16 ms·
The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing
- mgr86 11y agoThere is something about a NYtimes online articles. They are such an appropriate blend of investigative reporting and proper adoption of new media. Wrapped neatly in nice typography and minimal advertisements. ...Now only if I had the attention span.
- eitally 11y agoTheir Snow Fall piece was so well received that a startup created a platform to sell to media outlets who wanted to create similar immersive pieces. NYT article about it: http://futurenytimes.org/reviews/interactive-storytelling/ http://futurenytimes.org/reviews/interactive-storytelling/ Venturebeat article about Storied: http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/12/storied-launches-publishing-platform-to-create-the-next-gen-of-snow-fall/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/12/storied-launches-publishin... Storied site: http://www.storied.co/welcome http://www.storied.co/welcome Comparative article about various immersive journalism platforms: https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/9-tools-for-journalists-to-produce-immersive-stories/s2/a554425/ https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/9-tools-for-journalists-to... I think Immersive.sh is currently the most widely used: http://immersive.sh/rachelbartlett/itMsUweiM http://immersive.sh/rachelbartlett/itMsUweiM
- untog 11y agoAre there any publications using Storied? My concern is that using a third party service will always be sub-par compared to a setup like that at NYTimes, where the developers, designers and journalists all work in the same building.
- eitally 11y agoLooks like they list a few here: http://www.storied.co/partners http://www.storied.co/partners I agree re: NYT, especially. They seem to be taking platform evolution very seriously.
- greggman 11y agoGimlet Media's "Startup" recently had an episode saying that pretty much all large media companies now have a division that makes media for hire (articles, videos, whatever). https://gimletmedia.com/episode/17-words-about-words-from-our-sponsors/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/17-words-about-words-from-ou...
- kobayashi 11y agoThey're great for this kind of reporting. Really bad at others where their biases come out, like Israeli-Palestinian reporting.
- username223 11y ago> ... Israeli-Palestinian reporting. That's just how American reporting and politics work. Ironically, Israeli newspapers are more likely to be critical of Israel.
- steve-howard 11y agoI would imagine that in Israel, it's easier to criticize what Israel is currently doing without the assumption that you hate Israel's existence or, worse, Jews.
- kobayashi 11y agoIt's just factually incorrect that "the media" in Israel is more critical of Israel. Regardless of political bent, media outlets in Israel usually do a better job of reporting on the conflict than does the NYT. The Times of Israel, IMHO, does the best job of accurately reporting the issues. They have some great op-ed and analysis writers. This guy in the US does a great job of analyzing the NYT's coverage of Israeli and Palestinian news. https://tayaravaknin.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/series-revising-news-at-the-ny-times/ https://tayaravaknin.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/series-revisin...
- kobayashi 11y agoThat's actually not what I mean. It's not being critical of Israel, but rather, substandard journalistic integrity when writing on Israeli-Palestinian affairs. For example, the use of the passive voice when describing Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis, purposefully burying the lead, or other such media malpractice.
- gd1 11y agoMarshall Islands sea level, unchanged for 20 years: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-series-wizard?dlat=7&dlon=171&fit=n&smooth=n&days=60 http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-t... No one denies the science more than alarmists.
- kaybe 11y agoHm, to me it looks as if there was a slight upwards trend in the data. Some fitting would have to go on to see if that's true; however, most of the time, fitting by approximating by hand is not so bad. Look at the smoothed data too, it's more obvious there. Also, mind that the scale is in cm and numbers given for sea level rise up to now is in the mm range. We can argue about the clear drop in 2014. And I wonder what happened in 1998. Good source, thank you! edit: Stopped wondering about 1998, it's clearly a strong El Niño signal, and the theory fits as well. Thus, it will probably go back up after next year.
- ctdonath 11y agoI applied a polynomial trend line to the data: seems there is a 7.5cm rise over 23 years, but most of that was in the first half and has tapered off and may actually be about to head down. I'd like to see longer-term data. Recurring issue: climate changes. Sea levels change. Land altitudes change. Overlapping cycles interact to great effect covering hours & millennia. And when you're talking about all of these happening in regards to someplace that is no more than 2 meters above "sea level", with nearly a meter of tidal variation daily, it's not unreasonable to conclude "living on the edge of survivability isn't a good choice".
- kaybe 11y agoSadly, it isn't a choice in many cases.
- ctdonath 11y agoI'd like to see a polite HN discussion about this notion. To wit: in light of a looming existential crisis where circumstantial (mostly financial) difficulties are pitted against prospects of death/destruction, should one be resigned to one's "fate" vs "do anything necessary to move".
- gd1 11y agoAustralian BOM: http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70052/IDO70052SLI.shtml http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70052/IDO70052SLI.shtml "Changing global trade winds have raised sea levels in the South Pacific about a foot over the past 30 years" No.
- tosseraccount 11y agoCan't the winds cause sea water erosion of the sand in the absence of volcanic upward pressure?
- tosseraccount 11y ago"The debate over loss and damage has been intense because the final language of the Paris accord could require developed countries, first and foremost the United States, to give billions of dollars to vulnerable countries like the Marshall Islands." [ from the NYTimes article ] Hoo boy. This is going to have problems passing in the current U.S. Congress.
- caseysoftware 11y agoApparently developing countries want the top nations to pay $1-2T (yes, trillion) to execute their own plans. There's also another $1-2T in damages being discussed. Ref: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/30/439679/France-Paris-IIED-COP21Yemen-climate-change http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/30/439679/France-Paris-...
- ocschwar 11y agoBangladesh alone is 100,000,000 people looking for new digs. $1T is about right. And someone is going to pay it. Only question is who.
- fixermark 11y agoIt's distressingly possible that the answer is "Nobody," at least nobody directly to the populations. The $1T will get spent, just in preventing, not assisting, relocation. Mass migration is an ancient trigger of wars, is what I'm saying.
- ocschwar 11y agoIf the people displaced by climate change don't get any assistance relocating, then they are the ones paying.
- gweinberg 11y agoI'd be interested in an explanation as to why sea level would rise more some places than others. It seems to me it should raise pretty much the same everywhere because gravity.
- Mikeb85 11y agoI'd wager that gravity isn't 100% equal over the whole globe, the pull of the moon's gravity also isn't equal over the globe, and that the circulation of water across the world's oceans also isn't 100% (so there's different salinity, water pressure, various prevailing 'currents', temperature, etc...). Of course I don't study this, so I don't know the exact reasons, but I'm sure there is a reason...
- mturmon 11y agoYes, it's all of that. Tides, temperature variations, ocean surface winds, and circulation all go in to changing sea surface height, at various time scales. It amounts to order of a couple of meters, peak-to-peak, in a weekly average. Sea surface height (SSH) has been measured from space with great accuracy, using radar altimetry, since 1992. We can now also measure sea surface temperature (SST), salinity (SSS), and surface winds. The winds are knowable because wind ruffles the water surface and this changes the radar scatter properties. Therefore, somewhat surprisingly, we know more about the ocean than the land. For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surface_topography; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surface_topography; the data is at http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/CoreMeasurements http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/CoreMeasurements
- mkempe 11y agoApart from changes in sea level, sometimes the land is moving up, sometimes down. See for instance the still ongoing rebound of Scandinavia, taking place since the start of the current interglacial period (11,700 years). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound#Vertical_crustal_motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound#Vertical_...
- nusq 11y agoGravity is not the same around the Globe, there is something called the Geoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid. Also, sea level is determined by a number of factors including astronomical and predictable, like moon, sun and other planets gravity influence, or random meteorological events like winds, low or high pressure systems and land mass configuration. All these contribute to the tide cycle and the sea level anywhere in the globle. For example, there are places in the world with huge tide amplitudes like 12 m or so and other with no tides at all (excluding meteorological events). The problem is the "mean sea level rise". The "mean sea level" is usually determined by and average of at least 19 years of measurements of the sea level, which is approximately the time it takes to complete a full moon cycle.
- phkahler 11y agoSea level was higher during the previous interglacial period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian Why do people think this process has stopped? Or do they think we're at the peak sea level rise today? Why?
- untog 11y agoDoes that matter? People live there, the fact that it is disappearing is relevant. "Well, those islands used to be totally submerged 115,000 years ago!" isn't really of use to the islands' inhabitants.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- phkahler 11y ago>> Does that matter? People live there, the fact that it is disappearing is relevant. "Well, those islands used to be totally submerged 115,000 years ago!" isn't really of use to the islands' inhabitants. To the people who live there, it doesn't matter. To the people trying to blame it on human activity it should.
- Brakenshire 11y agoI don't see that. Things can happen for multiple reasons, the climate is complicated. It's an exceptionally weak argument to say "sea level or temperature change has happened naturally in the past, so that means it can't be caused by human industry now". Especially when the mechanism for natural change usually involved CO2.
- avar 11y agoNo it shouldn't. The Earth's climate has been at various extreme points in the past, from ice ball to covered in tropical rain-forest. That has nothing to do with the evidence for whether we're through human activity pushing it towards one of those past extreme states at an accelerated or unnatural pace.
- 11y ago
- 23452436 11y agoAtolls, in an undeveloped state, will always be just a few feet about sea level. They are the result of an equilibrium between deposition and erosion. If the sea level were to drop, an undeveloped atoll (without walls, paving, etc) would erode downwards because of greater wind exposure. Attempting to fix the level of an atoll by paving it will not work in the long term, regardless of what the climate does.
- Retric 11y agoThat's more or less the definition of an Atoll, but nothing says something that used to be an Atoll needs to stay above water.
- 23452436 11y agoWhat's the function of "but" there?
- Retric 11y agoA less formal version of However used to denote contrast. In this case the difference between current state, and future state.
- 23452436 11y agoThere was nothing contrasting in the original reply. Just sayin'.
- Retric 11y agoTry rereading it, and note the words: "an Atoll" vs. "used to be an Atoll"
- ertyuiopas 11y agoIn your original reply, your first sentence was false. Your second sentence was an unrelated truism. No contrast, no point in in adding the connecting "but".
- ggchappell 11y agoI don't recall ever seeing a video clip quite like the one at the top of this article. (Aren't camera drones cool!)
- xemoka 11y agoTake a look at some of what mapbox has done, here's a good example: https://www.mapbox.com/drone/video/ https://www.mapbox.com/drone/video/ (from https://www.mapbox.com/blog/mapbox-gl-video-drone/ https://www.mapbox.com/blog/mapbox-gl-video-drone/)
- double0jimb0 11y agoThe US has missile test bases in the Marshall Islands. Watching what is done with these would seem to indicate the state's intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Test_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missil...
- maratd 11y ago> Watching what is done with these would seem to indicate the state's intent What intent? There is nothing the federal government can do to stop increasing sea levels or erosion. Just like the inhabitants, when it becomes untenable, they will just move.
- jlebrech 11y agocouldn't they hire a dutch firm to help reclaim the land. we should create a whole sea wall around it as an alternative to seasteading.
- albemuth 11y agoSeems as viable as relocating them all to Greenland once it's done with its transition to lush tropical forest.
- wed210 11y agoAssuming AGW is the cause--did the islanders not also benefit from the worldwide consumption of fossil fuels: supplies delivered by ship, manufacturing of the supplies themselves, worldwide communications built by an energy intensive civilization, medication and learning fostered by this development? I would pay my share to relocate them, and throw in a 'Sorry about the sea level rise' gift basket, but not anything to maintain a life there.
- Someone 11y agoI would guess it is easier to float those atolls or put them on stilts. The ocean tends to get really deep fast in the Pacific, and the islands are small, giving them a high circumference to area ratio (=> you would need lots of wall per square kilometer of atoll)
- zbyte64 11y agoThat could work, but this is just a preview of more to come. That dutch firm would be kept very busy doing the same for Miami, Shenzhen, and many other coastal cities. There are also many coastal settlements who can't afford sea walls. It is doubtful that political entities that aren't interested in footing the bill to prevent such scenarios would be willing to help those settlements.
- sawyerh 11y agoShoutout to the kids throwing rocks at the drone: https://media.giphy.com/media/d2YUC2fu21BTda4U/giphy.gif https://media.giphy.com/media/d2YUC2fu21BTda4U/giphy.gif
- dghughes 11y agoI'm worried my tiny province in Canada (PEI) will be gone maybe in a 100 years or at least eroded substantially. About 224km (140 miles) long by 60km (37 miles) wide 140,000 people. The island is all sandstone there is no native rock here the highest point is 142m (466 feet) but the average height I'd say is a metre/a few feet above sea level. There are places around the island where 30m (100 feet) have washed away just within the last few decades. None of what washed away was replaced by the government it just keeps washing away never to return.
- nkrisc 11y agoSounds like it's not a great place for a permanent long-term settlement.
- criddell 11y agoWhere are you going to move to?
- dghughes 11y agoI'll be OK but if I ever find a woman crazy enough to have kids with me I'd be worried for their future here. I think the local government should allow us to reclaim lost shore line or even build out more. It's one thing to slowly lose shore from the rising sea but to also lose the land itself is twice as bad. Usually storm surges pound the shore and large sections of a cliffside collapse but not necessarily right at the shore. Something similar to my situation was a segment on the local news where people on Manhattan island were interviewed about the rising sea level. I guess some parts of Manhattan near sea level are going to have a park build to act as a storm surge buffer. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-york-superstorm-climate-change-1.3347001 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-york-superstorm-climate-cha...
- tectec 11y agoI did not expect to see another islander on here. I saw a tool or report a few years ago that would show how much of the island would remain with different sea level rises but I cannot find it now.
- tehchromic 11y agoNo one could have predicted this based on any kind of evidence tho so we best go about business as usual without making any changes to our way of life.
- underwires 11y agofinally a reasonable response. why change things when we can not
- PeterisP 11y agoThere are places like Marshall islands where relocation inland is not an option (unlike the millions of coastal population) and a significant sea level rise will simply eliminate them as dryland. However, those places are comparatively small. Compared to the massive scale of anything we must start/stop doing to actually change global warming, for solving the particular issue of Marshall islands simply relocating the 70 000 people is the easiest and simplest solution with less impact on people lives. A smallish military conflict displaces more civilians than that. In a sea level rise, the likely sea border disputes as islands disappear will impact far more people than those who live in atoll nations, their combined number of people is so tiny compared to, say, a couple coastal towns in Bangladesh.
- kibwen 11y ago> In a sea level rise, the likely sea border disputes as > islands disappear If we're talking about UNCLOS, I doubt that anyone's going to redraw territorial water boundaries based upon rising sea levels given that there are already provisions that prevent expanding your territorial waters by building artificial islands.
- PeterisP 11y agoYou're right for borders between existing nations, however, the expected result of a large sea level rise will include a number of current countries being eliminated. I wouldn't expect a non-existent nation to keep it's territorial waters, instead it will be re-distributed among its neighbours (possibly depending on some deal with relocation of their current inhabitants), but no matter how you do that, there is a lot of potential for disputes.
- crispy2000 11y agoThe article does (quietly) mention that the sea level rise in the Marshall is due to changes in the trade winds. They also mention that they are not sure of the relationship between global warming and these trade wind changes. Over the last century the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen 4-8 inches. The Marshall Islanders would be better served if the Paris meeting had been called off, and the millions that were spent for food, fuel, lodging, and security could be sent to keep their islands from capsizing ;-) not to mention the savings in CO2...
- noiv 11y agoGlobal warming is not exactly solved by saving the Marshall Islands.
- Pinatubo 11y agoI think he's saying we should stop spending money on trying to stop global warming, and start spending money on dealing with the consequences.
- whyenot 11y agoJust to keep things in perspective, the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands are 0.000721013% of the world population. if the Paris accomplishes anything positive at all, the impact would likely be larger than saving the Marshall Islands.
- pocketstar 11y agoThis article fails to mention the aging Cactus Dome containing gratuitous amounts of radioactive soil that will breach containment soon and cause fukushimachernobyl9/11*1000 radioactive damage
- ertyuiopas 11y agoWhy do folks keep on getting suckered by this "everything is global warming" and "it's all our fault" scam? The satellite data means (the only trustworthy source) haven't changed in nearly 20 years of their 35ish-year existence. CO2 isn't even the main greenhouse gas, that's water vapor. The sun's variability and its effect on climate are poorly understood. Yet the sun is the driver. The claim that anthropogenic CO2 (an unknown amount of the overall carbon cycle) is in a positive feedback loop with other processes is unproven: that's why the models are doing such a lousy job of predicting the non-warming. If it weren't a near trillion dollar proposition to keep the scam going, this would all be more widely known.