From the “we told you so” department, WUWT Reader Paul Carter says in Tips and Notes:
A new study shows that Pacific Islands are resilient to sea level changes.
“Dynamic atolls give hope that Pacific Islands can defy sea rise”
A study by Paul Kench, Professor, School of Environment at University of Auckland.
“It is widely predicted that low-lying coral reef islands will drown as a result of sea-level rise, leaving their populations as environmental refugees. But new evidence now suggests that these small islands…”
See http://theconversation.com/dynamic-atolls-give-hope-that-pacific-islands-can-defy-sea-rise-25436
============================================================
Yes, we told you all about this right here on WUWT back in 2010 in an essay titled “Floating Islands” by Willis Eschenbach. Willis wrote then:
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.
Figure 2. 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.
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, 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.
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 sea level rise that we’ve had for the last hundred years.
Read it all here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/
[UPDATE]
Someone in the comments asked about priority regarding the ideas in my 2010 post.
The person to claim priority for noticing the dynamic nature of atolls is Charles Darwin. Amazingly, he discovered the dynamic nature of coral atolls before he had ever seen one.
However, in terms of priority for my 2010 post, I’d have to cite my 2004 paper in Energy and Environment, the journal that alarmists love to hate on. It was published as a “Viewpoint”, and as such, unlike my other two articles in E&E, this one was not peer-reviewed.
In that study, I traced the origins of the atoll hysteria to a 2003 Sierra Club article. That article is ground zero for the “coral atoll climate refugee we’re all DOOOOMED” meme. What I found was previous research showing that the atoll they said was dying from climate change was actually being eroded because in World War II the protecting outer reef had been cut through.
Finding that previous research showing the actual reason their poster child island was being reshaped was a formative experience for me. That study totally blew the Sierra Club BS out of the water.
Nor is the current study the first recent notice by scientists of the dynamic nature of atolls. See my other post on the subject, “The Irony, It Burns” …
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What do they teach in college these days? More and more it seems like NOTHING.
We are the atoll.
I haven’t time to read papers concerning re-inventing the wheel. I guess this hot off the press discovery mustn’t have any bibliography/references cited in the write-up?
Tivula, Roger, didn’t apply for help from the UNCCF, they felt they found the application too complicated. Possibly because there island is not sinking after all the tears at the Copenhagen crap meeting. Atolls do come and go though, because they are subject to storm damage, but Bermuda is one big one, made up of several islands joined by causeways, if you grazed yourself on any rock, you could get infected. Horrible place to live unless you were a millionaire.
I could suggest a number of references detailing atoll development and reef growth, however, Wiki is totally adequate for this discussion. As a matter of fact, I think the “researchers” Googled Wiki atoll….” although there can be little doubt that fluctuating sea level has had considerable influence on atolls and other reefs.” This has happened throughout the some-500 million years of the Phanerozoic.
Maybe someone can answer this, when the sea levels were much lower than today during the last glacial periods, how did this effect atolls? I suspect they just hardened and dried up but didn’t disappear. Then when the seas became deeper they were either submerged or grew out of the water, receiving trees, plants and sand and other wild life.
OMG – they are discovering geology!
Sea level is thought to have peaked about 80 mya in the late Cretaceous at nearly 250 meters higher than today. No ice anywhere. About a 20 my lag behind the Kretaceous temperature peak about 100 mya that was about 4.5 degrees hotter than today (the early Triassic temp peak was 5 degrees hotter but sea level was lower than today).
Scleractinia has lived here continuously since the biosphere stabilized from the KT extinction in the mid Triassic. It has seen ups and downs we pathetic neophytes scarcely comprehend. Corals were groovin’ in the K. Maybe 250 meters is a large adjustment for an atoll, but steric sea level rise for 5 degrees is only three meters. Current ice would not make up the difference.
Likely the emplacement of the enormous large igneous provinces raised the ocean floor including your “ancient mountain” seamount.
http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2014/03/25/large-igneous-provinces-temperature-sea-level-and-extinctions/
Not only the deep drilling of Einwetak and Bikini [and Mururoa] for nucelar testing helped show the history of atoll growth, but it all started with the Royal Society’s own hole at Funafuti (Tuvalu) in the mid 1890s to find evidence to prove or dismiss Darwin’s ideas on atoll growth and survival in an ever changing oceanography. At the time all Darwin’s thinking was under strident attack from the then current crop of deniers/scpetics such that Royal Society sallied forth – with a government grant – to obtain hard evidence. Of course that hard evidence was interpretted and reinterpretted by both sides of a very savage debate such that nothing was ever resolved. If my fading memory can parpharse, the Duke of Argyll dismissed, in writing, all of Darwin’s thinking as fit only for the charnel house and bordello. Now that’s pithy langauge in any scientific .conversation.
Who needs stinking facts in science when one’s mind is made up and there are agendas to be pushed – and government grants to be had?
PS In all of this consideration don’t forget guyots!! What do they imply??
Other than Tivula and the Maldives, which other islands have applied for funding to compensate for industrialized countries causing their environmental destruction, because of climate change. Or did they spend any money they received on other projects. I would like to know how and where the UNCCF sent their funds too, and why?
“Normal everyday atolls demonstrate that atolls do what atolls have always done before they became the poster child for alarmists.”
Normal everyday atolls demonstrate that atolls do what atolls have always done before they became the poster child for stupidity?
Pacific Islands.
sometimes the BBC surprises me,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10222679
But this study of 27 islands over the last 60 years suggests that most have remained stable, while some have actually grown.
Using historical photographs and satellite imaging, the geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger – in some cases, dramatically so.
The US Navy seems confident that Diego Garcia won’t be inundated. They’ve spent Millions on Runways and submarine docks plus a massive amount of electronic gadgetry. It’s a wonder this atoll’s radars didn’t pick up that missing Malaysian plane
There are a number of activities that can make atolls more vulnerable sea water.
Explosive blasting to construct boat channels is not a good idea. By the way the Maldives is constructing over 5 underwater airports.
A rough measure of the extent of corals suggested they were around 1% of the total area of land, i.e about 1.5 million square kilometres. The sea seems to be rising at about 3mm/a, if satellite and tidal gauges are to be believed. Corals are therefore likely to be growing at about that rate, which equates to around 4.5 cubic kilometers of new coral per annum. At a bulk density of around 1.2, that is around 5.4 billion tons. Assume it is mainly calcium carbonate, CaCO3, that is around 2.4 billion tons of CO2. Why do I never see anything like that in the carbon balances?
This is interesting.
“A new study shows that Pacific Islands are resilient to sea level changes.
“Dynamic atolls give hope that Pacific Islands can defy sea rise”
A study by Paul Kench, Professor, School of Environment at University of Auckland.”
In the early 1970’s we were taught that in Geography in high school. The concept certainly isn’t new.
I lived in Bermuda in 1969, my ex was posted there by QANTAS, now that island is only around 150 feet above sea level. We lived on Blue Hole Hill overlooking the ocean and the causeway linking our part with St.George island. They do suffer end parts of hurricanes and years ago evacuated people when a sever hurricane was threatened. Mind you the water is wonderfully warm to swim in, lots of tropical fish etc., and clear. No nasties, as the reefs keep them at bay. Barracuda young ones, we caught a young one off the sea wall attached to Princess Hotel. Just with a shiny hook. If any island/s were to suffer bad storms or rising seas, Bermuda would be effected. So far it hasn’t although when we were there we got the tail end of a Hurricane, and the winds were strong of course, and waves lashing over our cars as most roads are built near the ocean front.
But one of the little advertising scams was offering off season bundles to Americans, as at the time only the very rich Brits could afford to have holidays there, as they were restricted to bringing only 50 pounds out of England. One night in the Princess was at least 60 pounds for a double room. So being close by air from New York, they offered low cost holidays in January and February to New Yorkers. Well – no one water skied or enjoyed good weather in those months.
I suffered the coldest weather since I left Australia, 39F, and that is cold or was for me.
willis sez @ur momisugly April 23, 12:38
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please excuse this tardy response.
Go see NOAA mean sea level trend at Galveston Pier 21, and perhaps you will change your tune about me being so wrong and you being so right. More later
Willis sez as above
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
willis, you are wrong and I am right.
The referenced chart shows no SL rise this century. Apparently you have not seen this. NOAA is the keeper of the data and the guage. You do not seem to have a proper skepticism for other sources, and you should know better. Study this chart and other Gulf coast stations and see if you can detect any rise this century that is not due to subsidence. One hint: any difference in guaging will be due to different rates of subsidence.
As far as GPS or other such measurement of subsidence, do you really believe that is reliable?
I will stand by my statement that there has been no sea level rise this century, according to the NOAA guage at Galveston. Prove me wrong, and I will say oops.
Let me say that having read Niels-Axil Mornier on this, I am most skeptical about the claims of rise in SL.
mpainter says:
April 25, 2014 at 8:24 am
mpainter, unlike you, I don’t just wave my hands in the direction of things. I both discussed and linked to that exact record above here it is again. It shows nothing like what you say. Sorry, but the data doesn’t support your claim.
w.
mpainter says:
April 25, 2014 at 9:36 am
OK … that’s the data for Pier 21 in Galveston … time for you to say “oops” …
w.
Are you sure that the guage is not simply measuring the sinking of the pier?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
rogerthesurf says
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is the whole point. The pier is subsiding, but at what rate we do not know. This is what Willis so blithely ignores. The SL trend at galveston appears flat since 1998, as far as I can tell. The reference is the NOAA mean sea level trend pier 21, Galveston. The chart that Willis posted is not the referred chart. To get the chart, simply dial in NOAA sea level trend galveston on the web.
The NOAA guage at Freeport, Tx, further down the coast, actually guages a decreasing SL trend. This is on a coast that is undergoing subsidence (the reported guage is not corrected for subsidence). This shows that global sea levels are not rising and Willis is wrong when he declares that sea levels are rising. He has swallowed the AGW fabrication whole and accuses me of “waving” my arms when I report this.
Let willis believe what he wants but I think that the business of sea level rise is fabricated by alarmist types.