The sea levels of the Solomon Islands are rising of 7-10 mm yr-1 only by cherry picking
Guest essay by Albert Parker
Albert, Leon, Grinham, Church, Gibbes & Woodroffe recently published in Environmental Research Letters [1] a paper claiming the “rates of sea-level rise in the Solomon Islands over the past two decades are amongst the highest globally, averaging 3 mm yr−1 since 1950 and 7–10 mm yr−1 since 1994” echoing wrong claims by others. This “evidence” of 7-10 mm yr-1 sea level rise due to man-made global warming is what is then trumpeted in catastrophic press releases such as [2, 3]. Titles obviously catastrophic “rising sea levels blamed for wiping out five islands”. The leading author declares “the Solomons was considered a sea-level hotspot because rises there are almost three times higher than the global average”. However, as always with the claims of “Intergovernmental experts”, the right numbers are at the most one fourth of the claim
The alarmistic claim originates from riding the positive phase of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations typical of the sea levels over a cherry picked short time window of 10-15 years, neglecting what was measured before 1994 by another tide gauge in pretty much same location, and also neglecting what has been measured in the same tide gauge since 2009.
Short records do not permit to clear the trend of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations [4-8]. In the Solomon Islands there is no tide gauge long enough to infer a proper trend. However, the information available permits to dismiss the alarmist claim of 7-10 mm yr-1 rate of rise.
The high quality Revised Local Reference (RLR) data set of the PSMSL [9, 10] includes the two tide gauges of Honiara II and Honiara B.
Both tide gauge records are short, about 20 years long.
Honiara B is part of the “substitutional evidence” of the Pacific Sea Level Monitoring (PSLM) project [11].
Honiara II ceased operation 5 months after Honiara B started operation, and it is forgotten since then.
The data of Honiara B are updated every year in PSMSL [10], and every month in PSLM [12] where in addition to the monthly average mean sea level (MSL), also the monthly minimum and maximum are provided.
No leveling has been performed for Honiara B vs. Honiara II to permit the construction of a composite record that could have lowered and made more reliable the sea level rise estimation. However, both tide gauges were recording during the year 1994 for 5 months, August to December. The differences in between the RLR data for Honiara B and Honiara II are 355, 357, 355, 356 and 359 mm. Therefore, we may shift one time series vs. the other of 356 mm to obtain the composite record of Fig 1.
After April 2009, the rate of rise since July 1994 started to decrease and it is now +5.50 mm yr-1. The time window of 21 years is still insufficient. Only focusing on Honiara B the only possible statement is the apparent rate of rise is +5.50 mm yr-1 (and not 7-10 mm yr-1) but this number is not significant.
Also including Honiara II, starting from December 1974 the rate of rise is +2.81 mm yr-1. The time window is now 42 years long, still insufficient, but certainly more reasonable. Considering 60-70 years of data are needed to start understanding a trend in sea levels, very likely these +2.81 mm yr-1 are still an overestimation of the relative rate of rise.
The editorial board and the reviewers should certainly pay more attention to extravagant claims of sea level rises of 10 mm yr-1 that are based on short cherry-picked periods.
References
1. S. Albert, J. X. Leon, A. R. Grinham, J. A. Church, B. R. Gibbes and C. D. Woodroffe (2016), Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics in the Solomon Islands, Environmental Research Letters 11:054011.
2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-07/rising-sea-levels-blamed-for-wiping-out-five-islands/7392986
3. http://phys.org/news/2016-05-sea-level-islands-solomons.html
4. A. Parker (2013), Oscillations of sea-level rise along the Atlantic coast of North America north of Cape Hatteras, Natural Hazards 65(1):991-997.
5. A. Parker (2013), SEA-LEVEL TRENDS AT LOCATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH MORE THAN 100 YEARS OF RECORDING, Natural Hazards 65(1):1011-1021.
6. A. Parker, M. Saad Saleem & M. Lawson (2013), Sea-Level Trend Analysis for Coastal Management, Ocean & Coastal Management 73: 63–81.
7. A. Parker (2013), MINIMUM 60 YEARS OF RECORDING ARE NEEDED TO COMPUTE THE SEA LEVEL RATE OF RISE IN THE WESTERN SOUTH PACIFIC, Nonlinear Engineering. 3(1):1-10.
8. A. Parker & C.D. Ollier (2016), COASTAL PLANNING SHOULD BE BASED ON PROVEN SEA-LEVEL DATA, Ocean and Coastal Management. Doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.02.005.
9. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1373.php
10. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1861.php
11. http://www.bom.gov.au/pacific/projects/pslm/
12. http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70061/IDO70061SLD.shtml
Added by Anthony:
This graph from the 2007 IPCC AR4 report is quite interesting, it shows that in the Solomon Islands region, in blue on the map, sea level was declining and was clearly linked to the Southern Oscillation Index.
They write:
An EOF analysis of gridded thermosteric sea level time series since 1955 (updated from Lombard et al., 2005) displays a spatial pattern that is similar to the spatial distribution of thermosteric sea level trends over the same time span (compare Figure 5.20 withFigure 5.16b). In addition, the first principal component is negatively correlated with the Southern Oscillation Index. Thus, it appears that ENSO-related ocean variability accounts for the largest fraction of variance in spatial patterns of thermosteric sea level. Similarly, decadal thermosteric sea level in the North Pacific and North Atlantic appears strongly influenced by the PDO and NAO respectively.
Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-4-1.html
This paper came out on the ABC (Australia) of course, trumpeted in full alarmist mode:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-07/rising-sea-levels-blamed-for-wiping-out-five-islands/7392986
Bullshit detector rises to extreme level.
I have requested CNET post a retraction. Even without one, the comments I left will certainly get any readers to start thinking outside of the CAGW box. Maybe even get some to see the fraud for what it is.
A somewhat more balanced view from the authors is here …
w.
The area of the Solomons is a tectonic traffic jam.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/southeast_asia/papua_new_guinea/PNG1.jpg
As you can see it is being pushed NNE by the expansion centre to the south and the Australian plate, while the Pacific plate is moving in on it as well. The black triangles show the Solomons plate is subducting beneath the Woodlark, the South Bismarck and the Pacific plates.
Of course as we all know, it’s all that extra CO2 pushing it down… right? 😀
Well done. It’s fairly obvous from all this confusion that neither the warmists nor the skeptics, and especially not journalists, know much at all about Earth science.
As for the scientists, would their claim against an accusation of fraud be that they did not know that that Solomons Plate is active and that sea level is changing faster than the global average because the land is subsiding? Would their defence be lack of intent by reason of incompetence?
Will the authors retract this misleading paper?
McCaffrey, Robert. Slip partitioning at convergent plate boundaries of SE Asia, in Hall, R. & Blundell, D. (eds) 1996, Tectonic Evolution of Southeast Asia. Geological Society Special Publication, No.106, London. pp. 3-18.
See: Solomons and New Hebrides, p. 13 and Figure 7(a) p. 14. Convergence vectors range from about 8 to 10 cm per year. Slip vectors appear to average 5 to 7 cm p.a. These values indicate relatively rapid movement.
Robert McCaffrey is at Portland State University. URL: http://web.pdx.edu/~mccaf/pubs.html
The confusion caused by this paper cannot be attributed solely to the ignorance of journalists. No journal should accept a paper on sea level change in the Solomons that does not partition relative sea level movement into absolute movements of land and sea.
As for the authors, even undergraduates learn the difference between relative and absolute sea level change. A study of this nature should never have been mounted without input from an expert on the tectonics of the region.
You got my vote!
Sea level is not compensating for ground level.
Sorry… wasn’t expecting the link to disappear – pic is from http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/southeast_asia/papua_new_guinea/tectonics.html
According to the data in the article, the sea level there is actually lower today then it was in 1974.
yep…a lot lower
Honiara-B to March 2016:
Dip at the end is due to the current El Niño.
GPS (limited data) here:
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=2054.php
Levelling data, between tide-gauge and GPS benchmark here:
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=nivellement&idStation=2133#
– click on the picture to see location of benchmarks. This is typical of the care taken by the Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project:
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml
You can also see the dips from the 1997/1998 and 2009/2010 El Nino’s.
History and science will back Tony Heller as the real scientist who broke the back of AGW sorry
Ya know, I read an article that said it was sinking at around 4x the speed the sea was rising around it… according to GPS.
The problem is that since it’s in deep ocean the currents going past it can have drastic effects on “sea level”
Well it’s good to know that the alarmist notion that the 5 islands have disappeared due to 10mm/year of sea level rise, but primarily erosion related, as the original paper finds, to the ENSO, and the energy of ocean waves on top of sea level rise, has been debunked.
I’m sure the displaced communities are much relieved to discover that the 5 islands have disappeared and another 6 have halved in size due to 6mm/year of sea level rise, but primarily erosion related, as the original paper finds, to the ENSO, and the energy of ocean waves.
They can go back to the loss of their communities and the world to the loss of the ecological communities much disabused of this alarmist propaganda.
It’s truly offensive how alarmist scientists have exaggerated the loss by mentioning the local sea level rise as estimated from only one tide-guage, when an article such as this could have fully explained the nuances and its inclusion would have only doubled the length of the flawed press release.
Coastal erosion and sea level rise have been occurring since the oceans were 120metres lower, 20,000years ago. The current rate is unremarkable and not perceptibly accelerating. Not according to analysis of the one long term reliable unadjusted record which we have – coastal gauges.
Yes, people on the coast will notice erosion and occasional flooding, as they always have done.
Former civilizations and vast regions of formerly inhabited land now lie beneath the waves.
In that context, these alarmist articles are ONLY propaganda, hype and deception.
They do not lack nuance. They paint an entirely false image of reality in the minds of readers.
And this deception and all the others are going to be used to justify absurd and harmful public policy decisions which will in reality harm mankind.
The deceptions do not need nuance. They need to stop publishing outright deceptions in the first place.
(P.S. I assumed that almost everything that you posted was in a sarcastic tone. My comment is not.)
Seth, According to the guardian report=
‘The scientists said the five islands — Kakatina, Kale, Rapita, Rehana and Zollies — that had vanished were all vegetated reef islands up to five hectares (12 acres) that were occasionally used by fishermen but not populated.’
Dry your tears.
Does this look like a problem – measurements by the heavily biased Australian Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70061/IDO70061SLI.shtml
Surely the problem is the half-million square metres of land that has disappeared, including 5 entire islands.
Don’t you mean half a TRILLION square millimetres of land has disappeared? (For added shock value!!)
Let’s remember that 1km x 1km is 1 million square metres. So we are talking about the equivalent of half a kilometer by one kilometer.
But don’t worry, Seth, because what is actually happening is that the ice sheets are retreating since 20,000years ago and sea level is rising.
We’ve actually gained some very valuable real estate where there were formerly 1km thick ice sheets – e.g. New York. But lost some low value real estate such as these islands. So a net win.
At some point it will switch back to glaciation and extreme cold, and then the ice sheets and some new islands will return.
You can’t have a perfect static world where nothing happens – because – climate change.
The alarmists seem to be the only ones who are alarmed every time that they discover a change caused by the world’s changing climate.
indefatigablefrog wrote Don’t you mean half a TRILLION square millimetres of land has disappeared? (For added shock value!!)
I used the measurement units from the paper for ease of calculation and checking. If that offends you, I strongly suspect that the problem might be with you.
indefatigablefrog wrote Let’s remember that 1km x 1km is 1 million square metres. So we are talking about the equivalent of half a kilometer by one kilometer.
Do you think those who have been displaced would be comforted by this analysis. If so, perhaps you could inform them. They could do with some comfort right now.
indefatigablefrog wrote But don’t worry, Seth, because what is actually happening is that the ice sheets are retreating since 20,000years ago and sea level is rising
The GRACE measurements don’t go back that far. What ice sheet mass data are you using?
indefatigablefrog wrote At some point it will switch back to glaciation and extreme cold, and then the ice sheets and some new islands will return.
Not at current atmospheric CO2 levels.
You mean the “Bureau of manipulation”?
“This graph from the 2007 IPCC AR4 report is quite interesting, it shows that in the Solomon Islands region, in blue on the map, sea level was declining”
I don’t think it represents a sea-level state at any particular time. The top plot is a plot of an EOF – a mode of variaation. As such it is anyway just part of the total sea level signal, and would have to be multiplied by the phase factor in the bottom graph. It is the thermosteric component, meaning that they have separated out the part due to temperature change (in 0-700m).
“Dr. Simon Albert, the report’s co-author told the Guardian today that numerous media outlets, like the Washington Post and NY Times and Think Progress, have misinterpreted their work by trying to link sea level rise with climate change. According to Albert, the researchers did not study climate change and how it influences shoreline erosion and submersion of certain low-lying islands.
That didn’t stop numerous mainstream media outlets from jumping to the erroneous conclusion that these five sunken islands were further proof of climate change. This completely misconstrues the actual science and what the study really says, Albert said. “The links between climate change and the sinking of five islands in the Pacific Ocean have been exaggerated,” he says.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/sinking-solomon-islands-and-climate-link-exaggerated-admits-study-s-author
The usual conflation of what science says and the interpretation of it in the Media here I see.
Rapidly followed by the usual.
One day denizens *may* realise that the two are not the same.
Just like WUWT is not science but a *view* of it.
And so it goes on.
A polarisation of views because of the misrepresentation of science and by extension, scientists.
Who, of course, “no nuffin” according to many on here.
BTW: Thanks Willis for the heads up on this.
The comments section in the Grauniad about this correction, make for interesting reading. The Faithful are having a full on, frothing at the mouth fit, that the Grauniad’s reported the author’s saying that it isn’t proof of CAGW!
Conducted an experiment last night; placed a ruler part way into a glass of water – then measured. Moved the ruler further into glass and measured. Bugger me if that water in the glass didn’t rise 20 mm. My hypothesis was proven. Expect publication of results soon – I’m still gathering more data.
There are many things that are odd about this paper.
One is what is the point of it? Who funded it? The authors say the Solomon Islands are a great place to monitor impacts of sea level rise which is odd considering the tectonic movements in the region and yet at the same time distancing themselves from climate change as thought they already know this.
Two is that the inset B in the PDF containing the 20 main islands at risk almost exactly matches one of the few areas near the Solomon Islands on Google Earth where satellite imagery is too low res and fuzzy to tell if islands are showing erosion. Coincidence? (conspiracy theory 101)
Three, As far as I can tell they have only offered one historic 1945 photo of an island compared to present, but rather opted to draw lines of past island size and location on the other islands from other aerial photos not listed.
Four, they must have known this would be taken up by the media as proof of AGW frenzy so I wonder if this was deliberate to get airtime and then distance themselves afterwards.
Five, is the headline from the Guardian article repeated in other outlets,
My comment on this is how come it is the first scientific confirmation? What have all the other “debate is over” and “Science is settled” confirmations been then?
But what the Authors of the paper actually said was
I think this article and media response could be a useful tool in the future when highlighting media bias, but sadly I fully expect to come across people months and years from now quoting this as proof of AGW.
FYI — the funding source is listed in the paper (as required): “The support of the Solomon Islands Government and communities of Mararo and Nuatambu is greatly appreciated.” The Solomon Islands is among many Pacific governments seeking international support for climate mitigation.
Also note, this paper was published in the infamous “Environmental Research Letters” Journal which also published the “97% consensus” paper for John Cook.
Also note, the Guardian retracted the extreme headline for this study — http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines-exaggerated-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands
“Many media outlets, including the Guardian, jumped to the conclusion that the islands were lost to climate change. But this largely misinterprets the science, according to the study’s author, Dr Simon Albert.
“All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle. I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,” Albert told the Guardian.:
To be fair, I think Albert is also overstating the conclusion that the islands were lost because of a sea-level rise as opposed to erosion from shifting ocean currents.
The tectonic characteristics of this area make it incredibly inappropriate as an area to study in my opinion. In fact, it makes the background of this choice more interesting than the subject matter. Apparently they chose to perform a study of very local sea level change in a place where almost any result could be found just by moving a few miles in any direction. How do they explain this and who paid for the study? What was the value of this work?
I’d just like to warn anyone tempted to visit the Guardian to correct any misconceptions that may have come up on this topic; don’t bother.
After about five hours of politely engaging anyone with questions and pointing them to real information, the three posts I made of substance (as in containing citations and etc) were deleted by the moderator. The only thing that remained of that work was banter.
The Guardian has no intention of becoming a vehicle for information exchange.
And I’d seriously like to know why the above is being held for moderation?
Mine got moderated as well. Must be key words filtered.
All,
Heavy moderation and early termination of comments on The Conversation as well: https://theconversation.com/sea-level-rise-has-claimed-five-whole-islands-in-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20May%2011%202016%20-%204836%20with%20global%20headlines&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20May%2011%202016%20-%204836%20with%20global%20headlines+CID_571d76e39bfc8dc2c3ce3b9ecb7a42e2&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Sea-level%20rise%20has%20claimed%20five%20whole%20islands%20in%20the%20Pacific%20first%20scientific%20evidence
The Conversation?
Perhaps they should change the title to – The End of Conversation.
Or – The Comment Removed.
Shocking!!!
I suppose the Honiar tide gauge data is all wet …
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70061/IDO70061SLI.pdf
Clear and strong opening sentences keep readers reading and persuade. For example, this article could have started with:
“The claim that the Solomon Islands are being swallowed by CAGW is false as it intentionally conceals that the island’s current sea level is mostly due to regional tidal fluctuations that naturally occur over long periods of time.”
Now your reader knows what to expect and can more easily absorb the details as he reads. This kind of writing isn’t a mystery novel where the point should be revealed at the end. Give it up front. Maybe my proposed sentence isn’t quite right and, if so, that just reinforces my point that readers are groping around for the exact point. Don’t make us do that. We are stupid and lazy (or at least non-scientists with day jobs demanding our attention between internet surfs).
Okay, sorry. Just a suggestion from a lawyer who has been trained to write persuasively for an audience of sometimes low intellect, low motivation, and/or hostile attitude. I don’t mean to pick on this article in particular. It is something I notice a lot in scientific writing, including on this site and elsewhere.
I like your restatement but honestly, a lawyer complaining about clear and concise writing is sure a stretch!
The reference they use for sea level change in the Solomon Islands is similar to the map from the Climate.gov website.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-large/HI_sea-level_V4_0.png
You can see a bright red spot over the Solomon Islands — this refers to the period of 1993-2010.
That being said, without reference, the map is worthless. This area varies widely with ENSO and tectonic activity — neither of which is climate related. (Note: the paper does not suggest that the sea level change is not related to climate change.)
So now they are blaming increased winds on CAGW, and claiming that erosion is due to these increased winds. They just will not stop moving the goal posts.
It’s the wind Jeff. And the sea level changes that push the goal posts around. And thermal expansion! I forgot thermal expansion. And maybe ice melting somewhere. But that’s it!
“The alarmistic claim originates from riding the positive phase of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations typical of the sea levels over a cherry picked short time window of 10-15 years.”
So let me see if I have this straight. Picking data over short intervals of 10-15 years is not ok when used by believers in AGW to show rising seas. But a short period of 10-15 years is OK when used by skeptics to show that warming is not occurring, as has been done with RSS data.
That is a false logic argument Chris. I believe the author’s point is that Short time intervals are unsuited to show long term trends, or changes in long terms trends (here the argument that SLR is “increasing.”)
The 18 year pause (your most likely reference to “data over short intervals”) is not used by Skeptics to “show that warming is not occurring,” but merely to point out in recent times natural variability has overshadowed warming, despite increasing levels of CO2, and this is important to show the alarmists models’ unaccounted for divergence from reality.
After all, If the model can’t accurately predict the short term natural variability in climate, why should we believe it can accurately predict the long terms effects of climate?
Said another way, AGW theory depends on correlation being a substitute for causation. Lack of correlation means you need a new theory.
“In the Solomon Islands there is no tide gauge long enough to infer a proper trend.”
There are tidal charts dating back to the 1800s for that region. What are you talking about?
Also, what, exactly, are your credentials here? Are you a data scientist? A climatologist?
[what are yours, other than a first name only nobody? – mod]
Dear Andrew.
The only thing a “tidal gauge” and a “tidal chart” have in common is the first five letters.
Incidentally it is perfectly possible for informed laypersons to understand and evaluate scientific matters. Unfortunately you do not belong in that category.
Don’t be rude — sometimes it is not clear.
Andrew — the point is that there are many tidal gauges, but there are no accurate records which are comparable over the long period of time. Splicing multiple gauges together adds to the error and long term trends become very difficult. That’s why the graph at the top of the page is in three colors.
george e. smith May 11, 2016 at 1:08 pm
George, while that is indeed true, the sea level on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal is about 20 cm (8″) higher than on the Atlantic side … from the PSMSL:
In other words, the claim that sea level is the same everywhere is simply not true.
Regards,
w.
“Is sea level of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans the same? If so why are locks required in Panama?” {facepalm}
The locks are in the Panama canal, because the canal takes ships through a series of lakes. Those lakes are considerably higher than the oceans (by about 50-80 feet). Nobody cared about the 20 cm difference between the oceans when they built the canal.
In fact, they would have been more than happy to drain the lakes and destroy the local ecology. After all, there were pretty ignorant about such things in the early twentieth century and had no trouble draining wet lands all over America. Then they would have had to dig down all of those feet beneath those muddy lakebeds to allow for ship traffic — and nobody wanted to do that.
http://www.githy.com/img/Panama_canal_crosssections.jpg
“{facepalm}”
The quoted section is incomplete. The question is answered. The next para begins:
“Locks are needed in the Panama Canal because the canal climbs over the hills and makes use of mountain lakes…”
I only thought the way the question was phrased in the citation was funny.
Andrew May 11, 2016 at 11:08 am
“Tidal charts”?? As a long-time seaman, I’m not clear what you mean by this. If you mean “tide tables”, which show the CALCULATED height of the tides for different times of day throughout the year, yes, we have those. However, they say nothing about sea level rise.
You miss the point of science. The question is never “What are the credentials of the man who said that gravity decreases proportional to the inverse square of the distance”? There is only one valid question—is the claim valid or not?
Anyhow, here are my credentials:
I learned to sail small boats as a boy, and at twelve years of age I was single-handing an eleven-foot open sailboat around San Francisco Bay. Our family also had a twenty foot catamaran, and later on a fourteen-foot keel boat, both of which I either singlehanded or sailed with my brothers and parents.
I began commercial fishing as a crewman at the age of 21. I started out fishing with lampara nets for pompano out of Santa Cruz, California. Then for two years I fished for anchovy, again with lampara nets, out of Moss Landing. I spent a season fishing albacore on a bait boat out of Sausalito. Then I spent two seasons gill netting for roe herring in San Francisco Bay. I fished a season purse seining for roe herring in the Bering Sea in Alaska. I fished a season using a beach seine for surf perch. I fished a season as a partner in a leased sixty-foot steel sailboat out of Richmond, California. I fished three seasons as a partner/owner of a sailing fishing boat, trolling for salmon on the central California coast. I fished two seasons in Bristol Bay in Alaska, gill netting for salmon. I also worked as a sport salmon fishing guide on the Kenai River, which requires a Coast Guard Inland Waters Captain certification.
Other than commercial fishing, I have sailed and power boated extensively. I built my first sailboat in Hawaii, a twenty-one foot Cape Ann sailing dory, and sailed it in Hawaiian waters. My longest blue-water trip was 142 days as the first mate sailing a fifty-foot staysail schooner from Hong Kong to California. Later I bought and single-handed a twenty-one foot sloop from Seattle to San Francisco. I was also employed by a group hired by the Fijian Government to serve as skipper of an open twenty-eight foot boat on a research voyage around the Central and the Lau Group in Fiji. I later served as the navigator on a voyage from Fiji to Tonga in an eighty-foot tramp steamer. And most recently, I was first mate on the delivery of a forty-five foot converted trawler from Canada to Oregon, all the while towing a twenty-six foot trimaran behind the boat.
For three years, I lived on a remote coral atoll in the Solomon Islands, where I ran a shipyard for large boats, a slipway, and a machine shop. We also built small aluminium skiffs. So I am familiar with all phases of boat construction and repair. I also independently calculated and commercially published annual tide tables for the country, because the Solomon Islands Government rarely got around to publishing the yearly tables before September or so …
In addition, in the Solomons I was responsible for the operation and repair of two coastal trading ships. I regularly drove a small open skiff across the seventeen miles from the island to the nearest town for supplies and mail. I am an accomplished diver and a (less-accomplished) surfer, with open-water I and II dive tickets and rescue diver certification, so I have provided and/or driven the boat on many diving and surfing trips. I also lived for three years on a houseboat in Fiji, commuting to my job on shore every day by boat.
But you know what? NONE OF THAT MATTERS IN THE SLIGHTEST. I can be just as wrong about the ocean as the next man, and you can be sure I have been . The only relevant issue is whether what I say holds water or not …
w.
You know Willis, I’ve always both enjoyed and respected your articles on this site, but I had no idea you were so well qualified. None at all. You have a gift for communicating your ideas in terms almost anyone can understand.
My life took a different route, but if I have anything to say about it, my next trip around the great wheel will be a bit more like yours 🙂
All that may be so Willis, but if you’re not a Hollywood actor, why should we listen to you? ( whatever a sarc tag is )
same with The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands
https://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-extinction-of-chesapeake-bay-islands.html