4 ms·

Meanwhile, in reality: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-g

by gd1 12y ago

Meanwhile, in reality: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growin... "Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking. Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment. The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images."

ceejayoz 12y ago
Using land reclamation to contest climate change isn't much different than contesting it based on your fridge being cold.
- gd1 12y ago
  Whatever you say buddy. The PBS article says that "The nation of Kiribati, made up of 33 tiny islands far out in the Pacific Ocean, is getting smaller". It isn't.
- Grue3 12y ago
  Except the climate change wasn't posed as the problem. The lack of land was. And land reclamation is a great way to contest lack of land.
josho 12y ago
Wow, that is incredibly selective quoting! From the same article "Sea levels are obviously rising...the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate". The article describes that in the short term, bigger waves are leaving more sediment expanding the island's area—but, the islands are not raising up, so sea level rise will (and already has) displaced people from these islands. My mother has been to Kiribati, she saw first hand portions that have been lost to the sea. The reality is clear if you simply open your eyes and look.
- gd1 12y ago
  "Sea levels are obviously rising...the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate" So something they think is going to happen, as opposed to something that has, you know... actually happened.
- dalke 12y ago
  The actual paper is, I believe, http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/SOPAC_2010_The_dynamic_response.pdf http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/SOPAC_... . It comments "Results presented in this study show that the entire footprint of islands are able to change so that erosion at the local scale (on one aspect of an island) may be offset by accretion on other parts of the coastline." If correct, then it means seeing "portions that have been lost to the sea" is an incomplete observation, without seeing which parts have been gained. The paper's figure 6 shows some of changes over the decades, both loss and gain. As a further complication, some of the increase in land area seems to be human-controlled. In any case, one of the points of the paper is that the Bruun Rule, "commonly advocated as an appropriate tool to assess coastal change", is "ultimately misleading" because it doesn't explain the observed changes. The paper also agrees that sea levels are rising, at about 2mm/year. But "in reality" - quoting gd1 - the point isn't simply one of land area growing or decreasing. It's that changes in sea level cause complicated changes in the islands, because they are actually part of a complicated dynamic system. I'll quote from the end of the paper: > Given this positive trend, reef islands may not disappear from atoll rims and other coral reefs in the near-future as speculated. However, islands will undergo continued geomorphic change. Based on the evidence presented in this study it can be expected that the pace of geomorphic change may increase with future accelerated sea level rise. Results do not suggest that erosion will not occur. Indeed, as found in 15% of the islands in this study, erosion may occur on some islands. Rather, island erosion should be considered as one of a spectrum of geomorphic changes that have been highlighted in this study and which also include: lagoon shoreline progradation; island migration on reef platforms; island expansion and island extension. The specific mode and magnitude of geomorphic change is likely to vary between islands. Therefore, island nations must better understand the pace and diversity of island morphological changes and consider the implications of island persistence and morphodynamics for future adaptation.

by gd1 12y ago

ceejayoz 12y ago

Using land reclamation to contest climate change isn't much different than contesting it based on your fridge being cold.

gd1 12y ago
Whatever you say buddy. The PBS article says that "The nation of Kiribati, made up of 33 tiny islands far out in the Pacific Ocean, is getting smaller". It isn't.
Grue3 12y ago
Except the climate change wasn't posed as the problem. The lack of land was. And land reclamation is a great way to contest lack of land.

josho 12y ago

Wow, that is incredibly selective quoting! From the same article "Sea levels are obviously rising...the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate". The article describes that in the short term, bigger waves are leaving more sediment expanding the island's area—but, the islands are not raising up, so sea level rise will (and already has) displaced people from these islands. My mother has been to Kiribati, she saw first hand portions that have been lost to the sea. The reality is clear if you simply open your eyes and look.

gd1 12y ago
"Sea levels are obviously rising...the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate" So something they think is going to happen, as opposed to something that has, you know... actually happened.
dalke 12y ago
The actual paper is, I believe, http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/SOPAC_2010_The_dynamic_response.pdf http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/SOPAC_... . It comments "Results presented in this study show that the entire footprint of islands are able to change so that erosion at the local scale (on one aspect of an island) may be offset by accretion on other parts of the coastline." If correct, then it means seeing "portions that have been lost to the sea" is an incomplete observation, without seeing which parts have been gained. The paper's figure 6 shows some of changes over the decades, both loss and gain. As a further complication, some of the increase in land area seems to be human-controlled. In any case, one of the points of the paper is that the Bruun Rule, "commonly advocated as an appropriate tool to assess coastal change", is "ultimately misleading" because it doesn't explain the observed changes. The paper also agrees that sea levels are rising, at about 2mm/year. But "in reality" - quoting gd1 - the point isn't simply one of land area growing or decreasing. It's that changes in sea level cause complicated changes in the islands, because they are actually part of a complicated dynamic system. I'll quote from the end of the paper: > Given this positive trend, reef islands may not disappear from atoll rims and other coral reefs in the near-future as speculated. However, islands will undergo continued geomorphic change. Based on the evidence presented in this study it can be expected that the pace of geomorphic change may increase with future accelerated sea level rise. Results do not suggest that erosion will not occur. Indeed, as found in 15% of the islands in this study, erosion may occur on some islands. Rather, island erosion should be considered as one of a spectrum of geomorphic changes that have been highlighted in this study and which also include: lagoon shoreline progradation; island migration on reef platforms; island expansion and island extension. The specific mode and magnitude of geomorphic change is likely to vary between islands. Therefore, island nations must better understand the pace and diversity of island morphological changes and consider the implications of island persistence and morphodynamics for future adaptation.