECCOv4. Changes in the heat content of an oceanic control volume can be caused by convergences and divergences of advective, diffusive, and surface heat fluxes within the control volume. [Advective heat convergence] explains 87% of the total [ocean heat content] variance, the former [warming] showing similar decadal behavior to the latter [cooling], increasing over 1994–2004, and decreasing over 2005–2015. … These results demonstrate that the recent SPNA decadal trend reversal was mostly owing to advective convergences by ocean circulation … decadal variability during 1993–2015 is in largest part related to advection by horizontal gyres.North-Atlantic-Cooling-OHC-Piecuch-2017.jpgYeager and Robson (2017) also point out that, like it did from the 1960s to 1980s, the North Atlantic “has again been cooling”, a trend which they and others expect to continue. Sea surface temperatures are no warmer today than they were in the 1950s.Yeager and Robson, 2017 [W]hile the late twentieth century Atlantic was dominated by NAO-driven THC [thermohaline circulation] variability, other mechanisms may dominate in other time periods. … More recently, the SPNA [sub polar North Atlantic] upper ocean has again been cooling, which is also thought to be related to a slowdown in the THC. A continued near-term cooling of the SPNA has been forecast by a number of prediction systems, with implications for pan-Atlantic climate.The Southern Ocean Has Been Cooling Since The 1970s, Contrary To ModelsLatif et al., 2017 The Southern Ocean featured some remarkable changes during the recent decades. For example, large parts of the Southern Ocean, despite rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, depicted a surface cooling since the 1970s, whereas most of the planet has warmed considerably. In contrast, climate models generally simulate Southern Ocean surface warming when driven with observed historical radiative forcing. The mechanisms behind the surface cooling and other prominent changes in the Southern Ocean sector climate during the recent decades, such as expanding sea ice extent, abyssal warming, and CO2 uptake, are still under debate. Observational coverage is sparse, and records are short but rapidly growing, making the Southern Ocean climate system one of the least explored. It is thus difficult to separate current trends from underlying decadal to centennial scale variability.Turney et al., 2017 Occupying about 14% of the world’s surface, the Southern Ocean plays a fundamental role in ocean and atmosphere circulation, carbon cycling and Antarctic ice-sheet dynamics. … As a result of anomalies in the overlying wind, the surrounding waters are strongly influenced by variations in northward Ekman transport of cold fresh subantarctic surface water and anomalous fluxes of sensible and latent heat at the atmosphere–ocean interface. This has produced a cooling trend since 1979.12 New Scientific Papers: Oceans Cooling Globally As Glaciers Thicken