Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Much has been written of late regarding the impending projected demise of the world’s coral atoll islands due to CO2-caused sea level rise. Micronesia is suing the Czech Government over CO2 emissions that they claim are damaging their coral atolls via sea level rise. Tuvalu and the Maldives are also repeating their claims of damage from CO2. If the sea level rises much, they say they will simply be swept away.
Recently, here in the Solomon Islands, the sea level rise has been blamed for saltwater intrusion into the subsurface “lens” of freshwater that forms under atolls. Beneath the surface of most atolls, there is a lens-shaped body of fresh water. The claim is that the rising sea levels are contaminating the freshwater lens with seawater. On other atolls, increased sea levels are claimed to be washing away parts of the atoll.
In this paper, I will discuss the two interrelated claims that people are making as illustrated above. The claims are:
1. Sea level rise causes salt water to intrude into the freshwater lens
2. Sea level rise gravely endangers low-lying coral atolls like Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Maldives. A mere 1-meter rise would see them mostly washed away.
I will look at the real causes of the very real problems faced by atoll dwellers. Finally, I will list some practical measures to ameliorate those problems.
And before you ask, how do I know this atoll stuff? For three years I lived on and worked on and had wells dug on and watched the moon rise over and dived in the lagoon and on the reef wall of a coral atoll in the South Pacific … hey, somebody has to … that plus a lot of study and research.
Claim 1. Can a sea level rise cause salt water to intrude into the freshwater lens?
Short answer, no. To understand what is really happening with the freshwater lens, we’ll start with the geology. Here is a cross-section of a typical atoll that I drew up.
Figure 1. Typical cross section through a coral atoll. The living coral is in the ring between the dotted green line and the beach. The atoll used for the photo in this example is Tepoto Atoll, French Polynesia. Click image to embiggen.
Note that the seawater penetrates throughout the porous coral rubble base. Because fresh water is lighter than salt water, the freshwater lens is floating on this subsurface part of the ocean. The weight of the freshwater pushes down the surface of the seawater underneath it, forming the bottom of the “lens” shape. The lens is wider in areas where the atoll is wider. The amount of fresh water in the lens is a balance between what is added and what is withdrawn or lost. The lens is only replenished by rain.
The important thing here is that the freshwater lens is floating on the sea surface. It’s not like a well on land, with an underground freshwater source with a water-tight layer below it. There is no underground freshwater source on an atoll. It is just a bubble of water, a rain-filled lens floating on a seawater table in a porous coral rubble and sand substructure. If there is no rain, the freshwater will eventually slowly mix with the salt water and dissipate. When there is rain, you get a floating lens of fresh water, which goes up and down with the underlying seawater.
So the second claim, that a sea level rise can cause the sea water to intrude into the freshwater lens, is not true either. The freshwater lens floats on the seawater below. A rise in the sea level merely moves the lens upwards. It does not cause salt water to intrude into the lens.
Claim 2. Would a sea level rise gravely endanger low-lying coral atolls?
Regarding atolls and sea level rise, the most important fact was discovered by none other than Charles Darwin. He realized that coral atolls essentially “float” on the surface of the sea. When the sea rises, the atoll rises with it. They are not solid, like a rock island. They are a pile of sand and rubble. There is always material added and material being lost. Atolls exist in a delicate balance between new sand and coral rubble being added from the reef, and atoll sand and rubble being eroded by wind and wave back into the sea or into the lagoon. As sea level rises, the balance tips in favor of sand and rubble being added to the atoll. The result is that the atoll rises with the sea level.
Darwin’s discovery also explained why coral atolls occur in rings as in Fig. 2 above. They started as a circular inshore coral reef around a volcanic rock island. As the sea level rose (or equally, if the island sank), flooding more and more of the island, the coral grew upwards. Eventually, the island was drowned by the rising sea levels, and all that is left is the ring of reef and coral atolls.
Why don’t we see atolls getting fifty feet high? Wind erosion keeps atolls from getting too tall. Wind increases rapidly with distance above the ocean. The atolls simply cannot get taller. The sand at that elevation is blown away as fast as it is added. That’s why all atolls are so low-lying.
When the sea level rises, wind erosion decreases. The coral itself continues to grow upwards to match the sea level rise. Because the coral continues to flourish, the flow of sand and rubble onto the atoll continues, and with reduced wind erosion the atoll height increases by the amount of the sea level rise.
Since (as Darwin showed) atolls float up with the sea level, the idea that they will be buried by sea level rises is totally unfounded. Despite never being more than a few meters tall, they have survived a sea level rise of up to three hundred plus feet (call it a hundred meters) within the last twenty thousand years. Historically they have floated up higher than the peaks of drowned mountains.
So the third claim is not true either. Atolls are created by sea level rise, not destroyed by sea level rise.
What is the real cause of salt water in the lens?
Given that the saltwater intrusion can’t be a result of sea level rise (because the lens is floating), why is there saltwater in the islanders’ wells? Several factors affect this. First and foremost, the freshwater lens is a limited supply. As island populations increase, more and more water is drawn from the lens. The inevitable end of this is that the water in the wells gets saltier and saltier. This affects both wells and plants, which draw from the same lens. It also leads to unfounded claims that sea level rise is to blame.
The second reason for saltwater intrusion into the lens is a reduction in the amount of sand and rubble coming onto the atoll from the reef. When the balance between sand added and sand lost is disturbed, the atoll shrinks. When the atoll shrinks, the lens shrinks.
The third reason is that roads and airstrips and changes in land use and land cover has reduced the amount of rain making it to the lens. Less freshwater in, more saltwater in.
What is the real cause of loss of beach and atoll land?
An atoll is not solid ground. It is not a constant “thing” in the way a rock island is a thing. An atoll is a not-so-solid eddy in a river of sand and rubble. It is an ever-changing body constantly replenished by a (hopefully) unending stream of building materials. It is a process, not a solid object. On one side, healthy reefs plus beaked coral-grazing fish plus storms provide a continuous supply of coral sand and rubble. This sand and rubble are constantly being added to the atoll, making it larger. At the same time, coral sand and rubble are constantly being eaten away by waves and blown away by the wind. The shape of the atoll changes from season to season and from year to year. It builds up on this corner, and the sea washes away that corner.
So if the atoll is shrinking, there are only a few possibilities. Erosion may have increased. The supply of sand and rubble, the raw atoll construction materials, may have decreased. Currents may have changed from reef damage, dredging, or construction.
Water erosion and current changes are increased by anything that damages or changes the reef. That thin strip of living coral armor is all that stands between a pile of sand and the endless waves. When the reef changes, the atoll changes.
Erosion is also caused by a variety of human activities. Road and path building, house construction, ground cover change, clearing of channels through the reef, the list is long.
The reduction in the supply of coral sand and coral rubble, however, is harder to see. This reduction has two main causes – using of coral for building, and killing the wrong fish. The use of coral as a building material in many atolls is quite common. At times this is done in a way that damages the reef. Anything that affects the health of the reef affects how much atoll building material it produces each year. This is the somewhat visible part of the loss of building materials, the part we can see.
What goes unremarked is the loss of the reef sand, which is essential for the continued existence of the atoll. The major cause for the loss of sand is the indiscriminate, wholesale killing of parrotfish and other beaked reef-grazing fish. A single parrotfish, for example, creates around a hundred kilos of coral sand per year. Parrotfish and other beaked reef fish create the sand by grinding up the coral with their massive jaws and bony throats, digesting the food, and excreting the ground coral.
Beaked grazing fish are vital for overall coral health, growth, and production. This happens in the same way that pruning makes a tree send up lots of new shoots. The constant grazing by the beaked fish keeps the corals in full production mode. This greatly increases the annual production of coral for sand and rubble.
Unfortunately, these fish sleep at night, and thus are easily wiped out by night divers. The invention of the diving flashlight has meant that their populations have plummeted in many areas in recent years. Result? Less sand means less beaches, and means more claims of “CO2 is to blame, you can see the damage!”.
Some Practical Suggestions
What can be done to turn the situation around for the atolls? From the outside, not a whole lot. Stopping the Czechs from burning coal won’t do a damned thing. From the outside, we can offer only assistance. The work needs to occur on the atolls themselves.
There are, however, a number of low-cost, practical steps that atoll residents can take to preserve and build up their atolls and protect the freshwater lens. In no particular order, these are:
1. Stop having so many kids. An atoll has a limited supply of water. It cannot support an unlimited population. Enough said.
2. Catch every drop that falls. On the ground, build small dams in any watercourses to encourage the water to soak into the lens rather than run off to the ocean. Put water tanks under every roof. Dig “recharge wells”, which return filtered surface water to the lens in times of heavy rain. Catch the water off of the runways. On some atolls, they have put gutters on both sides of the airplane runway to catch all of the rainwater falling on the runway. It is collected and pumped into tanks. On other atolls, they let the rainwater just run off of the airstrip back into the ocean …
3. Conserve, conserve, conserve. Use seawater in place of fresh whenever possible. Use as little water as you can.
4. Make the killing of parrotfish and other beaked reef grazing fish tabu. Stop fishing them entirely. Make them protected species. The parrotfish should be the national bird of every atoll nation. I’m serious. If you call it the national bird, tourists will ask why a fish is the national bird, and you can explain to them how the parrotfish is the source of the beautiful beaches they are walking on, so they shouldn’t spear beaked reef fish or eat them. Stop killing the fish that make the very ground underfoot. The parrotfish and the other beaked reef-grazing fish are constantly building up the atoll. Every year they are providing tonnes and tonnes of fine white sand to keep the atoll afloat in turbulent times. They should be honored and protected, not killed. Caring for the reef is the single most important thing you can do.
5. Be cautious regarding the use of coral as a building material. The atoll will be affected if anything upsets that balance of sand added and sand lost. It will erode if the supply of coral sand and rubble per year starts dropping (say from reef damage or extensive coral mining or killing parrotfish) or if the total sand and rubble loss goes up (say by heavy rains or strong winds or human erosion or a change in currents).
So when coral is necessary for building, take it sparingly, in spots. Take dead or dying coral in preference to live coral. Mine the deeps and not the shallows. Use hand tools. Leave enough healthy reef around to reseed the area with new coral. A healthy reef is the factory that annually produces the tonnes and tonnes of building material that is absolutely necessary to keep the atoll afloat. You mess with it at your peril.
6. Reduce sand loss from the atoll in as many ways as possible. This can be done with plants to stop wind erosion. Don’t introduce plants for the purpose. Encourage and transplant the plants that already grow locally. Reducing water erosion also occurs with the small dams mentioned above, which will trap sand eroded by rainfall. Don’t overlook human erosion. Every step a person takes on an atoll pushes sand downhill, closer to returning to the sea. Lay down leaf mats where this is evident, wherever the path is wearing away. People wear a path, and soon it is lower than the surrounding ground. When it rains, it becomes a small watercourse. Invisibly, the water washes the precious sand into the ocean. Invisibly, the wind blows the ground out from underfoot. Protect the island from erosion. Stop it from being washed and blown away.
7. Monitor and build up the health of the reef. You and you alone are responsible for the well-being of the amazing underwater fish-tended coral factory that year after year keeps your atoll from disappearing. Coral reseeding programs done by schools have been very successful. Get the kids involved in watching and recording and photographing the reef. Remind the people that they are the guardians of the reef. Talk to the fishermen.
8. Expand the atoll. Modern coastal engineering has shown that it is often quite possible to “grow” an atoll. The key is to slow down the water as it passes by. The slower the water moves, the more sand drops out to the bottom. Slowing the water is accomplished by building low underwater walls perpendicular to the coastline. These start abovewater, and run out until the ends are a few metres underwater. Commercially this is done with a geotextile fabric tubes which are pumped full of concrete. See the references for more information. In the atolls the similar effect can be obtained with “gabbions”, wire cages filled with blocks of dead coral. Wire all of the wire cages securely together in a triangular pattern, stake them down with rebar, wait for the sand to fill in. It might be possible to do it with old tires, fastened together, with chunks of coral piled on top of them. It will likely take a few years to fill in. This triangular shape does not attempt to stop the water currents. Think of it as a speed bunp. It just slows the currents down and directs them toward the beach to deposit their load of sand. Eventually, the entire area fills in with sand.
Of course to do that, you absolutely have to have a constant source of sand and rubble … like for example a healthy reef with lots of parrotfish. That’s why I said above that the most important thing is to protect the fish and the reef. If you have a healthy reef, you’ll have plenty of sand and rubble to keep the atoll afloat forever. If you don’t, you’re in trouble.
Coral atolls have proven over thousands of years that, if left alone, they can go up with the sea level. And if we follow some simple conservation practices, they can continue to do so and to support atoll residents.
But they cannot survive an unlimited population increase, or unrestricted overfishing, or overpumping the water lens, or unrestrained coral mining. Those are what is killing the atolls, not the same rate of sea level rise that we’ve had for the last hundred years.
FURTHER REFERENCES:
On global sea level rise levelling off: University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change, http://sealevel.colorado.edu
On Darwin’s discovery: Darwin, C., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, 1887
“No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of S. America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with the denudation and deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of coral. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls.” (Darwin, 1887, p. 98, 99)
On the results of coral mining and changing the reef: Xue, C. (1996) Coastal Erosion And Management Of Amatuku Island, Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu, 1996, South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), http://conf.sopac.org/virlib/TR/TR0234.pdf This atoll was cited by the Sierra Club as an example of the dangers of sea level rise. The truth is more prosaic.
On the same topic: Xue, C., Malologa, F. (1995) Coastal sedimentation and coastal management of Fongafale, Funafuti, Tuvalu, SOPAC Technical Report 221
More information on how parrotfish increase reef production: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016%5B0747:TIOEGS%5D2.0.CO%3B2
On the cause of erosion in Tuvalu: Tuvalu Not Experiencing Increased Sea Level Rise, Willis Eschenbach, Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, 1 July 2004 , pp. 527-543, available here (PDF doc).
On expanding island beaches: Holmberg Technologies, http://www.erosion.com/
On the atolls getting larger: Global-scale changes in the area of atoll islands during the 21st century
On the dangers of overpopulation: Just look around you …
——————————————————-
[UPDATE June 3, 2010] Other scientists are catching up with me (emphasis mine).
Global and Planetary Change, Article in Press, Accepted Manuscript, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003
The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific
Arthur P. Webb a, and Paul S. Kench b; a South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, SOPAC. Fiji; b School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Received 22 February 2010; accepted 13 May 2010. Available online 21 May 2010.
Abstract
Low-lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea level rise. Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 year period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea level rise of 2.0 mm.y-1 in the Pacific.
Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 hectares. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area.
Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms. Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands. Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases.
Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea level rise in the central Pacific.
First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea level change.
Second; islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor.
Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by progradation on other sectors of shorelines. Results indicate that the style and magnitude of geomorphic change will vary between islands. Therefore, Island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption.
In other words, the islands are floating upwards with the sea level rise, just as I had said. So for those in the comments section who think I’m just making this up … think again. In particular, the final comment by lkrndu22 says that I am “hoist by my own petard” because ocean acidification has already caused “evident and severe” damage … ‘fraid not. The islands continue to rise. The main cause of damage to the corals is … coral mining and killing the fish. And islands where that is happening are in danger, as I indicated above.
But sea level rise? The atolls have lived through that for thousands of years without damage.

Al Gore’s Wallet (AGW)
Dave Wendt (02:40:31) :
Thanks, Dave.
Note that paper I referenced in my response to Willis
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/MG_Leuliette2004.pdf
describes results of calibrating the sats against the tidal gauges and how they are adjusted for drift, etc. Also note how these results also appear different from those given in the graph Willis posts, for the same region. My ref., gives a slope of 2.8mm/yr vs., their 3.5mm/yr, a difference of 20%. And yet, the linear regressions look like they fit the data of the years they share in common equally well. Looks to me like there were some pretty significant “adjustments” made to the data(?), and I’m not any too comfortable with that, not just given what they’ve done to temperatures.
I like the “save in pdf” idea. Anthony, any chance there can be a “pdf version” option at the end of each article?
I’m hopeless with puters.
The BBC:
I read about this article over at ‘C3’ ( http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/is-human-co2-causing-ocean-islands-to-be-swamped-by-rising-seas-short-answer-nope.html ) and they said it was a “keeper.” After reading it here, I can see why they said that. Thanks for the great info.
Great article, Willis!
While it is true that over geological time, coral reefs can be “drowned” by rising sea level… The reef just moves. There are buried, “drowned” Pleistocene coral reefs off the coast of Florida that are seaward of the current reefs. The sort of sea level rises associated with glacial-interglacial cycles can cause reefs to reposition themselves over fairly long distances.
However, the sort of sea level rise that has occurred since the coldest part of the Little Ice Age has been both insignificant compared to glacial-interglacial changes and very beneficial to coral reef growth.
I plotted the excellent sea level reconstruction from Jerejeva et al., 2008 (1)along with the average calcification rate of ~60 GBR reefs from De’ath et al., 2009…
Sea Level vs Calcification Rate
Coral reefs respond to sea level rise in much the same way they respond to warming and an increasing supply of CO2… They grow faster.
To put the sea sea level rise of the last 300 years into perspective, I plotted the Jerejeva reconstruction at the same scale as the glacial-interglacial sea level changes over the last 1 million years…
Jerejeva and Miller
The total vertical change in sea level over the last 300 years is a “dot” in relation to the vertical changes between glacial and interglacial conditions.
De’ath, G., J.M. Lough, and K.E. Fabricius. 2009.
Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef.
Science, Vol. 323, pp. 116 – 119, 2 January 2009.
“Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?”, Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611.
This really is a great post. It is the climate/environment problem in a nutshell. CO2 and climate are blamed and the simple environmental causes – here having a healthy coral system – are overlooked. I have no doubt this can be extrapolated to other “climate issues” Gletsjers in some parts of the world, water vapor, chopping down rainforest comes to mind.
population figures for the Maldives (115 sq. miles-total area):
1957–93,000 source: National Geographic Mag. June 1957
1966–94,527 source: Hammond World Atlas
1981–144,000 source: National Geographic Mag. Oct. 1981
2009–396,334 source: CIA factbook
Oh, yes, and please see here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/roger-pielke-senior-on-real-climate-claims-bubkes/
where they have the slope as 3.2mm/yr (first graph there). And, again, it just doesn’t look quite the same.
Willis, may I comment somewhat late that the 3 millimeter per year sea level increase correspond to approx. 1000 cubic km water added to the oceans. On the other hand, approx. 1200 cubic km are pumped from ground water reservoirs. Some of that is taken out for good, some is just taken in advance of the next rainy season. No hard data exist how much is pumped for good, leading to permanent lowering of ground water tableaus.
The pumping is done mainly for irrigation. The Phoenix region in Arizona is said to have lowered the ground water level by approx. 400 meters, similar reports I have heard from Greece.
Nobody seems to be interested in hard numbers. There is no UNESCO program to monitor groundwater levels, neither has IPCC ever requird hard data, to my knowledge.
Anticlimactic (06:19:20) :
According to this article, wave power appears to be THE most expensive alternative energy source.
http://halfwisehalfwit.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-spend-little-when-you-can-spend-lot.html
OT, but I like to give heads up when ever a climate story appears in MSM….well sort of MSM it’s Fox but still…….http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/scientists-climate-gate-scandal-hid-data/?test=latestnews
Anti Climatic said:
Slightly O/T – I have always been fascinated by ‘Salter’s Duck’, a machine to convert waves to electricity. The point is that it removes 90% of the energy from waves so it should be possible to use these to grow atolls. If electricity generation is not required then it would reduce costs considerably. I have often thought that these machines could also be useful for protecting coastlines and oil rigs.
http://www.technologystudent.com/energy1/tidal7.htm
***
I recently wrote an article on wave energy for a journal and actually spoke to Prof Salter who now works at Edinburgh University.
In my article I did suggest that arrays of wave energy devices close to the coast could act as a means of breaking up waves that affect certain areas (such as the Dawlish Stretch of the Great Western Railway) as well as generating electricity.
Unfortunately wave power has barely moved on since the Salter Duck was first featured on ‘Tomorrow’s World’ which is where I suspect you first saw it.
Unfortunately the amount of reseach on wave energy has been very limited and is probably at least 10 years behind wind technology, so it is very doubtful if we will see significant electricity generation from waves for 20 years, unless interested parties-especially governments- put their money where their mouth is (British phrase for American readers!)
Tonyb
2010 – President Obama’s State of the Union Address:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572
someone really need an update on the overwhelming scientific evidence…
I’m an Engineer in Wyoming, and another thought occurred to me. With all these people consuming water and food and visitors to hotels, etc. Where is all the waste going?
When we design waste water treatment systems, we have to account for water table intrusion, whether it is a series of waste water lagoons, or a septic system. If the waste is too close to or can penetrate into the water table, the entire area can become contaminated and unsuitabe. On an atoll with a “floating” water table level and extremely porous soils, and most likely not enough organic matter to absorb and filter out the contaminants, how much of an impact will that have on their fresh water availability?
Sorry if a bit OT.
Matt
Good article, and one that makes sense.
It’s a shame that the reasoned plea to the islanders to value and conserve their limited resources doesn’t seem to apply to western civilizations. That’s far too inconvenient for us to consider.
Ross (20:48:05) : Yes. We have been taught to “believe” in physical laws as they were “dogmas”, that is why they bear names like Newton´s law of gravitation, which are for none to doubt, but what if the majority of these “sacred laws” are not general laws but lucky correlations which can be applied to practice, being useful only within limited boundaries?. This is what they really are: WORKABLE CONVENTIONS but not universal truths. We must look after real general laws, and these, we can intuitively say, must be very simple and easy to understand.
Here it is where a tacit agreement among “new scientists” appears,a silent pact and consensus among agnostics, it proclaims that we, ordinary humans, are not supposed to know or to comprehend anything, only god can
WUWT and we, what are really trying to say is that our conviction is that real knowledge is perfectly possible, away from “settled science”, then We can call ourselves gnostics
There are real truths and simple laws out there for us to apprehend and know if we begin losing respect to the false gods and saints of contemporary science church.
On a Mac, using Safari or Camino (don’t know about other browsers), File->Print, then click PDF->Save As PDF.
For Windows, someone else will have to comment.
/Mr Lynn
Wait a minute — that graph says that the sea level rise abruptly decreased in rate around 2004. So the oceans began to stop rising NOT during Obama’s reign, but in the middle of the Bush administration! I’m going to have to exchange my “We can do it!” button for one that says “He already did it!”
Excellent article! Population is a dirty word in the “greenie” sales pitch. They know its unsaleable.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9685251
An extremely enjoyable and interesting post. Thank you.
>>Even the BBC is now publishing stuff
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm
No. They are hiding it away on thier website – this will not be on the 10’oclock News.
This is only there so that when MPs claim that the BBC is biased, they can say “no, it is here on the website” (and at lest three people have read it)….
.
OT: Some people will enjoy reading this:
Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
Paper:
Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
I haven’t gone through the whole paper, but after reading the reconstructions they use, I’m shocked they actually found that “Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming." The list of reconstructions is a group of some of the most awful reconstructions made in the climate science community:
Jones199831 (blue 3), Briffa200032 (blue 2), MannJones200333 (blue 1), Moberg200534 (light blue), DArrigo200635 (green), Hegerl200736 (yellow), Frank200737 (orange), Juckes200738 (red), Mann200839 (maroon).
>>Ancient shorelines in a tectonically active area like the
>>Mediterranean have only a very vague relationship to
>>sea-level since the land moves (up or down) much faster
>>than the sea level.
Well, you say that but:
The Ptolemaic port at Alexandria is only 5 m or so below where it should be, and that may be due to its being built on alluvial sand.
The Herodian harbour at Caesaria is just under the present sea-level, and that may be due erosion.
The Roman harbour at Kos is pretty much where I would expect it to be. And E Greece is supposed to be subducting.
The Roman harbour at Ephesus is perhaps 5m above where it should be.
The Greek harbour at Pharselas is almost exactly where it should be.