No, climate change didn’t cause “5 Whole Pacific Islands” to be swallowed by sea level rise

From the reason #75 why we don’t subscribe to “Scientific American” anymore department. Back in May of 2016, there was the usual brainless caterwauling over Sea Level Rise caused by climate change, SciAm picked it up:

Sea-level rise has claimed five whole islands in the Pacific: first scientific evidence

Even The Guardian said the headline was hype.

Report’s author says many media outlets have misinterpreted the science by conflating sea-level rise with climate change

Well, that “scientific evidence” seems to be little more than vacuous opinion from “The Conversation” in Australia. We covered the topic last year, but here is another look.

Warren Blair writes:

Almost 25-years of meticulous data gathered by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology displays no discernible sea-level rise for Solomon Islands and Nauru. See the two graphs below.

But both want your money for catastrophic climate-change mitigation:

Solomon Islands gets access to fund to combat climate change

There are numerous stories in mainstream media going back 15-years regarding the urgent plight and impending doom of these islands in particular.

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology is well known for adjusting data to suit their AGW agenda; however, sea-level data is difficult to adjust and is primarily adjusted for Barometric

Pressure (very little wriggle room).

How much money would you give the Solomon Islands and Nauru for climate-change mitigation?

The Australian Government, despite its own data, already spends tens of millions through the ‘Pacific Adaptation Strategy Assistance Program’ and the ‘Green Climate Fund’.

Taxpayers should be up in arms and increasingly they are as new political voices emerge and take votes from the major parties.

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan the Brit
March 8, 2017 7:12 am

Perhaps that programme should be called the Pacific Adaptation Yearly Strategy Assistance Program, with the acronim PAYSAP!!! Says it all really!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
March 8, 2017 7:20 am

The Australian govt are buying the complicity of these tiny island states in abusing and imprisoning refugees in conditions apartheid South Africa would have been proud of.

Reply to  Greg
March 8, 2017 9:52 am

Ah, the old “apartheid” label when you don’t have an actual argument. The ‘refugees’ are not refugees otherwise the UN would have designated them as such. They are illegal invaders and should be dealt with a such.

But hey, since you are so keen on helping ‘refugees’ we’ll let you do this and move you to Lakemba (or Malmo, or Rinkeby, or Dearborn, or Luton) where you and your children can live among them and you can continue your narcissistic virtue signalling at full volume to the detriment of your fellow citizens, women, gays, Jews and real refugees (who are usually persecuted Christians and never Muslims making their hijra invasion).

We are sick of people like you lying with labels like ‘apartheid’ – all so you can make yourself feel better, when you could just shut up and take in a dozen Somalians yourself (I’m sure your daughters will end up thinking that is a wise decision).

Until then, please shut your delusional trap.

Reply to  Greg
March 8, 2017 1:04 pm

Greg, everything Moa said is correct and offshore detention is only for economic refugees.

James Fosser
Reply to  Greg
March 8, 2017 1:04 pm

Refugees? You mean illegal economic immigrants who paid thousands of dollars to try to get into Australia in boats from Indonesia while millions of legitimate refugees wait patiently in camps?

Reply to  Greg
March 8, 2017 3:34 pm

They are hardly “imprisoned”.
In fact they work and interact with the wider community and even ‘shack up’ with the locals.
The Oz government will happily pay the air fare back to where ever they want to go.
They refuse. That’s why they’re still there.

Reply to  Greg
March 8, 2017 8:05 pm

Moa: +100.

Reply to  Greg
March 9, 2017 5:13 am

Well said Moa. Nailed it mate. Greg – do yourself a favour and engage what passes for a brain before operating gob.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Alan the Brit
March 8, 2017 10:57 am

Isn’t this similar to James Hansen predicting that Manhattan’s West Side Highway would be underwater by now? This photo doesn’t seem to support that, and I haven’t heard of barricades going up at high tide.,-74.0097933,862m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
March 8, 2017 8:13 pm

Looks high and dry to me.

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
March 9, 2017 7:43 pm

What?! My precious West Side Highway is under water from global warming?! Darn, I just went running there this morning and it looked fine, literally several feet of clearance from the water to the running path. Sea rise is happening quicker than I expected, I’ll have to stop breathing so I don’t exhale anymore deadly carbon…

Reply to  Alan the Brit
March 8, 2017 6:19 pm

You should just see the top of the range Land Cruisers you can get for that sort of money.
And some very happy politicians and UN representatives.
Jees, don’t it make you feel good!!!!!!

March 8, 2017 7:13 am

Increasingly it is less about science and more about money and politics. Scientific American and the Guardian pander to the majority of their subscribers in the same way that National Enquirer and on this side of the Atlantic, the Daily Star do. The “science” and “journalism” are well matched!

Reply to  andrewmharding
March 8, 2017 8:22 am

Rather they actually report the science and may even fact check before posting the articles.

There is no agenda other than reporting science… so also with Scientific american and New Scientist and National Geographic.

Money from fossil fuel interests funds the like of Heartland and probably the GWPF and other ‘institutes’ who pay scientists to produce science (Soon, Happer, Crockford).

the objection to climate science is to a large part political. Not so publication of the science.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 8:42 am

Speaking of paid to produce….. et tu?

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 8:45 am

As always, Griff defines science as whatever it is he is paid to support.
Beyond that, he assumes that the only reason why anyone would ever disagree with him is because they are paid to.
Soros needs a new crop of trolls, the current crop has gone stale.

Frank K.
Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 8:58 am

I thought Griff was a polar bear expert…

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 8:59 am

I used to think that Mosher’s drive-by commenting was bad but at least he made sense some of the time. When Griff does a drive-by it’s just a form of throwing feces.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 9:18 am

Griff, you will never get a promotion in your organization if you don’t at least temper the perfection you see in these publications. How come you see money and power being the influence on the sceptical side but not money and power corrupting your guys. Oh, and If you are never a sceptic then you are in the select group Abe Lincoln identified: “Some of the people you can fool all of the time”

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 9:35 am

I gave up New Scientist years ago when it gave up science and started doing political advocacy and became ultra-PC.

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 9:44 am

Yet you still believe that the Guardian does honest news.
Selective blindness at it’s best.

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 9:47 am

MarkW — I second your motion to upgrade the trolls.

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 9:49 am

We should petition Anthony on this subject — the quality of trolling on WUWT is deplorable. A world-class blog needs world-class trolls.

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 9:54 am

Your assertion that the magazines you named have only one motivation does not seem to be borne out by the facts. Perhaps you can explain this a bit further?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 11:00 am

I still suspect Griff is Willis E. having a little fun with us all. After all, he would know how to pull the chain on regular posters to this site.

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 11:27 am

ooh.. BuRn.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 2:09 pm

More third hand BS from Griff:
**Money from fossil fuel interests funds the like of Heartland and probably the GWPF and other ‘institutes’ who pay scientists to produce science (Soon, Happer, Crockford).**
Show us the proof Griff

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 2:48 pm

Oh, Griff, there you are with more unadulterated bullshit! Yipee, I so look forward to your moron rants!

Javert Chip
Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 4:13 pm


You’re back…and still trying to kneecap Dr Crockford and Dr Curry. Still finding it easier to pick on women (even on International Women Day – SHAME ON YOU!).

Anyhow, Mann, et al., get funded by the government, which is way more corrupt than public companies – how come we never hear you lecturing about that?

Reply to  Javert Chip
March 8, 2017 4:59 pm

“and still trying to kneecap Dr Crockford and Dr Curry. Still finding it easier to pick on women (even on International Women Day – SHAME ON YOU!).”

Not just a liar, but a misogynistic liar too…

No surprise there.

Dr. Goebbles would have got on well with Grifter.

Reply to  Javert Chip
March 8, 2017 5:02 pm

As to funding, why do you think Grifter never lectures us about that?

Three guesses…

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 4:55 pm

“who pay scientists to produce science (Soon, Happer, Crockford).”

What a truly despicable little liar you are, Grifter.

You’ll never forgive Dr. Crockford for the showing you up for the mendacious little paid propagandist you are.

You sneer at those who you CLAIM are paid by the fossil fuel industry, yet you are paid by the ‘Unreliables’ industry and post from a corporate IP.

You disgust me.

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 5:54 pm

Griff – “Rather they actually report the science and may even fact check before posting the articles.”

Did they look at the Sea Level data, or merely follow the leader?

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 6:22 pm

SA, NS, and NG are a bunch of shills for the political “glowbull warming” lie, I stopped me SA subscription because of that.

[Scientific American, N? S?, and National Geographic. (Nature ?) .mod]

Reply to  Griff
March 8, 2017 7:03 pm

Leftard on steroids peddling ObamaScare factoids.

Jim G1
March 8, 2017 7:17 am

I got rid of Scientific American even before I got rid of Discover magazine.

Reply to  Jim G1
March 8, 2017 7:55 am

Whoa, low blow.

Paul belanger
Reply to  Jim G1
March 8, 2017 8:08 am

I am sticking with Ancient Aliens. Why? Because they reveal a large number of interesting artifacts and sites from around the world, I just ignore their conclusions.

Reply to  Paul belanger
March 8, 2017 8:23 am

Well, that is as credible as skeptic sites like Tony Heller’s at least

Reply to  Paul belanger
March 8, 2017 9:41 am

But more credible than thee, Griff.

Reply to  Paul belanger
March 8, 2017 9:44 am

low bar

Steve Case
Reply to  Paul belanger
March 8, 2017 11:59 am

Griff March 8, 2017 at 8:23 am
Well, that is as credible as skeptic sites like Tony Heller’s at least

Heller looks stuff up on the internet and publishes what he finds. You can look it up too.

Reply to  Paul belanger
March 8, 2017 12:03 pm

Thanks Griff,

I had not been aware of as published by Tony Heller. Great collection of old/historical news clippings. Good displays of temperature data adjustments by NASA/NOAA/and the usual suspects.

Anyway, thanks again for the new site added to my favorites.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Paul belanger
March 8, 2017 4:28 pm


We realize you’re an CAGW evangelical & self-appointed Arctic Ice & polar bear expert who likes picking on women, but have you no self respect?

Don’t you sense WUWT commenters laughing while standing in line to hit you like Whack-A-Mole?


Reply to  Javert Chip
March 8, 2017 5:10 pm

“have you no self respect”

When did you ever meet a propagandist who was paid to lie, undermine, slur and attempt to destroy the professional credibility of those his paymasters considered to threaten the credibility of their golden geese and had any self-respect whatsoever?

Reply to  Jim G1
March 8, 2017 8:38 am

Discover used to have an April fools article each year. They still might do that. I gave up on them after one year I thought I was reading an April fools article, and I was wrong.

Reply to  Jim G1
March 8, 2017 11:26 am

I got rid of the Nat. Geographic as a gift subscription by asking the giver to please stop.

Reply to  Resourceguy
March 8, 2017 3:45 pm

In laws two years ago gave me a subscription. Finally ran out just in time to miss the trans issue. I thought they liked me.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Jim G1
March 9, 2017 11:13 am

Remember how relentless Discover magazine became at trying to get you to renew your subscription once you let it lapse or cancelled? I do believe that around 24,366.512 hectares of virgin old growth forest was clear cut to make the subscription renewal letters that Discover magazine sent to me alone.

March 8, 2017 7:18 am

however, sea-level data is difficult to adjust and is primarily adjusted for Barometric
Pressure (very little wriggle room).

Well the first thing I want to see is the same period of the InvB “adjustments.”

U. Colorado are very opaque about what they do to the data in the name IB.

Reply to  Greg
March 8, 2017 7:23 am

What is cause of the clear downwards slope since 2011 when world temperatures were rising?

High pressure? Cooling of W. Pacific as warmer waters flow eastwards? Looks interesting.

Reply to  Greg
March 8, 2017 5:57 pm

Increasing Antarctic Ice? 😉

Reply to  lee
March 8, 2017 6:17 pm

lee commented:. Increasing Antarctic Ice? 😉

Absolutely. As the Earth’s Northern hemisphere tilts more from the Sun the melted water runs down the back of earth and pools in the Antarcitc where it is eventually frozen.

March 8, 2017 7:25 am

Its all about the headlines which are then used to acquire funding. Here in Tennessee if you oppose children in daycare having a concealed carry permit you will be labeled anti-gun by someone . Difference is we are able to talk through the BS most of the time. Climate Science had POTUS himself out trying to shut down the conversation.

And that is why the new administration needs to completely follow through on its promise to defunds all aspects of climate change related spending. All of it. Now is not the time for compromise on basic principles.

Reply to  troe
March 8, 2017 7:38 am

It really is sad how people have to exagerate beyond all recognition in order to make a point.
What it actually proves is that they know they have no argument so have to create ridiculous strawmen in order to have someone they can beat up.

Reply to  MarkW
March 8, 2017 8:15 am

What I like best about MarkW is that he does ‘exagerate beyond all recognition’ to support his agenda.

What it actually proves is that Mark knows he has no argument so have to create ridiculous strawmen in order to have someone they can beat up.

Reply to  MarkW
March 8, 2017 8:28 am

And some just like to bitch!!

Reply to  MarkW
March 8, 2017 8:47 am

Hey Kit, how’s my personal troll being doing. Haven’t heard from you lately, was worried about your health.
Perhaps you should find some new hobbies, this much hatred is bad for the blood pressure.

Rhoda R
Reply to  troe
March 8, 2017 11:07 am

The Weather Channel had someone from NOAA on this morning bemoaning the planned cuts to NOAA. Implied that the cuts would impact all the weather satellites and that we’ll lose all our hurricane coverage. He also advocated that the viewers contact their representatives to resist the budget cuts. It’s politics all the way down and to h3ll with the Hatch Act.

Reply to  troe
March 9, 2017 8:04 am

The new POTUS has to create a million new jobs first. Then he can eliminate the employment of 10,000 troughing snowflakes without hurting his major goal. He could, however, dump all the UN climate machine today.

Curious George
March 8, 2017 7:34 am

I visualize a High Commissar for Stopping the Sea Level Rise attempting to bribe the sea not to rise: he walks on a beach and throws the UN money in water. He is followed by a whole local village which makes sure that the money is not wasted.

Reply to  Curious George
March 8, 2017 3:46 pm

Cheaper to plant more sponges in the ocean

Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2017 12:21 am

I’m inclined to believe this is what actually happens. Except it is not the whole village that benefit, just the political leaders…..

Kevin Hearle
March 8, 2017 7:38 am

Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll
P.S. Kench1, D. Thompson1, M.R. Ford1, H. Ogawa1 and R.F. McLean2
+ Author Affiliations

1School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
2School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia

The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.

March 8, 2017 7:53 am

If you want a feel for what SA has devolved to, check out their recent online article about “de^!3rs”. The author sounds precisely like the old racist rednecks of the South justifying their hatred for African Americans in 1960’s era.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  hunter
March 8, 2017 8:39 am

Origins of some interesting words, found here:

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
March 8, 2017 9:24 am

Way Hey!

Roger Knights
Reply to  hunter
March 8, 2017 8:08 pm


March 8, 2017 7:59 am

Is there evidence that the islands of the Pacific are more frequently affected by floods lately? Some paper on this must nevertheless exist with the UN that supported the evidence of these claims and the calling of international funds to counter the threats. Or are these funds paid according to the watering can principle as safe as the daily tropical rainfall? Then they should be called annual alimentation programs, which, as in countless developmental studies have proved, are unsuitable to promote any development, but on the contrary cement the difference. Are they that? Then they should be finished faster than they were started. Donald Trump has a lot to Do to drain the swamp. This is almost a life task, while the poor Donald is already 70 years old. More and more it is clear which pigsty has left his predecessor and no one can tell me that he knew nothing about it, and yet paid for it. He did not know anything about Merkel’s mobile monitoring. And all God knows which persons in Germany have also been intercepted by Obama. This would have been in the case of Russias Putin a declaration of war, but as a Nobel Peace Prize winner one can do everything.

Don K
Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 8:57 am

Hans. I think this is likely the press release for the paper in question and the culprit per the release was wave action. And I think this is the paper — The islands in question were small — a few hectares — and unpopulated. Note that the Solomons are in a tectonically active area. Down toward the end of the paper, it is acknowledged that a 2007 magnitude 8.1 earthquake might have dropped the islands in question by 60cm (about 2 feet in American). That information seems to have somehow been omitted from the abstract and conclusions. BTW, there was another strong quake in the Solomons — 7.8 or so — in Dec 2016.

Reply to  Don K
March 8, 2017 10:04 am

Don, look at that wonderful outsight near the capital of the solomon island, Honiaria:,+Salomonen/@-9.434231,159.922665,3a,75y

This view near the capital of Honiaria will still be visible in 5000 years, except the capital and its houses are overgrown, this place or it explodes a volcano and triggers a huge seaquake.,+Salomonen/@-9.434231,159.922665,3a,75y
The most inhabited islands of the Solomon Islands are of volcanic origin as well as all over Micronesia and also nearly elsewhere in the Pacifik. Flat sandy isles are not populated from decades of experience, but one could also protect them from natural washing by means of a suitable planting. The shallow sandy islands are only temporary stations for fishermen. But the people there are true masters not only in fishing, but also in the squeezing of funds from the useful idiots in the UN. Therefore, I would not be surprised if a few shallow islands were intentionally not planted to be able to document their disappearance after the next cyclone. Likewise, a few houses with cheerful waving people could be created and photographed, which then also disappeared. The people by ship and the houses of piles and putti with the sand. This is what we call Potemkin villages.

Reply to  Don K
March 9, 2017 1:32 am

Don K,
I’ll see you your referenced paper and raise you. I replied to a Greenpeace post that unfortunately appeared on my LinkedIn feed last year regarding 5 islands in the Solomons that ‘were victims of anthropogenic SL rise’. I just did 10 mins of research – work was slow – and posted back (with links) that the 5 SAND BARS in question had been monitored for over 75 years and had come and gone several times over that time due to the expected wave and storm action impacting on a windward coastline (let alone tectonic activity as you point out). I can’t remember it now but I also posted the name of the nearby town so people could search on Google Earth and match the coastal profile with the image provided by Greenpeace to check out for themselves that several of the sand bars were, in fact, still above SL at the point in time the latest images were taken and photos over the last few years posted within Google Earth.
About half an hour later I wanted to amuse myself so went back to check on replies to my response and the original post had already been taken down. Greenpeace hate facts….. lol

Reply to  Don K
March 9, 2017 1:51 am

Having now read the WUWT original post from last year I see that the ‘islands’ on the Greenpeace LinkedIn post were from the Isobel Province group of sand bars.
They come. They go. As expected.
No worthwhile grant money here. Move along…

Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 9:24 am

Hi Hans-Georg

We apologized for taping her phone and gave her a new one to make up for it. 😊

Reply to  troe
March 8, 2017 10:10 am

You can listen to this one. There’s nothing clever to her anyway. But I do not want to be intercepted. I hope that everyone has understood ?

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 8, 2017 8:03 am

Follow the money. I bet you’ll find it has disappeared into the pockets of a few corrupt well-placed officials.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 8, 2017 8:44 am

“If you really want to help Africa, you can not do it with money. “This sentence, already famous by the Kenyan economist James Shikwati, polarizes and fires the debate about a meaningful development policy for the so-called Third World Year development aid. One Side believes this did not bring any noticeable improvements for the people in the affected regions, and the opposite position calls for further billions, because it is believed that the situation can be changed for the better. Political scientist Johannes Michael Nebe from the University of Trier has decades of experience. Thinks that development aid has brought less blessing than harm.”

These are conclusions in the case of Africa, but would also work in the case o the pacific islands.
Read this article in the whole

and your hair is on your feet. What a meaningless and contraproductive policy, this climate change fund. And this policy depended on the previous, all-too-smart presidency? One doubts about his intelligence or that of his advisors. Or were his consultants gangsters of international formats? .

Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 9:29 am

Obama was below average in the IQ department. The so called constitutional scholar once expressed outrage that the Supreme Court would overturn a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. This was actually known by his staff who had a teleprompter for him at all times. Well until we pointed it out.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 9:37 am

Good contribution. And completely up-to-date.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 2:08 pm

There is no official requirement, but it’s widely acknowledged that it happens.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 3:09 pm

Harvard…the grade-inflator of the east. But that is undergrad. How about Harvard Law?

‘Grading system

Perhaps the most obvious attempt by Harvard to improve student quality of life (and to disown its cutthroat reputation) is the grading system. The system has a recommended, but not mandatory, curve, with about one third of the class receiving the top mark of “Honors,” the bottom tenth receiving a “Low Pass,” and the middle of the pack receiving a “Pass.”

Even with the reduced stress with the new system, one second-year student noted that grades still matter, if only a little: “[T]hings are much easier if your grades put you higher in your class rather than lower…but definitely don’t sweat it if your grades aren’t perfect.” The same student also said that the new system might add some “pressure” since “[a] lot of Hs are given” and “it’s important to avoid the LP, which is given to the bottom couple of people in a class.” He notes that, in reality, Harvard continues to give grades in a manner fundamentally similar to the past…’

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 5:41 pm

I went to a small engineering school on the East Coast. I had a classmate as a freshman who just couldn’t hack it. I think his GPA was about 0.5. He was a nice guy and didn’t strike me as particularly dim. He transferred to a liberal arts school in NYC where he carried a 4.0. On graduation he went into international banking. I know all about grade inflation.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
March 8, 2017 11:10 pm

AZ1971 March 8, 2017 at 10:00 am

NO ONE with a C-average and a penchant for smoking choom at Occidental gets into Harvard Law School and miraculously “earns” magna cum laude status because they’re above average intelligence.

I beg to differ.

I got just passing grades in all my high school exams. I definitely enjoyed my ‘choom’. I got a 1st class honours BSc in college. By then, I realised that it actually mattered.

You often find people of above average IQ are quite good at winging it with the minimum of effort, until it really matters.

March 8, 2017 8:13 am

We’ve had a 14% rise in CO2 when the above graphics began their essentially linear trajectory. Can anyone point out the CO2 “Signal” that should be visible in this data set???

Succinctly put: CO2 and Sea-Level Rise are NOT related!!!

Reply to  tomwys1
March 8, 2017 9:52 am

“CO2 and Sea-Level Rise are NOT related!!!”

Well not without reanalysis.

Reply to  Paul
March 8, 2017 3:45 pm

That needs funding.
Significant funding, naturally.
Also, tell us what answer we ‘should expect’ to find.
Helps the re-analysis considerably . . . . . .

Auto – in full /sarc mode, mods!

jim hogg
March 8, 2017 8:21 am

Before and after photos would be the most effective means to demolish this claim . . .

March 8, 2017 8:27 am

Here’s a good previous WUWT article.

As is the case with a lot of problems that are blamed on global warming, the islands’ problems have nothing to do with CAGW but are human caused anyway. 🙂 If your island is made of guano and you mine all the guano, what do you expect?

Anyway, islands have been disappearing for a long time before their disappearance could be blamed on CAGW. link

March 8, 2017 8:36 am

I’m not sure what this piece is meant to be about. There were five tiny islands that washed away in the second half of the 20th century. Prevailing winds, storms, etc are the cause of such changes in reef based islands — virtually just sand bars with vegetation. These islands come and go at the whim of the weather.

Whether the long-term changes in winds and waves is “climate change” is another matter — almost entirely subjective opinion.

So, there have been changes in wind and waves and storm paths and these changes caused changes in these tiny sand bars.

Far worse happens off the east and gulf coasts of the US to the barrier islands every time a hurricane roils ashore or even when they just pass close by. Ask the people of North Captiva Island.

It is, of course, nonsense to blame “Climate Change” or “Sea Level Rise” for the fact that these little places were washed away.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 8, 2017 9:07 am

Of course, this is a good point. But I will go more far. The most islands in the pazifik were not washed out in a few decades nor in a few centuries. This fear I do not hang upon me like a cape, because these islands have been existed in the same form for centuries. They have seen many storms and when they have been damaged by a cyclone, the coral growth has quickly provided for a repair. The main attention should be directed to the planting of such islands and to promote this planting. But only cash against plants, first the planting, to buy and pay at an international consortium and cancellation of the bill until the whole is checked and then refund by the climafund. That would be synonymous with a good policy, but where is it fixed? I think not in the watercan principle of the fund.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 8, 2017 11:03 am

The Outer Bans of North Carolina are another good example of islands that change constantly under the onslaught of mother nature. The true Outer Banks, from Ocracoke to Corolla, would have likely moved miles toward the mainland if development on those islands had not forced those concerned to maintain them. Parts of the undeveloped islands in the chain (and other islands like Bear Island) are overwashed during serious storms, pushing them inexorably inland.

True sandbars in the sounds and offshore come and go constantly. Some of them are several acres and even acquire some vegetation before they’re washed away. And some of the Banks Islands, such as Bogue Banks, are up to a half mile wide and contain extensive maritime forests. Beach renourishment has prevented islands like those from retreating toward the mainland.

March 8, 2017 8:37 am

Just curious…..can anyone explain what appear to be depressed sea levels in 1998 and 2016 (El Nino years). Assume it isn’t pressure related since the article mentions that the measurements are adjusted for barometric pressure…….or am I just imagining those dips?

Reply to  Phil
March 8, 2017 4:55 pm

Phil , I noticed that also and was going to mention it as well , so would the Sea Level be the opposite in El Nina years. I don’t know enough about those cycles but if my hunch is right then the Climate Change crowd would be taking pictures in those higher cycles and beat the drum even louder!

Stuart McLachlan
Reply to  Phil
March 8, 2017 8:23 pm

Solomons Sea level is very closely related to ENSO. Here’s an image I just created: . A graph of ENSO fromcomment image scaled and inverted over the above Solomon Islands sea level.

John F. Hultquist
March 8, 2017 8:46 am

Back in 2005 our subscription to SciAm had not yet run out.
Their Sept-Special Issue was titled: Crossroads for Planet Earth
I’ve saved this issue because on the cover it claims “The human race is at a unique turning point.”
I’ve not seen “the turning point” yet. I look for it 2 or 3 times each year. Either I missed it or it is slipping farther and farther into the future that I likely won’t live long enough to see it.

I hope to pass this copy on to someone that expects to still be around in 2050 (focus year of the articles) and that will bring it to the attention of those still debating “the best of all possible worlds.”

Javert Chip
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
March 8, 2017 4:36 pm


You’re darn lucky you didn’t get the UK’s Prince Chuck’s 2009 lecture on “only 100 months left to save the world”. In fairness, he did revise this to 35 years in 2015. Science, among other things, is not Chuck’s strength.

March 8, 2017 8:51 am

Geography, my friends!

Nauru and the Solomons are NOT low islands. Look at both with Google Earth noting elevations. Suddenly, the risk from sea level rise is seen as preposterous.

Reply to  Gamecock
March 9, 2017 1:32 pm

Anyone that studied a little WW II history about the campaign in the Solomon islands would know it too. Anyone ever hear of Mount Austen, the Gifu, the sea horse, the galloping horse? All mountain or hill features on Guadalcanal where significant fighting occurred as the US forces fought to take the island from the Japanese.

Or one could just go to the CIA World fact book and find that under geography they describe the terrain of the Solomon islands as ” mostly rugged mountains with some low coral atolls”.

Johann Wundersamer
March 8, 2017 8:54 am

But there’s already a lot of literature to find on this states:

Better than ‘money for catastrophic climate-change mitigation’ and

‘Solomon Islands gets access to fund to combat climate change’

could be access to international finance markets to find investment into developing countries.

Gary Pearse
March 8, 2017 9:06 am

All other factors the same, sea level goes up, the coral grows upwards to keep pace and the the islands are just fine. Sea level goes down, wave action trims the them down. The same with river deltas.Seawater rises and goes upstream, thereby causing the river water there to slow, resulting in it dropping its load of sediment earlier and building itself upwards to keep pace with sea level rise. Geologists have known this for a couple of centuries.

These types of reactions to change modulate the entire dynamic earth system. I call this: The Law of No Jack, It’s Never Worse Than We Thought. Elsewhere, it has been known as Lechatelier’s Principle.

March 8, 2017 9:06 am

“From the reason #75 why we don’t subscribe to “Scientific American” anymore department.”

My Dad was a physics teacher and one of the perks were free subscriptions to scientific journals. As a result, my reading was largely Scientific American, Science News, Science Digest, and National Geographic. The writing was SO good! Tightly written peer reviewed article after article. After my Dad retired and I grew up and moved away it was some time before I started to re-subscribe to the same magazines. I was shocked at how much they had devolved and become political tools and mouthpieces. Not just AGW either.

I’d love to read how this came about. When did editorial changes occur and who and what drove them? It really is important to have objective science reporting, and we haven’t had it for more than a generation.

Two of my kids are fine scientists with nearly twenty years between them. The elder is very objective and pragmatic, the younger views the world through a political filter and I’m afraid her writing is usually written to support a point of view rather than being distilled by the scientific method.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Arbeedubya
March 8, 2017 4:43 pm


So, “[You’d]…love to read how this came about”.

I’m guessing money. Cold, hard cash. Probably a combination of enticing contributors and satisfying scientifically-ignorant subscribers. Like I said, just a guess.

Reply to  Arbeedubya
March 8, 2017 6:20 pm

“I’d love to read how this came about. When did editorial changes occur and who and what drove them?”

The downfall of Scientific American was definitely the exaggeration of the effects of human-caused CO2 on the atmosphere.

The global warming articles in Scientific American were the only ones I started to question. I didn’t question them at first because I figured those promoting this theory would have proof and would provide that proof in fairly short order. But as time went along, we kept getting global warming claims but never any definitive evidence to back up the claims. After a while, it really got irritating to see a global warming article because you knew it was going to frustrate you with no new evidence, but I still had hope right up to the end.

I finally stopped subscribing soley because of the global warming hype. The other scientific articles in there didn’t seem to be afflicted with speculation after speculation like global warming did. And the literature is still the same today: A lot of claims and very little evidence to back it up.

Science News also got on the global warming bandwagon about the same time Scientific American did (starting early 1980’s?), and I stopped my subscription to it at the same time I stopped the Scientific American subscription.

All the other science magazines of the era did the very same thing and got on the global warming bandwagon. All that print and all that time and still no hard evidence that humans are causing a net heat gain in the Earth’s atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

You know you are a skeptic when you go against all the science magazines in circulation. 🙂

March 8, 2017 9:23 am

Well, as the brilliant Congressman Hank Johnson makes clear, islands float (and can capsize).

Javert Chip
Reply to  Max Photon
March 8, 2017 5:08 pm


This is a classic. Not only does this (still to this day the congressman for his district) possibly drunk elected fool humiliate himself, but also the military officer he is questioning.

Reply to  Javert Chip
March 8, 2017 6:15 pm

I think I enjoyed when he hopelessly gropes at the concept of “area” even more than the capsizing comment.

(Boy, the Admiral sure handles it well, doesn’t he?)

March 8, 2017 9:48 am

Stop feeding the Griff pigeon at it will go away. He’s doing a good job of trolling this site as witnessed by the number of responses to his inane comments.

Danny V
Reply to  markl
March 8, 2017 10:28 am

I agree, he probably get’s paid by the number of relies he generates.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Danny V
March 8, 2017 11:17 am

There should be ONE reply to Griff and his clones – just to show that we don’t buy into the snake oil they’re selling and then total silence after.

Reply to  Danny V
March 8, 2017 2:10 pm

Should we set up a Griff-duty rotation schedule?

Reply to  Danny V
March 8, 2017 5:06 pm

Mark why don’t you reply ( everybody recognizes you) and then we just stop I think that or totally not reacting at all would work. I have suggested a similar thing on other threads and it works.

Reply to  Danny V
March 8, 2017 11:15 pm

The best reply may well be a robust “BOLLOCKS!”

Javert Chip
Reply to  markl
March 8, 2017 5:03 pm


Of course, what you say makes sense.

However, Griffy has become such a caricature of a troll, attempting to kneecap Dr’s Crockford & Curry, that survival in the real world (aka: outside a helicopter mom’s basement) is probably not an option. We need to consider Griff a part of a “hire the morally handicapped” program, and help wean him off (so to speak) attacking women!

Reply to  markl
March 9, 2017 8:12 am

All Griff does is poofle. poofle, verb intransitive: meaning is obvious. Present progressive is poofling

March 8, 2017 11:39 am

It’s hard to defeat win-the-day gorilla tactics in courtrooms, press rooms, politics, and now science venues. WUWT helps unravel the spin in near real time response. It helps.

Henning Nielsen
March 8, 2017 11:47 am

Yes, we all remember the heyday of climate crises when the Maldivian government held an underwater conference. Then they built new airfields for the tourists. But there was a snag; investments threatened to dry up, who would spend their money in a place that would soon be swallowed by the sea? So the new Maldivian president assured the investors by saying that, no, our islands are not sinking after all. It is safe to invest here. But we demand money from you climate sinners just the same.

“Former President Mohammed Nasheed proclaimed three years ago that: “Carbon dioxide emissions are going to kill us.” Current President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik said that although Maldives faces dangers from climate change, the country would not be submerged.

“The good news is that the Maldives is not about to disappear,” President Waheed said to Sri Lankan businessmen during a visit to to that nation. He stressed that Maldives can be sustained to avert the dangers of climate change, countering claims of his predecessor that the island nation would completely sink in the near future.

Why the change of heart?

We guess it’s because it’s obvious. But perhaps the new story line has something to do with the new president reassuring foreign investors, who were a bit reluctant to sink their money into a submerged Maldives, so to speak.”

And there is good old Tuvalu of course;

“But Tuvalu reminds me of a comic song I used to sing of Gracie Fields called “He’s dead but he won’t lie down”. Tuvalu persistently refuses to subside .

A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly’s website:> Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly “adjusted” the Tuvalu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of “around” 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .”

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
March 8, 2017 2:08 pm

Yep. Not a lot happening with sea level rise in the Pacific. Kiribati has data going back even further than Tuvalu. Sea level rise rates of around the 1mm to 1.5mm per year seem to be very common in the Pacific.

March 8, 2017 12:11 pm

Rhoda R commented:

“…There should be ONE reply to Griff and his clones – just to show that we don’t buy into the snake oil they’re selling and then total silence after….”

I disagree. He/they already know they’re twisting your tail. That’s how trolls operate. Unless they have verifiable comments ignore is the best approach. They WANT you to waste band with on their comments.

Brett Keane
Reply to  markl
March 8, 2017 10:22 pm

@ marklMarch 8, 2017 at 12:11 pm: Dead right there,, markl! That is what they are paid for, our reactions. We should learn about diversion- look, squirrel….

Reply to  Brett Keane
March 8, 2017 11:18 pm

I suggest:

Hey look, Griff, a poley bear!

March 8, 2017 12:17 pm

If the sea level around the Solomon’s is steady, and the sea level in the Mediterranean appears steady, how do they generate a world rise in sea levels? Seems to me that this sea level rise business is getting more and more suspect.


March 8, 2017 12:19 pm

Australia tends to be zealously politically correct. Zeal doesn’t permit much self examination. The important thing is to wear the right label. Mythology, be it of the national story or of the Aborigines or AGW has always been encouraged to resist factual analysis. In truth, it usually is a better story, despite all those TV programs about fact being stranger than fiction. Themes of victimhood and bleeding hearts pervades Australian TV entertainment and documentaries. Just listen to the background music. Talk about maudlin! The tough manliness of the ANZACs has all but disappeared – not that they were particularly nice!. Even so, very happy to live here. We all have rights.

March 8, 2017 12:59 pm

The very idea that the Solomons would be threatened by a few inches of sea-level rise is laughable. We aren’t exactly talking atolls here. 75 years ago Americans and Japanese fought each other on Guadalcanal for six months. Thirty thousand died, and Savo Sound was renamed Ironbottom Sound because of all the wrecks on the bottom. The whole battle was about a few square miles of floodplain along the lower Lunga River because this was the only spot in the whole eastern Solomons that was large enough and flat enough to build an airfield.

March 8, 2017 1:30 pm

There is at least one Pacific Island near where I live on the coast of Southern California that was believed to be a substantial island just 20k years ago and is now the Cortez Bank whose highest point is about 9 feet below sea level. It is a well known surfing spot and is claimed as US territory even though it is underwater. It could become an island again during the next ice age.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  willhaas
March 8, 2017 3:31 pm

Interesting, there is a little deeper and much younger former island off a little east of the central Louisiana coast called Ship Shoal. A remnant of a barrier island from an old degraded delta, it shows as an island on a map about 1830. Island (Isle Dernier, on its way to a shoal) settlement just inland wiped out by hurricane a few decades later. Some skepticism about its old status, shallow shoals are islands at low tide, but other evidence suggests it might have been the last offshore of several to sink on a subsiding coast. It is still a concern to larger vessels and had a marker for some time after the Civil War, not sure about dates.

Surfing there probably continues to be involuntary. Check it out for real (relative) sea level rise.

Douglas Field
March 8, 2017 3:10 pm

Over on Bishop Hill Phil Clarke has been active -here he is gloating over the demise of the Maldives

March 8, 2017 3:12 pm

I live on a South Pacific island (the big one pointy one down the bottom of the map) and would welcome a bit of sea-level rise. Dragging a fishing kayak across fifty metres of deep, soft, white sand is no picnic for a 71-year-old and the return journey after three hours of paddling, complete with an uphill start, is murder. Give me 500mm of rise and at high tide I could launch or land straight from or onto a grassy bank.

Ain’t gonna happen, of course. The sea hasn’t risen a millimetre since I first walked on the local beaches sixty years ago and it’s not about to start anytime soon, despite the doomsayers.

But why is every piece of climate change or geological news reported as a disaster? The English Channel replacing the land bridge linking Britain to Europe has to be one of the most propitious occurrences in Earth’s history. More please.

March 8, 2017 5:02 pm

We are Australia, we don’t do “up in arms and defiant”. We do “very upset but what can you do?”

One of the most compliant to authority nations in the western world.

Reply to  Ardy
March 8, 2017 11:21 pm

“very upset but what can you do?”

Chuck another shrimp on the barbie?

David W
March 8, 2017 5:07 pm

Just responding to the question about changing sea levels during ENSO events.

I would imagine this is a result of the changing trade winds that can generate sea level changes of up to a meter during strong events. During an El Nino event sea levels rise in the East and start to fall in the west. Later when the trades re-establish the reverse occurs.

I also recall that during the 2010/11 La Nina event it was estimated that the massive amounts of rainfall over Australia actually contributed to a drop in global sea levels.

March 8, 2017 7:45 pm

David W…..Many thanks for responding to the question I raised earlier. I wondered if the prevailing winds might be involved but didn’t know if they could produce such a persistent effect over the time intervals involved. Thanks again for your suggestions.
I’m new to this site (although I have visited it many times over the past 10 years or so) and really like the content & articles. However, I’m quite amazed at how much time on these threads is wasted responding to obvious trolls and expounding political viewpoints. I realise that politics & money drive this whole “AGW/climate change” fiasco and exposing the deception & lies is undeniably important but IMHO science speaks best for itself and doesn’t need to be coloured by personal political opinions. These undermine the integrity of the process and give the “other side” more ammunition. I’d prefer to stick to the science without the (personal) political comment or religion thrown in. Neither of these serves to advance the case against this dangerous & expensive hoax that we are all trying to fight.
Sorry if I speak out of turn here but just trying to be objective as a new contributor. Thanks!

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Phil
March 9, 2017 2:09 am

Phil @ 7:45

Yes, Phil I agree completely with you. This is a great site but it’s often hard to find the scientific nuggets amongst all the politics, name calling and wast of time on troll-replies.

It’s an American site so I guess that’s why they get so involved in their politics but I’d just prefer the science.

However, nothing is perfect in this life and Anthony and his moderating team do us all a great service…I can’t thank them enough for all the useful insights and ammunition they have given me over the years/decades.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 9, 2017 8:27 am

Alastair @ 2:09

Thanks, Alastair, and fully understood on that. However, I’m sure not everybody who visits WUWT reads Breitbart and some of the comments are probably offensive to them. We need supporters from across the political spectrum to help win this fight and alienating (some) potential allies doesn’t serve much purpose. Trolls should be ignored or sent to the corner with a single put down and then ignored. Starving them of oxygen will reduce their CO2 output! : ]

Brett Keane
March 8, 2017 10:15 pm

Because we are in the South Pacific and on the ring of fire, NZ has a fine scientific tradition of relevant research. Paul Kench; Willem de Lange (Oceanographer); and David Kear (Geologist, rtd), have done vast amounts of good honest work which cover the whole subject. Put simply, Parrotfish, surface coral growth, tectonics, Enso/winds/sun/currents control things, People and even less CO2, have little or no effect. Anyone who peruses the works of the three above, will have the hard-won facts.
Even here, we have now got a scum-layer of activists, often from geography. Their time is up, and the desperation is palpable…..

The Original Mike M
March 9, 2017 7:36 am

I think the greenies themselves are largely responsible for destroying many of these islands … with their MONEY! The more money they send to “save” these islands – the more people come to them for employment to get that money. The higher the population gets – the more pollution and overfishing there is to destroy the coral ecosystem that supports the island itself and the more fresh water depletion going on to sucks in ocean water to destroy those natural fresh water sources.

Is it possible that the best way to help them is not to?

Alexander K
March 9, 2017 6:52 pm

Also in New Zealand on the ring of fire, the tide gauges tell us that not much has changed since the first tide guages were installed well over a century and a half ago. Things tend to jiggle around somewhat when the faults go active, but land going up or down in relation to sea level does not seem to be a factor.
And no, one NEVER gets personally accustomed to earthquakes, ever!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights