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.
From the Sydney Morning Herald: “Fred Terry, the director of the United Nations Development Project on Bougainville, said the destruction of reefs in the Carterets with dynamite might be the cause [of sea water intrusion] there.
“During the Bougainville conflict people went to the atolls to get away from it,” Mr Terry said. “The islanders had all these extra mouths to feed and needed more fish. They have a history as reef destroyers.”
Mr Terry said the movement of tectonic plates could also be responsible. ‘None of this means they don’t have a major problem.'”
It’s simple math, and while the people of the Carterets may not know their arithmetic … they’re great at multiplication.
How poetic, Willis!
The fact that the islands have grown recently should be sufficient proof that sea-level rise (change?) is negligible. As long as the reef-building organisms (corals) are healthy, they will grow. Wave action and grazing organisms will break them down, and sand derived from this breakdown will wash into the lagoon, or seaward down the talus slope. If sea level is constant, the coral will grow outward, especially on the windward side or towards currents. If sea level falls, the islands may grow as well, and if sea level rises, they should stay the same size, providing the growth of the calcite and aragonite-producing organisms can keep up with sea level rise. In warm oceans where corals flourish, there should be no problem with this, despite possible decrease in pH.
“Roger Sowell says:
June 2, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Ummm…isn’t it obvious that coral reefs and islands associated with them grow as sea level rises? Sea level increased hundreds of feet since the depths of the last ice glaciation, and I don’t expect that the coral reefs stuck up a few hundred feet and waited for the ocean to rise and cover them.”
Actually they did, to a very considerable extent. Coral grows and follows the sea-level if it does not rise too fast. However the limestone core of coral reefs certainly does not evaporate the moment sea-level starts sinking. The living corals retreat down the slopes, leaving a limestone plateau where the atoll and lagoon was. There are several such “high atolls” in the Pacific today, e. g. Niue and Henderson Island. In these cases the rise is caused by tectonics, but during glaciations essentially all atolls are like that. That is the reason that there is frequently “blue holes” (submarine caves) in atolls. Karst caves are hollowed out by rainwater, and cannot form below sea level. As a matter of fact nearly the whole state of Florida and the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico are examples of the same thing on a large scale.
The reason most atolls are so close to sea-level at present is simply that the sea hasn’t been much higher than today during the last million years or so, and there are almost no large reef complexes that are older than that.
Gail Combs says (June 3, 2010 at 4:28 am): “An explanation of the actual cause of what is happening is here: Floating Islands”
Gail, thanks for the reference back to WE’s earlier article. I just checked it and saw today’s update with the Kench paper. (And I now see Willis was also referenced at the top of this article. It’s true: as one ages the first two things to go are eyesight and…uh…uh…)
Arthur Edelstein sez: ‘Since being elected president he has continued to argue for expanding liberty in his country.’
Not religious liberty. The government is proposing to murder a citizen for apostasy from Islam.
Carteret islands: rapid sea level rise. Place is doomed.
Nearby, main island Bougainville: Much less sea level rise. Refugees escape to Bougainville. Safe for now.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2007/s1865416.htm
Stunning logic, really. It didn’t occur to the ABC that the sea around the islands is one and the same. Any paper that explains how rapid localized sea level rise works?
Let’s see… polar bears are okay, storms are normal, diseases are not getting worse, glaciers are normal, drought cycles are normal, arctic ice is normal, corral reefs are fine and now this in addition to the news that Bangladesh coastal area is increasing; I think maybe species extinction is about their only predicted ‘catastrophe’ remaining to be debunked. What have I missed? (not including things like global warming made my hair fall out and ate my homework etc.)
The Maldive Islands presented an apparent impossibility. There was Dr. Morner’s tree which had stood by the shore for over 50 years without being swamped by a rising sea. This, plus other direct on-site observations, provided incontrovertible evidence that the land elevation had remained fairly constant relative to local sea level. On the other hand, there was general agreement that globally, sea level had been rising, although the rate (between 2-3 mm/yr) was disputed. (Morner believed it to be somewhat less, about 1 mm/yr.)
It’s reassuring that these facts are now reconciled. It doesn’t resolve questions about the absolute rate of global sea level rise, but at least there’s no more direct contradiction.
Mike M says:
June 3, 2010 at 1:29 pm
“I think maybe species extinction is about their only predicted ‘catastrophe’ remaining to be debunked. What have I missed?”
Well, Mike, Willis already did a masterful debunking of the great “extinction wave”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
So… perhaps its time the gang addressed the perils of global rotation.
James Sexton says:
June 3, 2010 at 7:25 am
Yes indeed. They have hijacked the sincere concerns about the environment to create an eco-crisis industrial complex. I watched this happen and cannot believe how far it has gone.
Save the West Cleveland Semi-Mowed Lawn Robin! Etc.
The pseudoscience of ‘Conservation Biology” behind all this rivals IPCC global climatology in ‘quality’ and, of course supports it. And vice versa. Together their models ‘prove’ imminent polar bear extinction and all that.
Unfiortunately, it has real impacts on people’s lives, and they are becoming more extreme and unnecessary by the day. I’m just hoping that the collapse of the AGW ‘science’ will get more people looking at its twisted sister.
The whole wolf issue in the West is starting to do to that but it will take a while yet.
Another good name for this thread would be:
Flying Sea-Level Monster takes a hit. 🙂
Adolf Balik says:
Recently a Czech power company CEZ decided to change machinery in one of its power plants for new one – more effective one. Then a diplomatic protest note came from Tuvalu to the Czech Foreign Department.
How does a tiny country even find out what’s happening in another country on the other side of the planet. Tuvalu must have the world’s best intelligence service, especially considering a population of under 13 thousand.
In comparison the European “micronation” of Monaco is a fraction of the size of Tuvalu but has a population of around 33 thousand. (The Czech republic has a population of over 10 million.)
latitude says:
sheesh, does anyone really believe that any of these fools know squat?
Apparently they and their supporters do 🙂
The Pacific plate can hiccup and affect sea levels more than that and most of these islands are on it’s edge.
Land can also subside considerably more than 2mm a year (or 20cm a century) for a whole variety of reasons both natural and human related. Not that atolls are exactly “stable” land in the first place.
Not sure how you’d get such precise measurements in the first place. Even the next generation GPS isn’t going to be that accurate.
No doubt even the tides, though moderate, are of greater magnitude. There are parts of the world the difference between high and low tide is rather more than 4.5m.
Mark,
There is really no comparison with Monaco. Tuvalu has an inadequate water supply, a rapidly increasing population, and a very inadequate infrastructure. Raw sewage is simply dumped into the ocean.
Monaco has an infrastructure capable of servicing its population, and it is built in three dimensions, so the comparison isn’t apt. Residents of Monaco can leave at any time, while the I-Kiribati have nowhere to go. Also, the average apartment complex in Monaco exceeds twenty stories, so the effective density is much lower than, for example, Betio atoll in Tuvalu, which has over 8,300 people per square km, almost all of them crowded onto ground level.
Not A Carbon Cow says:
Would you please provide the amount of carbon dioxide necessary to reduce the alkalinity of the oceans from the current value of approximately 8.3 to below neutrality (7.0)?
It would also be useful to know what pH range coral can grow in.
IIRC when people did some actual research of marine organisms they found that some actually did better at a lower pH. (i.e. the oceans are currently “too alkaline”.)
Of course this may have been 8.2 (or even 8.0) which might just about be credible if we were dumping nitric or sulphuric acid in the oceans as fast as we possibly could.
(Not that all of the acid from vulcanism appears to make much difference to the pH of the oceans.)