There are a couple of ways the surface can “rebound”, one is if the objects the ice is on are “floating” (which they are), but then the speed of rebound depends on the viscosity of the fluid they are floating on. Viscosity of silicate melts is highly dependent on the amount of water present, with more water producing lower viscosity.

Places where there is subduction are going to have more water and so have lower viscosity magma. Similarly, the places with the highest mountains, likely also have the lowest density magma under neath them (so the mountains float higher) which means higher temperature and likely lower viscosity and (likely) faster rebound from glacial unloading.

Also, the Three Gorges Dam holds 39 GT of water, and is sort of near the Tibetan plateau. The emptying and filling of melt-fed reservoirs is going to be 180 degrees out of phase with the seasonal deposition and melting of ice, that balancing may obscure the actual deviations.

I mentioned the Gulf Coast specifically becuase I was under the impression that barrier island construction had been mostly curtailed in other areas of the US.

As with any extant environmental protection, that curtailment is subject to legal and legislative erosion:

http://coastalcare.org/2011/07/sandbagged-the-undoing-of-a-quarter-century-of-north-carolina-coastal-conservation/

Strictly speaking, that isn’t about new construction, but if you push against one set of regulations, it’s a safe bet that a push against related ones isn’t far off.

Now, if you happen to live in one of the places that was under the high seas during one of those periods, go dig a hole or look at a road cut or a stream embankment or talk to a local geologist and find out what kind of sedimentary rocks are in your area.

It will likely be the sediments that formed under those high seas.”

Is this really the point you want to dicker over? I stopped by to see if there was any room here for a rational conversation about these issues. It looks more and more like there isn’t.

There probably shoulnd’t be any new building on the barrier islands along the Gulf Coast anywhere.

Edited slightly to reflect improved understanding of coastal hazards a la Pilkey.

In New England, you couldn’t do what you just described. I’m actually amazed one could do it on the Gulf Coast because building in coastal regions is to some extent federally regulated. After the storm of 78, all new coastal construction in certain beach areas of New England (much of the Mass shoreline, as it turns out) was simply not allowed. Some 200 houses were washed out to sea in that storm, and they then provided a nighmare for obstructions at sea and where they re-landed on the shore on national seashores and on various commercial docks, public landings, etc. It was determined that all of the construction in a given zone was a hazard.

There probably shoulnd’t be any new building on the barrier islands along the Gulf Coast.

Quantico Cat, do tell: When and where was the sea level higher than it is now? I’m not saying it wasn’t, but I’m not entirely sure you’ve got a handle on this. Yes, that is a quiz!