10 ms·

Five Pacific islands disappear as sea levels rise

58 points by abhi3 10y ago

elgabogringo 10y ago
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines-exaggerated-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines... "Report’s author says many media outlets have misinterpreted the science by conflating sea-level rise with climate change"
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Not to mention buried in the OP article: > However, the report stresses that the inundation does not result from rising sea levels alone. > It found that shoreline recession was substantially worse in areas exposed to high wave energy, and that extreme events and inappropriate development were also factors contributing to the erosion.
  - cryptoz 10y ago
    The local sea level rise due to changing trade winds and higher than normal trade winds, is also likely a result of global climate change, as noted in the linked article. This is a nuanced change in local sea levels, that is not due to global sea level rise as a result of climate change; however, it does sound like the study concludes that it is likely that other consequences of global climate change are in fact responsible for the local sea level rise and much of the other erosion.
douche 10y ago
How many new Pacific islands were created by volcanic or other processes this year?
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  None. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_islands
  - Hondor 10y ago
    Some were recently created in the South China sea though http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/wha...
jdavis703 10y ago
You know what's sad? I remember my right-wing geography teacher telling us students that this would happen way back in the 90s. It's sad that one of the main parties in U.S. politics doesn't think this could, would or is happening.
- yarou 10y ago
  I think it's obvious that politicians who deny anthropogenic climate change are on the payroll of oil producing megacorps like Exxon-Mobil. How ironic that we let these politicians commit treason (undermining American energy security is unquestionably treason), yet go after imaginary threats, justifying pervasive surveillance on innocent American citizens. It just goes to show how rotten to the core our system has become.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    How is undermining American energy security "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid Aid and Comfort"?
- prawn 10y ago
  Surely they know it's happening or will happen but are doing whatever it takes to prioritise profit/security in current priority sectors?
- rasz_pl 10y ago
  Your geography teacher warned you about media painting 2mm sea level rise as a cause for eroding islands?
danieltillett 10y ago
Out of curiosity for those that don't believe global warming is human caused, what evidence would convince you to change your mind?
- tosseraccount 10y ago
  Temperature changes that are accurately predicted by models with significant anthropogenic pollution variables.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    The first suggestion that CO2 might drive climate change was made by Tyndall in 1859. The first crude but usefully predictive model was created by Arrhenius in 1896. That's 1896. How much more evidence does it take?
    - SmokyBorbon 10y ago
      The 1800s is the worst cenutry for junk science. It's the century when Westerners started to believe in a young earth, for example. Anthropogenic global warming is fraud.
    - barney54 10y ago
      As tosseraccount wrote, "Temperature changes that are accurately predicted by models..."
    - ci5er 10y ago
      That's true. CO2 photo-thermal effects have been known for a long time. I have no dog in this hunt - but I believe that short- and medium- term projections that start diverging from actuals almost on the first day are a problem for getting broad support for the hypothesis. And it's a very interesting question, don't you think? Why aren't temperatures going up more? Is the earth modulating it somehow? The biosphere appears to attempt to maintain some kind of thermal homeostasis, and appears to be better at cooling the hot than warming the cold. How does that work?
jb613 10y ago
Interesting counter-argument[1] suggests 1) data was cherry picked: "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." 2) statistically not enough data for trends in sea levels: "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." [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/busted-claim-data-shows-that-climate-induced-sea-level-rise-didnt-wipe-out-five-solomon-islands/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/busted-claim-data-sho...
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  Are you really comfortable citing them? Here's a discussion of the author of that post's prior work: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ edit: fascinating how easy it is to be downvoted simply by pointing out the lack of credibility of AGW skeptics. On one hand, you have the overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying (respectively) that global warming is occuring or that it's man-made and provable with existing science. On the other hand, you have people with dubious credentials, poor ethics, and/or extraordinary conflicts of interest as paid fellow at Cato, Heartland, AEI, et al. All of this is easily verified by simple use of a search engine. Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher, I think all we can go on is the credibility of sources of information. It is not ad hominem to bring someone's motivation and prior record into consideration.
  - mistermann 10y ago
0xsnowcrash 10y ago
It's a problem that's been recognised for some time. In fact the United Nations had the third conference on this back in 2014. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/sustainable/focus-on-sustainable-islands.html http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/sustainable/focus...

58 points by abhi3 10y ago

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines-exaggerated-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines... "Report’s author says many media outlets have misinterpreted the science by conflating sea-level rise with climate change"

jessriedel 10y ago
Not to mention buried in the OP article: > However, the report stresses that the inundation does not result from rising sea levels alone. > It found that shoreline recession was substantially worse in areas exposed to high wave energy, and that extreme events and inappropriate development were also factors contributing to the erosion.
- cryptoz 10y ago
  The local sea level rise due to changing trade winds and higher than normal trade winds, is also likely a result of global climate change, as noted in the linked article. This is a nuanced change in local sea levels, that is not due to global sea level rise as a result of climate change; however, it does sound like the study concludes that it is likely that other consequences of global climate change are in fact responsible for the local sea level rise and much of the other erosion.

douche 10y ago

How many new Pacific islands were created by volcanic or other processes this year?

throwaway5752 10y ago
None. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_islands
- Hondor 10y ago
  Some were recently created in the South China sea though http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/wha...

jdavis703 10y ago

You know what's sad? I remember my right-wing geography teacher telling us students that this would happen way back in the 90s. It's sad that one of the main parties in U.S. politics doesn't think this could, would or is happening.

yarou 10y ago
I think it's obvious that politicians who deny anthropogenic climate change are on the payroll of oil producing megacorps like Exxon-Mobil. How ironic that we let these politicians commit treason (undermining American energy security is unquestionably treason), yet go after imaginary threats, justifying pervasive surveillance on innocent American citizens. It just goes to show how rotten to the core our system has become.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  How is undermining American energy security "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid Aid and Comfort"?
prawn 10y ago
Surely they know it's happening or will happen but are doing whatever it takes to prioritise profit/security in current priority sectors?
rasz_pl 10y ago
Your geography teacher warned you about media painting 2mm sea level rise as a cause for eroding islands?

danieltillett 10y ago

Out of curiosity for those that don't believe global warming is human caused, what evidence would convince you to change your mind?

tosseraccount 10y ago
Temperature changes that are accurately predicted by models with significant anthropogenic pollution variables.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  The first suggestion that CO2 might drive climate change was made by Tyndall in 1859. The first crude but usefully predictive model was created by Arrhenius in 1896. That's 1896. How much more evidence does it take?
  - SmokyBorbon 10y ago
    The 1800s is the worst cenutry for junk science. It's the century when Westerners started to believe in a young earth, for example. Anthropogenic global warming is fraud.
  - barney54 10y ago
    As tosseraccount wrote, "Temperature changes that are accurately predicted by models..."
  - ci5er 10y ago
    That's true. CO2 photo-thermal effects have been known for a long time. I have no dog in this hunt - but I believe that short- and medium- term projections that start diverging from actuals almost on the first day are a problem for getting broad support for the hypothesis. And it's a very interesting question, don't you think? Why aren't temperatures going up more? Is the earth modulating it somehow? The biosphere appears to attempt to maintain some kind of thermal homeostasis, and appears to be better at cooling the hot than warming the cold. How does that work?

jb613 10y ago

Interesting counter-argument[1] suggests 1) data was cherry picked: "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." 2) statistically not enough data for trends in sea levels: "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." [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/busted-claim-data-shows-that-climate-induced-sea-level-rise-didnt-wipe-out-five-solomon-islands/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/busted-claim-data-sho...

throwaway5752 10y ago
Are you really comfortable citing them? Here's a discussion of the author of that post's prior work: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ edit: fascinating how easy it is to be downvoted simply by pointing out the lack of credibility of AGW skeptics. On one hand, you have the overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying (respectively) that global warming is occuring or that it's man-made and provable with existing science. On the other hand, you have people with dubious credentials, poor ethics, and/or extraordinary conflicts of interest as paid fellow at Cato, Heartland, AEI, et al. All of this is easily verified by simple use of a search engine. Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher, I think all we can go on is the credibility of sources of information. It is not ad hominem to bring someone's motivation and prior record into consideration.
- mistermann 10y ago

0xsnowcrash 10y ago

It's a problem that's been recognised for some time. In fact the United Nations had the third conference on this back in 2014. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/sustainable/focus-on-sustainable-islands.html http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/sustainable/focus...