A September 26th article on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) website, titled “Sea level rise inevitable for Pacific Islands despite future greenhouse gas emissions reduction, NASA finds,” suggests that small island nations are doomed to disappear beneath the waves regardless of any actions to prevent climate change. The claim is both erroneous and irrelevant. Erroneous because actual data show sea level rise (SLR) on Kiribati and other island nations to be far lower than the projections from NASA. Irrelevant because it has been documented that many Pacific Islands have actually been growing in size and adding land mass over time.
“Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Fiji will experience at least 20 centimeters of sea level rise in the next 30 years regardless of whether greenhouse gas emissions change in the short term, according to new research from NASA,” says ABC.
A quick inspection of Kiribati’s tide gauge data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows this to be false.
Simple math shows what the value will be in 30 years: 2.34mm/year X 30 years = 70.2mm or 7.02 centimeters, about a third of the NASA projection of 20 centimeters in 30 years. Based on tide gauge data for Tuvalu and for Fiji, estimated SLR for 30 years is also far lower than what NASA predicts, a prediction uncritically parroted by ABC.
The reason for the disparity is that the scientific tool NASA used to make its projection is the Pacific Flood Analysis Tool, using model projections instead of actual data. The website says this:
The latest generation of global climate models are used to account for the global-mean thermosteric and ocean dynamic regional sea level rise and similar methods are used for assessing vertical land motion contributions as in past reports. The IPCC AR6 incorporates multiple methods of projecting future ice-sheet changes, which are the major sources of future sea level rise and pose the biggest source of uncertainty in projecting the timing and magnitude of future possible rise amounts. (emphasis mine)
Clearly, NASA used the climate models from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). However, it is telling that when you first visit the Pacific Flood Analysis Tool website, there’s a pop-up message with this disclaimer:
Disclaimer: The NASA Pacific Flooding Analysis Tool provides a scientific assessment of potential flooding frequency and extent due to sea-level rise based on peer-reviewed techniques. The results are provided without warranty of any kind.
Of course, the fact that NASA must put such a broad caveat of “no warranty” on the highly uncertain SLR projections was lost on ABC, who wrote about it as if it were fact.
Climate Realism has written multiple times about the fact that the sixth generation of climate models (CMIP6) used in AR6 are erroneous because they run too hot, creating future projections that have no reasonable basis when compared to actual data.
These climate models produce “implausibly hot forecasts of future warming,” resulting in SLR projections that are wildly erroneous.
But all of that is irrelevant, because Climate Realism has regularly exposed false claims about Pacific islands sinking due to SLR. As far back as October 2020, articles such as New Climate Summary: Islands Not Losing Land or People to Sea Level Rise clearly show such claims to be wrong.
For example, climate activists often claim the island nation of Tuvalu is shrinking due to rising seas. However, a recent peer-reviewed study found eight out of Tuvalu’s nine coral atolls have grown in size during recent decades, and 3/4ths of Tuvalu’s 101 reef islands have similarly grown in size.
Additional peer-reviewed studies (see here, here, and here) confirm the same processes are allowing – and will continue to allow – other Pacific islands to keep up with rising seas. A full summary of this island growth in the face of rising seas is posted at climateataglance.com in: Islands and Sea Level Rise.
ABC failed miserably when it comes to doing basic journalistic research for this story. The fact that no fact check was even attempted is so egregious, one must wonder if it is purposeful, rather than just an indication of incompetence. A paragraph at the very bottom their story suggests it may be purposeful.
“While scientists say rising sea levels will bring significant impacts to Pacific Island nations, some research has shown hundreds of islands in the Pacific are growing in land size due to sediment, corals and other debris being washed ashore,” ABC grudgingly acknowledges.
There it is. ABC evidently trusts computer model outputs over real world data. It seems that ABC, just like many other media outlets, downplays any good news about climate and focuses almost exclusively on the bad news to further the climate crisis narrative.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
This post originally appeared at ClimateREALISM


As long as the coral grows as fast as sea level rise, the islands should be stable. Charles Darwin figured that out in the 1840’s, and it was confirmed by core drilling in the 1940’s.
Perhaps if they stopped building airports and luxury resorts, that might slow the rate at which the islands sink. 😉
Also, don’t withdraw the freshwater lens. If the carbonate cements stabilize the sediments into actual rock with 15-30% porosity, then there is much more rock volume available for “island building”.
As posted to Jo Nova’s open thread Sept 28th (with links included)
Oh Noes…
Tuvalu and Kiribati are to experience ‘at least’ 15cm of sea level rise over the next 30 years.
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/nasa-analysis-shows-irreversible-sea-level-rise-for-pacific-islands/
.
Key quotes.
“But there’s a real lack of on-the-ground data in these countries”
.
“The future of the young people of Tuvalu is already at stake, Climate change is more than an environmental crisis. It is about justice, survival for nations like Tuvalu, and global responsibility.”
.
Missing context
In the four decades to 2014, Tuvalu’s total land area grew by 73 hectares, or 2.9 per cent.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318
.
Atolls in the Pacific nations of Marshall Islands and Kiribati, as well as the Maldives archipelago in the Indian Ocean, have grown up to 8 per cent in size over the past six decades despite sea level rise.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-08/why-are-hundreds-of-pacific-islands-getting-bigger/13038430
.
Anyway…
Sea level rose 120m (400ft) at the start of the Holocene, ie. up to about 10,000 years ago. By my calculations, Tuvalu, the Marshall islands, Kiribati and the Maldives are on average about 80 metres underwater. I think reports about them all being at sea level must be misinformation.
Standard Misinformation Act 2024 declaration: everything in this item is satire.
The Maldives _used_to_be_ mountainous and bigger than Europe.
Charles Darwin first described why ‘disappearing Pacific Islands’ climate alarm was scientific nonsense in his 1842 paper, ‘Coral Reefs’. Alarmists are NOT well read, so know little true well established science. This is slowly working to their cognitive disadvantage.
Some other examples of the faux versus established science ‘climate’ problems:
Water vapor is by far the most potent ‘GHG’. And INM CM5 (no tropical troposphere hotspot) shows that ARGO observation got other CMIP6 water vapor modelers wrong by a factor of 2.In the real atmosphere averaging about 2% specific humidity, methane is NOT a GHG since it’s two weak absorption bands are almost completely overshadowed by two stronger, broader water vapor bands. It’s ok to consume beef and dairy—methane is climate change irrelevant.Polar bear biology says ~80% of their annual caloric intake is during the spring seal whelping season. Even Al Gore never claimed there would be no Arctic spring sea ice.There is no grid scale solution to renewable intermittency other than otherwise underutilized fossil fuel fired backup—hence very costly.There aren’t enough mineable minerals to support even just an EV ‘solution’, never mind real grid constraints.
Rud,
Most governments cannot condone the consumption of meats and dairy due to the increased mental acuity that comes from a diet high in essential fatty and amino acids! They don’t want the electorate to ever wake up to how their countries have been plundered and looted by the global corporate elites!
’Tis far, far better to keep them lazy, fat and stupid on a low-fat, high carb diet; and throw in some legal drugs to make them even more easily brainwashed and propagandized!
If that were all true, imagine the prospects of some kid born into an economically challenging situation in a country wealthy enough to execute the plan efficiently.
No, ABC merely harnessed the propaganda released from a captured agency of a police state. Trust and ethics has nothing at all to do with it.
There was an article a while back that there is an activist groups that is paid to prepare alarmist news and spread it out to the media.
I can’t remember the details. Maybe this jars someone’s memory.
“suggests that small island nations are doomed to disappear
beneath the waves”
No, ABC didn’t suggest that. They suggested there would be flooding.
“Erroneous because actual data show sea level rise (SLR) on Kiribati and other island nations to be far lower than the projections from NASA.”
No, it isn’t erroneous. This is a common WUWT device of claiming to refute something with a quite different counter. This says that NASA would be wrong if a linear projection were to hold. NASA says, with reasons, why a higher rate of rise is likely.
ABC can “suggest” what they want..
Almost everything they say about climate is meaningless biased junk.
Even Nick must realise that by now.
There is absolutely ZERO reason , except fake “adjustments”, to assume any change is the rate of sea level rise..
There hasn’t been change in the rate sea level rise in the most stable Pacific sites, eg Sydney.
From the article:
“Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu, Kiribati and Fiji will experience at least 20 centimetres of sea level rise in the next 30 years regardless of whether greenhouse gas emissions change in the short term, according to new research from NASA.”
No equivocation, no “probably”?
NASA states AS FACT that a sea level rise that is almost 300% greater than the current rate is certain to occur, AND it is not currently evident as an accelerating trend line in the previous data.
That is BS, not science.
If it climate BS.. Nick will almost certainly support it. !!
The quoted 2nd hand article stated AS FACT… Have to quote the original to see whether it was in the original.
or
This is a common
WUWTNickPick device of claiming to refute something with a quite different counter.Did they find where those extra 5 shots came from?
https://www.skynews.com.au/business/media/abc-forced-to-remove-footage-with-doctored-audio-it-claimed-showed-adf-member-shot-at-afghan-civilians/news-story/bdd90156de844d12cd5619a972deada4
Model projections.
No warranty.
Uncertainty in projecting.
You get more mineral and carbonate deposits in WARM shallow seas. Add more bicarbonate ions to the ocean should also increase the rate of the process. When some green financier/industrialist figures out how to make money on carbon credits for what nature has done effectively for eons, (I.e. like growing trees to capture carbon) the growth of these islands will be highlighted and the green industrialist will start collecting fees for the hard work of tropical polyps.
You should have taken this to arm-and-hammer, not posted online.
If the trend is centered on 2.34 with a 95% confidence interval of 5.66 then the actual trend might even be negative. The center point is no more likely than any other point in the interval. In fact if you took the 40% confidence interval it would still be centered on 2.34 but the tribe value was more likely to be outside the interval than inside. The 5% confidence interval would still be centered on 2.34 in fact the liklihood that exactly 2.34 is true is about zero.
True value not tribe. Spellcheckers!
Found this for Tuvalu, not sure where it comes from.
Y-axis is “Height”. Of what?
Only goes back to 1970. Extends up to 2000.
Those nits stated, it shows absolutely no trend.
Is the likelihood of selecting the exact true value evenly distributed across the confidence interval?
No
The ABC is a now a standing joke in Australia. they are at best biased but also incompetent and quite deliberately lie because they think they know best. They do not know much, don’t do journalism anymore, only activism and yet our taxes are used to pay for them. We have no escape. The sooner it is made a subscription only service the better
No longer is objective journalism taught in college. They go with advocacy journalism, which is opinion published as factual.
Change the A to a C and you described the situation here in Canada, seems to be a failing of all government supported news media.
Najma Sambul, ABC Asia Pacific Newsroom. The writer, Najma Sambul, seems to be like a “cub reporter” for the ancient city newspapers. Each day the editor says “We need a couple of columns for tomorrow’s edition. Kid (pointing), contact the health department and write about rats and garbage. Yesterday the kid wrote about organ grinders and their monkeys.
That said, she is likely a very nice person.
We can’t do much about crappy Australian news reporting but we must thin NASA and all agencies like NASA. I suggest a one fourth cut starting at the top and keep cutting until we see honest leadership. We damn sure don’t have it now.
Firing other people is careless and easy. Also one fourth of NASA and all agencies like NASA are probably working beyond retirement age because they don’t know what else to do after 50 years. there would be mass golf cart shortages. It would be impossible to get a tee time anywhere.
Might get your 25% quota just carving out DEI.
If this planet only had an advanced civilization, the Pacific Islanders would already be installing SMR units with integral desalinization plants! Then they could get on with the necessities of life: drinking beer, catching fishing and chasing the opposite sex! They might even spend some time prepping for the eventual cyclone or tsunami!
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Control the inputs, control the outputs.
— K.Marx 2024 version