Nils Axel Morner and Don Easterbrook told them so. So did Willis, who had some very similar ideas.
We’ve mentioned several times here on WUWT that the claims about sea level rise and sinking islands are overblown. For example, this idiotic publicity stunt by the Maldivian government, signing a legal declaration underwater, demonstrates just how far some people are willing to prostitute their victimhood for financial gain. The MO: You other countries warmed the earth, raising sea level which threatens our island. Pay up sucka!
Yeah, well, that scam is now going the way of Nigerian email.
From TV New Zealand:
An Auckland University researcher has offered new hope to the myriad small island nations in the Pacific which have loudly complained their low-lying atolls will drown as global warming boosts sea levels.
Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm – an average of 2mm a year – over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.
Working with Arthur Webb at the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Kench used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.
They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change.
“It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown,” Prof Kench told the New Scientist. “But they won’t.
“The sea level will go up and the island will start responding.
One of the highest profile islands – in a political sense – was Tuvalu, where politicians and climate change campaigners have repeatedly predicted it will be drowned by rising seas, as its highest point is 4.5 metres above sea level. But the researchers found seven islands had spread by more than 3 percent on average since the 1950s.
One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.
And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also “grew” – Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).
Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.
The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.
In effect the islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate – Cyclone Bebe deposited 140ha of sediment on the eastern reef of Tuvalu in 1972, increasing the main island’s area by 10 percent.
But the two men warned that while the islands were coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise could re-instate the earlier gloomy predictions.
No one knows how fast the islands can grow, and calculating sea level rise is an inexact science.
Climate experts have generally raised estimates for sea level rise – the United Nations spoke in late 2009 of a maximum 2 metre rise by 2100, up from 18-59cm estimated in 2007.
Full story here. Even their source, the New Scientist was forced to admit the “good news” but says “sea level rise warnings stand”. Yeah, sure, whatever.
=================================
Here’s the abstract and the link to the paper. (corrected, the New Scientist provided link was originally bad)
The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific
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.
(Corrected) Link to paper (paywall) is here
h/t to Purakanui
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass 642-971 exam using up to date 642-062 resources! Get the latest 70-663 dumps for guaranteed success.
PS sorry for the errors in composition, the shock must have been too much!!
What a crock! If they expand their islands enough they will be underwater! Duh! (But there will always be some fools they can sell that new “real estate” to. Money, money, money …)
Has anyone thought to mention this study to the Congresscritter who thought Guam would capsize? He’ll be reassured that with a wider base, it will be much more difficult to tip the island over.
Don’t forget the parrot fish that chomp up the coral to make the sand for the beaches !!
I had great fun explaining that to my kids as it really captured their attention and helped them think beyond the drivel thrown up, even by our esteemed CSIRO.
Any typos blame the non-grammatically correct lizard.
As usual many thanks to WUWT posters, moderators and readers with scientific comments. Cheers JJ
Link is to the wrong paper, it has only recently been published “in print”, here’s the correct title, the abstract and DOI.
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, and Paul S. Kench
Global Planetary Change articles in Print. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003
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.
Maybe Florida should require that everyone who visits there will bring a stone, so they can start building reefs around Florida. Barrier reefs around most of Florida would be a good idea anyway.
Re-incorrect links. The source of the error is the New Scientist report that provides the wrong DOI.
re: stumpy: June 2, 2010 at 5:03 pm
and Jame Sexton: June 2, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Interesting stories. And James has the money quote:
/dr.bill
Smokey says:
June 2, 2010 at 5:03 pm
> Kwajalein Atoll. If hydrogen bombs can’t destroy an atoll, what’s a few millimeters of sea level rise?
Not really my area of expertise, but I don’t think Kwaj was bombed.
The history of what the US gov’t did (and has refused to do) in the Marshall Islands is more than a bit disturbing.
http://www.bikiniatoll.com/history.html
http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm
I have been to these islands myself, (the Carteret islands) and seen what is happen there for myself.
This place was a paradise, one of the islands in this group has been divided in half, more importantly they used to grow crops to feed themselves but salt water has crept into the water table and such crops will no longer grow. The people are not talking about moving they are moving to Bougainville a mining community (and a slum compared to the Carteret islands) I don’t think these people would have much time for the musings of Nils Axel Morner and Don Easterbrook telling then it’s not happening, they want to stay on their islands, were they have lived for generations, but are unable to.
Steven W: June 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm
That’s a very touching story Steven. My own ancestors used to live on a small island off the East Coast of Canada. They also had problems with erosion, loss of waterfront land, and other difficulties. They managed to deal with it. Some of them moved a bit higher up. Some of them moved to the other side of the island, where, oddly enough, it was growing seaward. Some others couldn’t be bothered, and just moved off the island altogether. That was a bit over 100 years ago. So what do you suppose the cause was back then? They didn’t know. Still don’t. Doesn’t matter. Stuff happens, and it doesn’t have to be anyone’s fault.
You present your heart-breaking little story as if it were the definitive word on some kind of culpability. Who is culpable? Nobody. Stuff happens, and always has. One thing for certain, is that this has nothing to do with CO2 and ‘global warming’, which I take to be your implicit accusation. Did anyone ever check the other side of the island? It might be growing.
Get a life, man.
/dr.bill
Steven W – the sea water is penetrating the water table because they’ve drawn too much fresh water for their crops, it’s a delicate balance. They have also destroyed much of the outer reef through dynamite fishing.
DirkH says:
June 2, 2010 at 3:28 pm
That must have hurt the New Scientist.
I think getting hurt is part of the global warming religion. It happens a lot to them. Some religions like being hurt.
Ric Werme,
You’re right, that was the view from Kwajalein — I think. A guy I worked with took regular trips to Kwajalein and the photos he had looked exactly like the foreground in the pic. Maybe Willis, having lived in the Marshalls, might know.
Thanks for your info on the Marshall Islanders. I can understand that we were in a very frightening cold war situation at the time, with Russia detonating H-bombs and making threats like Ahmadinejad [“We will bury you”], and that individuals, especially those administered by Imperial Japan for half a century, were considered expendable.
This relocation was initiated not very long after 50 million+ people were killed in WWII, most of them simply victims of circumstance. [Uncle Joe Stalin: “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.”]
But that was then, and this is now. The people who were relocated from Bikini need help, not bureaucracy. With the $Trillions that Chairman Zero is handing out, maybe he could spare a little for these poor, hard-bitten folks…
…nah. Not enough votes.
Sure, they’ve gained in extent, but it’s rotten land.
“salt water has crept into the water table and such crops will no longer grow.”
That is not caused by sea level rise. That is caused by removing the fresh water (probably for irrigating those crops) faster than it can be replenished by rainfall.
As a previous commenter noted, the fresh water on those islands is from a “lense” of fresh water that floats on salt water in the porous coral rock. If you remove it faster than it can seep in, you will start sucking salt water.
But the more important thing to keep in mind is that we could spend trillions of dollars and not impact sea level one iota, or at least not enough for anyone to notice for several centuries.
Sea level is *always* falling or rising, it is *never* stable for very long. Sea level might continue to rise at the current rate for a century or it might be topping out.
We (Earth) just experienced the coldest period of the past 10,000 years (Little Ice Age or LIA). As we recover from that event, it would be expected that sea levels would rise and glaciers would retreat. If you look at climate in general over the past 2000 years or so, each major cool period has been a little colder than the one before it. I personally believe that the current interglacial has been in the process of ending for the past 2000 years. The next “little ice age” will be a “little bit bigger ice age” and probably last longer than the more recent one did. Climate at the edges of the interglacials tends to be unstable. We are probably going to see dramatic swings between cold and warm periods over the next few thousand years but the general trend will be downward in temperature.
Steven W:
“they are moving to Bougainville a mining community (and a slum compared to the Carteret islands) ”
I agree with the slum bit, but there’s no mining on Bougainville that I know of.
The locals after years of looting the closed mine are making noises about restarting it. And declaring independence (which would be loony). There’s not much left but a pestilent hole in the ground, which they don’t own anyway (its still owned by BCL) and the capital cost for restarting would be about the same as starting an entirely new mine. Only there’s lots of better places than Bougainville Island for that, not least since half the ore has already been mined.
The Tuvaluvians would do better staying home, at least they have an income from fishing rights and the .tv domain name.
The 81 B euro cost is the current estimated cost of reducing CO2 emissions by 30% from a fixed baseline…the 70 B is the previous estimated cost of a 20% reduction from that same baseline, which cost is now estimated to be significantly less because CO2 emissions have fallen already (at zero cost) due to economic downturn.
What I found most remarkable about the suggestion to go for more aggressive CO2 reduction targets, is that the “savings” is illusory — unless it is the goal to remain in an economic slump. A recovery and its concomitant increased industrial activity would naturally increase CO2 emissions (among others)…but if there is a cap in place to require more expensive energy, then the recovery will be inhibited to exactly the same extent as the claimed “savings”.
Not to mention the likelihood that the claimed cost is underestimated. In the US at least, it is de rigueur to bias estimated costs, tax revenues, etc. to favor whatever policy is being proposed. I’m dubious that a European bureaucracy behaves any differently.
Two of them had 30% growth in area?
Well, it’s worse than we thought. Run those growth rates out and we’ll be out of ocean in no time! Time to form a new international commission to address the problem! Clearly, the developed nations are to blame and must pay.
“An Auckland University researcher has offered new hope to the myriad small island nations…”
Given their obvious attempts at extortion over this, the politicians there don’t need any stinkin hope, thank you very much.
Michael Chrichton’ s book ‘State of Fear’ featured a version of this same bogus story, and so much more about this AGW scam, way back in 2004. That novel began:
“In late 2003, at the Susutainable Earth Summit conference… the Pacific island nation of Vanutu announced that it was preparing a lawsuit against the… [EPA] … over global warming. Vanutu stood only a few feet above sea level, and the island’s eight thousnad inhabitants were in danger of having to evacuate their country because of rising sea levels caused by global warming…”
The plan was to sue the USA because as the largest CO2 emitter, they caused The Warming. Copenhagen revealed.
Anyone who missed that novel will find that it was years ahead in revealing this scam, and a great read. A Hollywood environmentalist is eaten by cannibals as a bonus.
Steven W says: June 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm “. . . I don’t think these people would have much time for the musings of Nils Axel Morner and Don Easterbrook telling then it’s not happening, they want to stay on their islands, were they have lived for generations, but are unable to.”
Classic example of people not willing to look at their own responsibility for a problem — far easier to blame someone else, even if blaming someone else does not fix the problem. Too much fresh water was drawn for crops; that is why sea water has crept into the water table. Dynamiting has damaged coral reefs. Also, mining coral for construction purposes — that enables waves to wash higher on shore.
If you think that reducing CO2 would solve their problems, then you are perpetuating the problem.
2 June: Remarks by the President on the Economy at Carnegie Mellon University
But the only way the transition to clean energy will ultimately succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future — if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.
No, many businesses have already embraced this idea because it provides a level of certainty about the future. And for those that face transition costs, we can help them adjust…
The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate — a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans — that would achieve the same goal. And, Pittsburgh, I want you to know, the votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months. (Applause.) ..
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-economy-carnegie-mellon-university
And where, exactly, is the elevation benchmark that the elevations of these islands are compared to?
Land and islands continually rise or subside and will continue to do one or the other. There is no really fixed elevation point on this planet that I ever heard of.
This story was all in Michael Crichton’s 2004 novel ‘State of Fear’, except he called the island nation Vanutu…
“Vanutu stood only a few feet above sea level, and the island’s eight thousand inhabitants were in danger of having to evacuate their country because of rising sea levels caused by global warming…”
So, they were going to sue the USA, the largest CO2 emitter, of course.
This novel was way ahead of its time, touched on most of the bogus AGW tales, and included a sanctimonious Hollywood environmentalist eaten by cannibals as a bonus.
James Sexton says:
June 2, 2010 at 5:49 pm
This sea level meme is particularly irksome to me. Everybody simply seems to accept the numbers people throw out. When one stops and considers, it is exactly like measuring our temps……except less accurate. The above study illustrates this. The properties of mercury are much more finite than the land on which we measure the sea levels. The accuracy of a thermometer(mercury enclosed in a standardized tube) is much more than trying to measure the ever moving sea compared to the ever moving (yet, oh so slightly)land mass. It can’t be done to the accuracy of mm.
I definitely agree. For those still inclined to accept the plots of sea level rise that are bandied about I suggest spending some time reviewing this document
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_handbook_v1-3_no_rev.pdf
It’s the OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook and it contains the best info on how they measure and calculate SSH and MSL that I’ve come across. Actually they appear to be doing a lot better than I would have thought before I studied it, at least if you’re willing to accept all their claims. Even then, they’re talking about first cut accuracy of 11.2 cm with final product accuracy of 3.4 cm after long term averaging and numerous correction factors applied. These values of course exclude significant wave height, which is a chaotic factor they admit they don’t really have a good handle on and adds an uncertainty in the range of 0.9 to 0.5 meters, and these accuracies are specs which may or may not be met.
The magnitude and multitude of the corrections and calculations necessary to produce the end product data makes what they are doing a most impressive technical and engineering achievement, but even if they can meet all their design goals, the end result will be a very good map which still may well be only a fair representation of the real territory.
I would also note that these details are for the latest Jason-2 satellite, which is a step up from the Jason-1 unit, which was itself an even larger step up from the original Topex/Poseidon units.
No matter what your opinion may be concerning MSL, I do recommend reviewing this pdf as I haven’t found a better exposition on the technology and methods involved in trying to measure it.