Remains of an
Underwater City
by Eduardo Ferreyra

This article belongs to a science forum thread at, and began like this:

Original post said: The remains of a huge underwater city off the western coast of India may force historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of ancient human history. It's believed that the area was submerged when ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age, 9-10,000 years ago.
My response was:

I love this subject for t
wo reasons: the first one is because the original post by banshee was intended to give a support to the present global warming folly of "future sea levels rising". The second reason is because I like very much everything about Vimanas and ancient history of India, (flying "chariots of fire" shooting each orher with lasers and destroying islands and cities on the sky". Although I am supposed to be a scientific minded person, I will leave room for credibility to these mythological stories, as I am a firm believer there were ancient civilizations that have disappeared thousand and even millions of years ago.

Let's see the sea livel rise first: for a sea level rise of catastrophic proportions, we must have water added to the oceans. Where does the water come from? We must understand that 97 percent of the water on Earth is in the oceans already. If one wishes to raise the sea levels, a termendous amount of water must be found and put into the ocean. It is generally assumed that the largest potential source of water to raise the sea levels is glacial ice. Most climate models today, however, foresee increased precipitation. If that were to happen, there is a good chance that sea levels will drop as much as 2 feet (60 cm) in the next century.

The melting of North Pole ice will not affect the sea levels, as it is floating ice (if you press me for the technical reasons I will post them here; I don't do it now for the sake of brevity). But, fear not: after analyzing 27,000 temperatrue readings, Professor Johnatan Kahl (look for him in found a statistical significante ternd in the opposite direction -- today the Arctic is collong. Both the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps have been growing in recent years. The top of an ice shelf is cold (about -50°C) and dry. Even the if the air temperature rose, say 6°C to 7°C, the ice cap would still have a temperature of -46°C, and the Ice Sheet would remain solid. The air temperature above the ice sheet must reach 1°C before ice would begin to melt, and it would take more than 5,000 years to melt the ice cap --if global warming could cause the temperature to rise that much (the rise predicted is only 2 to 4°C, so we have about 43°C to go before reaching the 1°C, the ice melting point).

It is generally accepted that the rise of sea levels in postglacial time requird melting of ice a rate of 5,000 km3 for 7,000 years. (D.Y. Donovan and E.J.W. Jones, 1979, Royal Society London, Vol. 136, No. 187, p. 192). So the sea level rise is a slow matter, and couldn't be the cause for the covering of the ancient submerged ruins in India. The cause most probably be attribute to seismic events, sinking of the area --as it has happened before, ie: Atlantis or Lemuria, etc).

But there is another subject: In a graph by F.P. Sheperd and J.R. Curray, 1967, Carbon-14 Determination of Sea Level Changes in Stable Areas Progress in Oceanography, Vol. 4, (Oxford: Pergamon), p. 283, (see graph below) we can see that, at the supposed time of this lost city (8,000 to 10,000 years ago) the sea levels were about 10 meters lower than today, rising to about -2m by the year 5,000 before today. As these ruins are 120 feet under the water (that is 40 meters below the surface), the city should be much older (from about 16,000 years to 25,000 years old). Why?

Because the study shows that the sea levels have been pretty much steady along the history of the Earth planet for the last 150,000 years, but for two occasions: the sea levels began decreasing from 110,000 years ago from 0 level to about minus 120 meters (360 feet) by 54,000 years ago. Then the sea level began to rise again up to about minus10 meters by 30,000 years before now. Then again, the levels went down to another minus 110 meters by 20,000 years ago. Finally, the sea level started to grow for the last time until present levels --zero level. The graph show that levels today are the same as those of 180,000 years ago, and have never been higher than today.

Where did all that water go when the levels went down to minus 120 meters? If we take a look at graphs of the geological past, we could see that there was an interglacial (warm) period by 200,000 years ago (roughly from 205,000 to 180,000 years ago, when temperaturs rose to 16°C. From there, they went down by 6°C to 7°C until another interglacial came by about 135,000 years ago (the Eemian) that lasted for about 10,000 years. It cooled again 7°C until about 12,000 years ago, when the present Holocene interglacial began to raise temperatures. We crossed the barrier of zero change by 10,500 years ago. According to Milantkovitch, we are due 500 years into a New Ice Age.

Why the sea levels (right after the Eemian) went down, up, and down again during a very cold time: 6 to 7°C lower than today? What caused the lowering and growing of sea levels during a cold period? Has anyone any explanation for this? Although I would love it, no extraterrestrials interventions, please.

Excuse me, but I will throw in a new piece of this puzzle: during the last 100 million years, global mean surface temperatures and CO2 concentrations have been systematically decreasing. 50 million years ago, CO2 levels (2,000 ppm) were almost 6 times higher than today, but mean global temperatures were barely 1,5°C higher than today. Why it did not happen an out of control Greenhouse effect and boiling temperatures? During the Ordovician period, when CO2 contents were 16 times higher than today, the temperatures in the tropics didn't increase, and in the higher latitudes there was happening the Gondwanan glaciation! (C.J. Yapp and H. Poths, 1992, Nature, vol, 355, pp. 342-344).

I guess you have a lot to analyze and think. Go to work. But the lost city of India was not covered by raising sea levels because the dates don't fit. But now that I gave it a second thought, pehaps I could be mistaken. Who knows...

Has anyone any idea or scientific explanation for this? Let's hear it.

Back to TOP        Back to Current Myths page        Go to FAEC's Spanish Version

You are visitor No.:

since July, 2001

FastCounter by bCentral

If you want to contribute with our work, sending no money,
please click the icons below, Thanks you, very much!

300 MB Hosting, 300 Email Accounts only $7.50/mo.

The Terapin mine stores thousands of your digital photographs easily
without expensive memory cards nor laptop. See how it works here...

Faster MP3 Burning

234x60 Consumer Headset Solution