Wow, sad but great reporting and images, wish NYT does more of this kind of reporting. It is not just the Marshall islanders it affects all of us.
2
Very tiny islands like the Marshall Islands should not have been declared sovereign countries. They should have been put in charge of the international community, who could have helped the evacuation of its inhabitants to continental lands when needed
1
Note to Grubers: Politicians cannot control the weather or the seas. They can, however, take your money designated for that purpose, and then repurpose it for the personal benefit of themselves and their benefactors. Two hundred years ago, chieftains would do "rain dances" to fool their constituents. Today, we have "Climate Summits" to accomplish the same purpose.
5
I know it's popular now to blame global warming for EVERYTHING. But I could show you shorelines in NC that are no longer suitable for buildings. In deed, up the coast at least as far away as NJ developers built on shorelines, with governments' blessings, tooclose to the ocean's eternalboundaries. Houses, parts of hotels and piers were washed away along with tonnes ofsand and soil. Theculprit? Hurricanes and other karge storms, not global warming!
3
"Sea level rise that is already locked in will inundate many coastal cities. One study put 1400 cities in the US alone at risk."
It depends on whether the city is rising or sinking.
In SF, for example, sea level has been measured since 1854. It's risen about 8" since then, and about 1.91 millimeters a year for many decades (over 500 years for a 1-meter rise). The rate hasn't increased recently. The annual rate in LA is lower – .88 millimeter. Some coastal areas in Oregon, Washington and Alaska are seeing sea levels fall.
The East is worse.
NY's sea level is rising about 2.73 mm a year – again, no recent increase in the rate. New Orleans is much worse.
One would expect sea level to be the same everywhere, of course. Short-term differences are often said to reflect warmer water in some places than in others. Longer-term, of course, this can't explain the differences. The only explanation that comes to mind (which is correct) is that sea level is the measure of TWO things: (1) the water level; and (2) the land level. Some land is sinking (for example, the Andaman Islands, the Marshall Islands, the coast near New Orleans). Other land is rising (for example, the coasts in parts of Oregon, Washington and Alaska).
In any case, sea level is rising very slowly in SF. I recently found a web page that predicted an 8-foot rise by 2100. It had data only through 2001, but projected a steep increase after then. Actual measurements since 2001, however, have shown very little rise.
It depends on whether the city is rising or sinking.
In SF, for example, sea level has been measured since 1854. It's risen about 8" since then, and about 1.91 millimeters a year for many decades (over 500 years for a 1-meter rise). The rate hasn't increased recently. The annual rate in LA is lower – .88 millimeter. Some coastal areas in Oregon, Washington and Alaska are seeing sea levels fall.
The East is worse.
NY's sea level is rising about 2.73 mm a year – again, no recent increase in the rate. New Orleans is much worse.
One would expect sea level to be the same everywhere, of course. Short-term differences are often said to reflect warmer water in some places than in others. Longer-term, of course, this can't explain the differences. The only explanation that comes to mind (which is correct) is that sea level is the measure of TWO things: (1) the water level; and (2) the land level. Some land is sinking (for example, the Andaman Islands, the Marshall Islands, the coast near New Orleans). Other land is rising (for example, the coasts in parts of Oregon, Washington and Alaska).
In any case, sea level is rising very slowly in SF. I recently found a web page that predicted an 8-foot rise by 2100. It had data only through 2001, but projected a steep increase after then. Actual measurements since 2001, however, have shown very little rise.
3
Again,as I have posted a few times before, the world will not have the foresight to change until it is too late.
Therefore temporary geoengineering is needed. Multiple ideas have been proposed to reduce the effect of the sun's warming. Considering their cost versus the catastrophe that is forecast with climate change, this appears markedly less costly and much less politically disruptive.
Therefore temporary geoengineering is needed. Multiple ideas have been proposed to reduce the effect of the sun's warming. Considering their cost versus the catastrophe that is forecast with climate change, this appears markedly less costly and much less politically disruptive.
Context ? How about showing us some photo's of what the shorelines looked 30 or 40 years ago ?
3
In the past when the ice sheets have "let go" sea level has risen as fast as 1 meter every 20 years for hundreds of years. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at hundreds of times the rate that it occurred during these previous fast melt times. A recent study by James Hansen shows the potential for sea level rise (SLR) to approach those rates later this century leading to as much as 10 feet of SLR in 50 years. This would render all port cities non-functional and create hundreds of millions of refugees. See how Europe has handled orders of magnitude less refugees.
2
SITUATIONAL ETHICS was the name given to the basis for ethical decisions during the Nixon years, in which the ends justify the means. What situational ethics means in terms of the US view of global climate change is very much based on the ethics of each situation. Coastal communities strongly impacted by climate change such as those affected by Katrina in LA and those Hurricane Sandy in NY and NJ, who demanded and got billions of dollars of disaster relief expressed a clear sense of entitlement. Likewise those homeowners who insist on building and rebuilding homes in flood planes near water both along coasts, rivers and inland waterways expect flood insurance underwritten by the US government. Meaning, of course, that the US taxpayer pays the bill for others who demand the right to build in places that will be flooded out repeatedly.
Switch the location of flooding to the Marshall Islands, even in the areas leased by the US, and the attitude is reversed. They don't belong to the US, so why burden US taxpayers. The same people who would demand that disaster funds be provided for them by other taxpayers show no sense of accountability for the impact that climate change has had in causing flood and other destruction elsewhere on the globe. When Nixon et. al. applied their situational ethics, some people, especially among the GOP, swallowed them hook line and sinker. After all, we in the US stick together!
Now we must all hang together, or else we will surely drown.
Switch the location of flooding to the Marshall Islands, even in the areas leased by the US, and the attitude is reversed. They don't belong to the US, so why burden US taxpayers. The same people who would demand that disaster funds be provided for them by other taxpayers show no sense of accountability for the impact that climate change has had in causing flood and other destruction elsewhere on the globe. When Nixon et. al. applied their situational ethics, some people, especially among the GOP, swallowed them hook line and sinker. After all, we in the US stick together!
Now we must all hang together, or else we will surely drown.
1
As I look at the New York Times homepage this evening, there are two stories stories in an interesting juxtaposition: One is this article about the Marshall Islands headed under water, and the other is review of the Honda Pilot.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center that monitors the rise in sea levels due to snow and ice melt records that "For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets)". At that rate it would take about 110 years for the sea to rise 10 centimeters (4 inches)! Hardly alarming, especially since in their opening statement of the article "SOTC: Contribution of the Cryosphere to Changes in Sea Level" they mention that "Global sea level rose by about 120 meters during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilized between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago". This game of "alarmism" is a one that two can play and right now it seems that millions of ill informed people are the spectators of an alarmist game being played out in Paris by a handful of people with an agenda ... And this agenda has nothing to do with properly presenting scientific facts. If this was not the case, could someone please explain why such data as by the NSIDC are totally ignored? https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html
5
Here's the fundamental problem with America vs China.
China is building islands in the SCS.
America can't even begin to help the Marshall Islands.
China will be glad to help them!
America is losing in all venues.
We are stupid, isolated, ignorant and indifferent.
Not so the Chinese.
China is building islands in the SCS.
America can't even begin to help the Marshall Islands.
China will be glad to help them!
America is losing in all venues.
We are stupid, isolated, ignorant and indifferent.
Not so the Chinese.
2
This is non-scientific nonsense!
This is erosion, not oceans rising. If the oceans were rising, they would rise everywhere!
There is no warming!
This is erosion, not oceans rising. If the oceans were rising, they would rise everywhere!
There is no warming!
3
Sea level rise is not uniform globally. Here's as example. Antarctica's ice sheet have enough mass so that its gravity pulls the ocean towards it. As that sheet melts, its mass and therefore its gravity is reduced, and sea levels in the North as a result will be a little higher than expected without this effect.
In addition, you have land that is rising or sinking. As the weight of the ice sheet is reduced, the land underneath rises making the sea level rise a little less than would otherwise be expected.
In addition, you have land that is rising or sinking. As the weight of the ice sheet is reduced, the land underneath rises making the sea level rise a little less than would otherwise be expected.
1
What studies have been undertaken to determine if the flooding may be due to local subsidence rather than global sea level rise?
It is important to understand which issue you need to address.
It is important to understand which issue you need to address.
3
We are not sure the climate changes causing the land to sink. The continental drifts could be causing the land sink. East coast of U.S was sinking for a while. These Marshall islands can be saved with land reclamation projects. The dangers of climate change is its effect on the health of humans and other species. The number of species that are disappearing at the fastest rate ever. Next it could be humans. The climate change is an irreversible thermodynamic process and cannot be reversed. We need to focus on what happens if the carbon emissions are reduced. It is not going to go back to the good old happy days. Spend more money on research of climate change and how we can adopt instead of billions of dollars spent to kill people in the name of saving them.
I am not sure why the plight of the Marshall Islanders is a climate change issue. With all due respect to the residents of the islands, it seems a bad idea to settle areas described as no more than a mile wide and six feet above sea level. Action needs to be taken, but it should be taken regardless of -- and without waiting for -- efforts to address global climate change.
2
polynesians and melanesians have been living like this for millennia
how stupid of them to set up home on tropical island paradises
th fools
how stupid of them to set up home on tropical island paradises
th fools
The Marshallese settled there over a thousand years ago, and have done well since, with the exception of outside interference.
Their plight is a climate change issue because sea level rise due to anthropogenic global warming is beginning to make life on their islands untenable.
1
By 2050 there will be 9 - 11 billion people.
This century will be one of ever growing numbers of refugees, more and more resource wars, more terrorism and violence.
And to top it all off? More and more drought and famine.
We will get a small taste of what is in store for us when the mass extinction event really starts rolling- most of our wildlife will die out before we do.
The only question left for the people around is how they want to go. Through human on human violence? Starvation? Lack of water? Or natural disaster?
Our children will curse us. Their children will curse us. Hundreds of years worth of our descendants will curse us.
But those who opposed, and continue to oppose, any and all actions will be fine. They will have passed in peace and comfort- heralding the end of an age of immense material wealth that was squandered in less than two hundred years.
But each of us will get a new iPhone every year until the crash.
And people still continue to have lots of kids.
This century will be one of ever growing numbers of refugees, more and more resource wars, more terrorism and violence.
And to top it all off? More and more drought and famine.
We will get a small taste of what is in store for us when the mass extinction event really starts rolling- most of our wildlife will die out before we do.
The only question left for the people around is how they want to go. Through human on human violence? Starvation? Lack of water? Or natural disaster?
Our children will curse us. Their children will curse us. Hundreds of years worth of our descendants will curse us.
But those who opposed, and continue to oppose, any and all actions will be fine. They will have passed in peace and comfort- heralding the end of an age of immense material wealth that was squandered in less than two hundred years.
But each of us will get a new iPhone every year until the crash.
And people still continue to have lots of kids.
3
I do wonder when I see young couples having children. They haven't been following the science and the politics. The science is clear, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere above 350ppm will cause the planet to continue to heat dangerously. The politics is suborned by the fossil fuel industry which is subsidized to the tune of 10 million US dollars per minute according to the IMF.
1
Family of 13. This speaks volumes on the problem in my opinion. There just isn't enough resources on this planet for everyone to have a family with children. Let alone the least skilled of the least advantageous people. Now I am not saying "survive or die" is the correct answer to the problem, I know it isn't, yet the only reason these people have babies is so they can have an extra hand in the fields, an extra son to wed and bring in a dowry, so they can have more children and so on and so forth. For instance, in another story this man from Bangladesh had 12 children, was 40 years old and just married a 16 year old. He was complaining about how global warming has effected his ability to feed his family. The West does not owe these people anything, let alone a living to support 16+ children. If they want honest solutions then they need to start taking steps towards modernizing their nations. Until then, I hope they learn to swim.
4
So, clearly, birth control needs to be freely available to all, right?
7
Until recently, the high infant mortality rate was largely responsible for maintaining a stable population there, and this made having numbers of children not only feasible but necessary. Antibiotics changed this. Now they live.
Modernizing the nation? What does that mean in an environment with little land and very limited resources?
Modernizing the nation? What does that mean in an environment with little land and very limited resources?
The text says: Mr. Anej, 30, who lives with his family of 13, including his parents, siblings and children, in a four-room house. Therefore, describing three generations of a family!
We're going to be running earth's biggest triage unit in the decades to come. Low-lying coastal settlements are in danger all over the world -- and saving lives is going to mean making some difficult choices between fortifying coastlines and telling people to move.
I just ran some numbers. In the Marshall Islands, it's 0.2 people per meter of coastline, and a very small, fragile economy that may already have lost its natural supply of fresh water. By contrast, in Bangladesh, it's 2,700 people per meter of coastline.
Money isn't infinite. As important as it is to understand the Marshall Islands' problems, we can't afford to lose track of how many other rescues lie ahead.
About the only place I can think of where people have lasted for a long time in the face of below-sea-level conditions is the Netherlands. And that's a country with the economic means to start building fortifications centuries ago -- and to strengthen them with billions of dollars of their own money. We're also talking about 370 people per meter of coastline.
We don't have the time or the money to save every lowlands region with Dutch-style defenses. It would be great if we could, but that's not realistic. Given what we're up against, our choices in many parts of the world will come down to unpleasant (massive relocation) versus awful (mass drownings.)
I just ran some numbers. In the Marshall Islands, it's 0.2 people per meter of coastline, and a very small, fragile economy that may already have lost its natural supply of fresh water. By contrast, in Bangladesh, it's 2,700 people per meter of coastline.
Money isn't infinite. As important as it is to understand the Marshall Islands' problems, we can't afford to lose track of how many other rescues lie ahead.
About the only place I can think of where people have lasted for a long time in the face of below-sea-level conditions is the Netherlands. And that's a country with the economic means to start building fortifications centuries ago -- and to strengthen them with billions of dollars of their own money. We're also talking about 370 people per meter of coastline.
We don't have the time or the money to save every lowlands region with Dutch-style defenses. It would be great if we could, but that's not realistic. Given what we're up against, our choices in many parts of the world will come down to unpleasant (massive relocation) versus awful (mass drownings.)
3
There are some little ponds where I live that used to be under glaciers. I am glad they melted. I was not blaming anyone for this. That is what people have to learn that nobody is doing anything to you on purpose if your beach sand washes away...it deposits and makes a beach somewhere else. The fishes relocate. If there were not media, the people on the Marshall Islands would stay there until the water level seemed to high, and then they would get in their boats and travel to some other island formed eons ago or yesterday, by volcanic activity under the water...some say the water warms from volcanic activity...oh no! what are we going to do? move.
3
We're lucky here in San Francisco. Sea levels have risen only 8 inches since 1854, and the rate hasn't increased recently.
Some stretches of the Oregon and Washington coasts, and much of the Alaska coast, are experiencing declining sea levels.
The annual rise in SF is nearly 1 millimeter less per year than in NY.
As all this should make clear, "sea level" measures the level of the sea RELATIVE TO the shore, which depends not only on water levels but also on land levels. That's why sea level is dropping in some areas, rising slightly in others, and rising more in still others. Presumably the Marshall Islands (like the Andamans, the usual subject of stories like this one) are sinking.
Some stretches of the Oregon and Washington coasts, and much of the Alaska coast, are experiencing declining sea levels.
The annual rise in SF is nearly 1 millimeter less per year than in NY.
As all this should make clear, "sea level" measures the level of the sea RELATIVE TO the shore, which depends not only on water levels but also on land levels. That's why sea level is dropping in some areas, rising slightly in others, and rising more in still others. Presumably the Marshall Islands (like the Andamans, the usual subject of stories like this one) are sinking.
4
What about the dome at Runit, and the radioactive waste that is leaking into the ocean there? What happens then that falls into the sea, too? Call me an idealist, but I'm tired of the governments of the world failing to provide leadership and shirking our responsibilities as a species -- to care for our world and our environment, and clean up any and all messes that we've made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/opinion/a-pacific-isle-radioactive-and...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/opinion/a-pacific-isle-radioactive-and...
3
Sea level rise that is already locked in will inundate many coastal cities. One study put 1400 cities in the US alone at risk.
"A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.
The study presents multiple lines of evidence, incorporating 40 years of observations that indicate the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica "have passed the point of no return," according to glaciologist and lead author Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new study has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148
"A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.
The study presents multiple lines of evidence, incorporating 40 years of observations that indicate the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica "have passed the point of no return," according to glaciologist and lead author Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The new study has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148
5
Actually, they are not disappearing. The year to year average sea level has not changed since 1992 in this area. We are hearing and seeing pictures that are intended to gain traction for 'the sky is falling' but cannot be supported with data.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.htm?stnid=1820000
Also, the expansion of construction has impacted the ocean levels as well.
PLEASE, not everything is due to CO2, emissions, etc. Can we please have a reasonable discussion about climate change without lies.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.htm?stnid=1820000
Also, the expansion of construction has impacted the ocean levels as well.
PLEASE, not everything is due to CO2, emissions, etc. Can we please have a reasonable discussion about climate change without lies.
11
Sea levels always rise between ice ages. DNA analysis show that my ancestors came from Doggerland, the land that connected Great Britain to mainland Europe during the last Ice Age but that now lies beneath the North Sea. Many ancient cities have been underwater for many centuries. However not all low-laying islands sink beneath the waves. Coral reef islands change shape and size as sediment shift. Recent studies show about 80 percent of Pacific and Indian Ocean islands are stable or growing, not shrinking. However, the ones with seawalls and permanent structures that lock the sediment in pace are submerging.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-k...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-k...
7
Why do you seem to be confusing us with facts?
3
Except that for the fact that for the six thousand years leading up to the Industrial Revolution we were headed into the next glaciation so the pattern was slow cooling at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees C per millennium. There were ups and downs due to changes in ocean currents and solar output, but at most those changes were around 0.1 degree C per century and after five or six hundred years the average global temps returned to the cooling trend.
In the last hundred years we have seen global temperatures climb a full degree C with the majority of that increase in the last forty years. Solar out put has actually been down during that period of time.
In the last hundred years we have seen global temperatures climb a full degree C with the majority of that increase in the last forty years. Solar out put has actually been down during that period of time.
1
erik,
The globally warmer Minoan, Roman and MWP times ranged as much as 3.5C warmer than present, in some areas closer to 5C warmer, for hundreds of years, yet here we all are. A warming of 1C from here will have use not yet entering the climate of Roman times. Even the oceans (depending where) were 2-4C warmer.
The globally warmer Minoan, Roman and MWP times ranged as much as 3.5C warmer than present, in some areas closer to 5C warmer, for hundreds of years, yet here we all are. A warming of 1C from here will have use not yet entering the climate of Roman times. Even the oceans (depending where) were 2-4C warmer.
But Chris Christie says this is not "a crisis." Maybe we can get one of his rich "friends" to fly him to the Marshall Islands and Christie can explain to them why its not a"crisis."
4
Not sure where the author has picked up his statistic on sea level rise-1 ft in last 30 years (approximately 30 mm/yr). NOAA presents data on its website that shows the sea rise from 1985 to 2015 to be about one third of this, in line with the longer term trend from 1950 onward.
3
So what? Islands and coastlines have been appearing and disappearing since the beginning of time. How come this time it has to make my taxes go up and lifestyle go down?
7
But think of all the extra new room there will be up in Greenland, after the ice has melted off it. Species have been migrating for eons in response to changes in their environments, and seeking out places that suit them the best. Or sometimes they just simply adapt. What else is there? Hapless politicians would like us to believe that only they have the answers, but fortunately for all the rest of us, they don't.
4
Actually, Greenland got its name because in the middle ages when the Vikings first discovered it, it *was* green. This inspired many of them to put down roots and start farming, which led to disastrous results when the ice returned in the next century or two. I forget the exact details.
2
Note To Climate Change Deniers:
Teach your children and grand children the valuable art of swimming.
Teach your children and grand children the valuable art of swimming.
4
Thanks - they already know how to swim. Note to man-made global warming suckers: Teach your children and grandchildren to make lots of money to pay carbon taxes. By the way, carbon dioxide is plant food.
1
You know what?
For magnolia and Neanderthal were smart enough to MOVE when the environment changed to unlivable.
Why are these modern humans so stupid?
For magnolia and Neanderthal were smart enough to MOVE when the environment changed to unlivable.
Why are these modern humans so stupid?
4
On Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands, there is a gigantic concrete dome ("Runit Dome") covering radioactive soil and other waste. It, too, is at the mercy of the rising water, and all that radioactive goodness will come seeping out eventually. Search for the NYT article "A Pacific Isle, Radioactive and Forgotten" from December 2014. It's amazing how much we've junked up the world.
4
Having a bunch of politicians, lobbyists, professors and bureaucrats, servers and bodyguards enjoying the Ritz, great food abundant alcohol and likely prostitutes by the score spending taxpayer or serf's hard-earned money will do nothing, zero, nada for a climate that changes minute by minute. Yes, they all think we the commoners are just plain stupid which we are.
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
3
People who think they should just move know nothing of the importance of place to culture. Anthropologists have studied the effects of abruptly moving indigenous people, and often the results are disastrous.
4
Sadly, you are right. Because in fact nothing can be done to save these island from the continuing effects of seal level rise. Acceptance of reality would be quite helpful, instead of all the special pleading from people who think our current global dilemma is political and can be fixed by wishing it away.
5
This is where there is a duplicity in the proponents of man-made global warming. If people are convinced that there is global warming then it would seem that a very high priority would be to relocate people trapped in places like the Marshal Islands. This is where Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffet, etc should commit their funds. First priority should be on finding new places for these people to live. Whether it is the Marshall Islands, Bangladesh coast or the barrier islands of the East Coast of the USA it makes no sense to continue to develop these places or waste money trying to hold back the oceans. This is a much bigger challenge than relocating the Syrian refugees and, given the relocation logistics, needs to have immediate attention. Towns and cities need to be built for these people in locations far enough above sea level that they can plan to be there. Business need to be formed to provide employment for people in the new locations. While reductions in pollutants is necessary given the Geo-politics it is not wise for the USA to implement draconian rules that kill businesses vs a more gradual shift that paces what the rest of the world is doing as doing it faster adds little towards the end result. Make strategic and tactical plans that address the needs of the people being affected now and expected to be affected near term vs gestures that have little lasting value.
3
Add it to our tab. We already can't pay our national debt. If American citizens' money will be used to pay reparations for something like this, then we should demand to be shown absolute proof of the extent of our culpability vs. other nations and any payout should be prorated accordingly. The scientific community has sullied their image by skewing their climate "data," so good luck selling it to the American people [enter Obama's "stroke of a pen."] I couldn't help but notice several vehicles in the attached video. I'm sure the islanders aren't burning fossil fuels, though.
Wendy, We tested our radioactive weapons on their former homes, moved them to more fragile environments, left them a legacy of risk for disease and shrinking land mass. It's not really hard to parse.
4
Anything related to human beings would be complicated-actually there is nothing that are not related to us. The feeling of risk is expanding sometimes simply because the miscalculation or the intentionally wrong estimation from authoritative scientists. Lay men will never tell whether these lands will disappear or not, but we will keep the potential threats inside our mind and stay away from and doubt about scientific results and news reports. Stay panic.
Love these type of articles. Amazing work NYT
3
As an anthropologist, since 1975 I have studied the impact of the United States administration on the people and culture of the Marshall Islands. The US used the islands for atomic and hydrogen bomb testing, abusing the land which is so precious to them. In the process we "accidentally"irradiated hundreds of Marshallese, who subsequently suffered disproportionately from thyroid cancer and leukemia. We test ICBM's and defense missiles there, and have in the process of all this moved people around, created a major generational split among the people there, made them dependent on our money economy (and along the way have created a dichotomy between the haves and have nots, the young and the old), and created malnutrition,diabetes, suicides among the young, crime, and big time alcohol abuse. The traditional culture is/was based on sharing and mutual reliance, which allowed their survival for several thousand years. These people have an intellectual tradition which includes navigational skills that allowed them to travel across the open sea safely before the west invented the compass. Hello! We have done little for the except when it was in our own self interest. What is happening to them is sad indeed, but what is sadder yet is our own belief in our benevolence in the face of such evidence.
5
Here is a Ph.D. chemist who moderates Reddit's science forum on why they banned climate change deniers. He describes them very accurately.
"After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/newspapers-ban-climat...
"After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/newspapers-ban-climat...
4
And then he took his monthly government grant check and deposited it into his bank.
2
With a fertility rate of over 7 per woman in the 1980s, declining now to just under 6, the population of the Marshalls has exploded from a stable 10,000 pre WWll to nearly 70,000 today. "Climate" reparations are necessary to continue support of population growth stimulated and totally dependent on the US since UN trusteeship in 1945, formally since independence in 1986. Long term trends in sea level rise in the Pacific remain constant. People sink islands.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1230marshallisla...
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1230marshallisla...
Perhaps they procreate to insure continued existence of their group in an area where high rates of cancer, suicide, alcohol abuse, malnutrition occur due to radiation contamination and disruption of a fragile, unique culture by US meddling.
2
The rise in population is largely a result of the introduction of antibiotics there
and the consequent reduction in infant mortality.
and the consequent reduction in infant mortality.
1
I worked on Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands for four years, starting in 1968. The natives there are some of the friendliest people you will ever meet. These are people who once navigated hundreds of miles between small islands by canoe using the ocean wave patterns, not the stars or sun. They have a long and proud history. It is really sad for me to think they have to leave their paradise because of something they had very little to do with.
7
No mention China just demonstrated it can quickly raise land on atolls, probably for much lower cost.
3
I offer this initial insight based on a preliminary overview of this story and without yet researching in depth more of the history in this region. First, it is blatantly obvious that everyone in a position of authority should be removed from duty. This problem didn't just happen overnight or conveniently alongside a world-wide smoke and mirrors campaign to con everyone into the big climate change scheme to sell every living thing down the river or out to sea in this case.
Would the residents of The Marshall Islands care to know why the sea is overtaking their shores and homes? I'm sure they do and rightfully so! I will tell the absolute truth about what is being orchestrated in a insidious plot to seize power and control of a future filled with utter doom and misery. The real culprit of so called "climate-change" or "global warming" is the Wind-Power Turbine Industry and their "clock-work" phony turbines.
All anyone needs to do is to follow the money. I began my research by finding a list of the top 10 "companies" in the industry and letting each fact direct me to the next. Now wait, stop and think. There are these monstrosities all over the globe, in the oceans brethren, purposely engaged in drastically altering the natural ebb and flow of God's natural systems. Utterly shameful! However, nothing is impossible for God to restore through the Grace and Anointing of the Lord, the Christ, and the Bride. May All Ears Hear The Living Word - Poetry in Motion - 2 Corinthians 6
Would the residents of The Marshall Islands care to know why the sea is overtaking their shores and homes? I'm sure they do and rightfully so! I will tell the absolute truth about what is being orchestrated in a insidious plot to seize power and control of a future filled with utter doom and misery. The real culprit of so called "climate-change" or "global warming" is the Wind-Power Turbine Industry and their "clock-work" phony turbines.
All anyone needs to do is to follow the money. I began my research by finding a list of the top 10 "companies" in the industry and letting each fact direct me to the next. Now wait, stop and think. There are these monstrosities all over the globe, in the oceans brethren, purposely engaged in drastically altering the natural ebb and flow of God's natural systems. Utterly shameful! However, nothing is impossible for God to restore through the Grace and Anointing of the Lord, the Christ, and the Bride. May All Ears Hear The Living Word - Poetry in Motion - 2 Corinthians 6
I was a Peace Corps volunteer at the other end of Micronesia and my flight stopped on Ksajelain on the way to Yap. I spent a week at a high school on an outer island where the average elevation was sea level. I shudder to think of what is happening there now. At the time, the Mironesia was a trust territory of the U.S., a responsibility we accepted from the U.N. post World War II. Many Micronisians took advantage of the situation and moved to the U.S. Now we might tell them they cannot do that? Where are our values or perhaps we need ask what are our values.
3
Not all that far away, the Chinese are building islands on sunken atolls to strengthen their claims to sovereignty: perhaps we should do the same for our victims, rather than allow them to be displaced entirely.
7
Thank you for this powerful story, wonderfully presented with an artful blend of words, photographs and video.
Everyone: please share with Republican Members of Congress--who voted yesterday in an act of petulant solipsism to undermine President Obama's efforts on climate change in Paris--and their staffers.
Everyone: please share with Republican Members of Congress--who voted yesterday in an act of petulant solipsism to undermine President Obama's efforts on climate change in Paris--and their staffers.
3
LOVE your work, Coral!
1
Good research. well written. But do you really believe Americans even care about an island nation 6000 miles away. With no electoral votes? If the same article was about Miami or Jacksonville, there would be an outcry and a summit, maybe even a congressional hearing and a task force.
3
In Hawai’i we have been the destination for a large percentage of these Micronesians.
They are poor people who subsisted on fishing. Now they have been plunked down into the city of Honolulu already over-populated with over one million people on the island of Oahu--where Honolulu and Waikiki are. In Honolulu we don’t live in the single family dwellings that one sees on the New Hawai’i 5-0. Most of us live in 295 sq foot studios---sometimes a family of four in this space. One house caught in a flood floated downstream, fell apart and was found to have 85 residents! The home owners had used plywood to separate off areas the size of a closet..not big enough for even a single bed--and charged $850 yo $1,000 a month--so the landlords were receiving up to $85,000 a month for one lousy tin roofed, tar paper shack. Or we live in high rises--not plush condos as found in Tribeca but little better than public housing.
1984 the Micronesians began coming to this island. Given living stipends, and rent vouchers these islanders slipped into a life of drinking all day, brawling, and creating an increasing crime wave--The Micronesians themselves aren’t criminals...but there is only so much room on this rock. They couldn’t even ply their trade of fishing...which is a large industry in the islands requiring powered trawlers not what the Micronesians were used to.
Oahu’s population tripled to a million in 30 yrs. We as a nation caused their dilemma.. Now must figure out solutions.
They are poor people who subsisted on fishing. Now they have been plunked down into the city of Honolulu already over-populated with over one million people on the island of Oahu--where Honolulu and Waikiki are. In Honolulu we don’t live in the single family dwellings that one sees on the New Hawai’i 5-0. Most of us live in 295 sq foot studios---sometimes a family of four in this space. One house caught in a flood floated downstream, fell apart and was found to have 85 residents! The home owners had used plywood to separate off areas the size of a closet..not big enough for even a single bed--and charged $850 yo $1,000 a month--so the landlords were receiving up to $85,000 a month for one lousy tin roofed, tar paper shack. Or we live in high rises--not plush condos as found in Tribeca but little better than public housing.
1984 the Micronesians began coming to this island. Given living stipends, and rent vouchers these islanders slipped into a life of drinking all day, brawling, and creating an increasing crime wave--The Micronesians themselves aren’t criminals...but there is only so much room on this rock. They couldn’t even ply their trade of fishing...which is a large industry in the islands requiring powered trawlers not what the Micronesians were used to.
Oahu’s population tripled to a million in 30 yrs. We as a nation caused their dilemma.. Now must figure out solutions.
5
Charles Darwin back in 1840's figured out how island atolls, like the Marshall Islands grow and keep pace with rising (and falling sea level). Well before humans started burning fossil fuels, past changes in sea levels rates have been very high and even the most alarmist predictions for future rates are within past geologic rates. Therefore any rational scientist would have to conclude the concerns expressed in this article are greatly exaggerated.
A more likely threat to Pacific islands, like the Marshalls, are too large a human population with associated environmental stress on their limited resources notably fresh water.
A more likely threat to Pacific islands, like the Marshalls, are too large a human population with associated environmental stress on their limited resources notably fresh water.
Darwin would flatly contradict you. The changes he so elegantly described were normal geological cycle changes- usually taking thousands of years. What's happening now is nothing like that. And- there are far more drowned "sea-mounts" in the ocean than there are atoll; where the "normal" changes - were still too fast for the coral to keep up.
2
The reason that humans took so long to develop civilization is because, as you noted, the climate was going through some changes. However, about 6000 years ago the climate stabilized and allowed our development.
The climate we are creating will destroy that civilization and, if we're lucky, a few bands of hunter/gatherers may survive and eke out an existence on the side of some mountains.
The climate we are creating will destroy that civilization and, if we're lucky, a few bands of hunter/gatherers may survive and eke out an existence on the side of some mountains.
3
Wrong. What Darwin explained was how the island kept pace with a subsiding volcano. There is a huge difference between the water going up and the island going down.
The rest of you post is denying that what's been observed is actually taking place. Rational scientists tend to lend credibility to what they observe.
The rest of you post is denying that what's been observed is actually taking place. Rational scientists tend to lend credibility to what they observe.
4
We have had dire warnings for decades about global warming, and have buried them in our subconscious minds for too long. There is irrefutable proof that our livs are going to be deeply effected within a few more of those decades. Warming waters around the globe bring another threat - the melting of billions of tone of methane which lie deep down in a frozen state. We MUST act in a robust and determines manner to change our reckless habits before it genuinely IS too late.And we will be the curse of future generations.
7
america exploded 23 ENORMOUS hydrogen bombs in th marshall is
bikini is still uninhabitable
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/bikini-atoll-nuclear-test-6...
odd this belated concern for these people now
bikini is still uninhabitable
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/bikini-atoll-nuclear-test-6...
odd this belated concern for these people now
8
Future generations will find it astonishing that there was ever once a stable sea level, and cities could exist along coastlines for hundreds or thousands of years.
5
many coastal cities in ancient times are now submerged, and have been for centuries
w a little luck there will be few future generations of humankind, and th plague will be over
w a little luck there will be few future generations of humankind, and th plague will be over
1
Sadly, it will be cheaper to relocate the islanders to the US mainland than deal with the potential sea rise. The article refers to oscillating ocean trade winds (and, currents, I would infer) that have caused the water level to rise. I wish that the writers had asked an oceanographer to explain the causes of this rather than leave the observation of rising water as caused by AGW. Further, if the water is rising, how do we know that it is a natural phenomena or man induced?
Jason, ask and ye shall receive.
Science's answer to your question is that the Pacific islands are constantly changing and adapting to different sea levels. But you don't have to rely on me. Read it for yourself:
Webb, Arthur P., Kench, Paul S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010). There is lots of press on this article if you want to google it, including:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-k...
Science's answer to your question is that the Pacific islands are constantly changing and adapting to different sea levels. But you don't have to rely on me. Read it for yourself:
Webb, Arthur P., Kench, Paul S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010). There is lots of press on this article if you want to google it, including:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-k...
1
What this article does not tell us is how often these islands flooded a century ago. I imagine it is just as often as they flood now. While I welcome the islanders to the USA, I think our responsibility is overstated. China and India emit far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than we do.
6
So we should base policy on your "imaginings"? Here's a link to cumulative CO2 emissions. The US has well over twice that of China.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.was...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.was...
1
Bravo to the NYT for its timely issuance of a fine piece of climate alarmism propaganda. And, yes, the story and photos pull at the heartstrings. The problem is that it’s bogus. There is no reference in this story to any science suggesting that the Pacific islands have suffered any net harm as a result of the ongoing rise in sea level, a process that began well before carbon was a potential factor. There is little dispute that sea levels in the Pacific Ocean have been rising at a rate of about 2 mm per year over the last 60 years. That’s about 12 cm or 5 inches over that period. However, there is no evidence that the Pacific islands have lost land-mass over this period of time. See Webb, Arthur P., Kench, Paul S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010). Webb and Kench studied 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size. According to the article, the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, some growing a lot bigger. According to Smithsonian.com, Kench told New Scientist that “It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown… But they won’t. The sea level will go up and the island will start responding.” These islands are atolls; they don’t act like ordinary land masses.
4
some day the people will have to leave those disappearing bumps on the ocean.
It silly to thing the islands themselves can be restored or saved.
It silly to thing the islands themselves can be restored or saved.
The progressive loss of low land is an indicator of the rising sea level. Man has changed the environment by clearing forests, killing all sorts of species, harvesting minerals, oil, coal and much else. In almost all cases some sort of population displacement takes place. There is no natural law or legal reason why a population is entitled to live in perpetuity at any location. Yes it is a tragedy to have to flee your homeland. However the ancestors of the inhabitants arrived there from elsewhere. Living at six feet maximum above sea level has certain risks. Humans have expanded into almost every corner of the globe. They live in places where cold, wet, hot and arid. As the effects of our disregard for the preservation of our planet grow there will be a contraction of population from the most extreme environs. The Marshall Islands are just a prelude to the main acts to come. For them there is no going back. All to soon most of their land will be under water.
2
It's cheaper to let the population from the Marshall Islands move to the U.S. instead of finding another way for our government to waste money. The climate change issues will take decades to resolve.
2
This sums up the problem with current "scientific" climate research. A true scientist applying the scientific method would be interested in "studying what were the causes of changing global trade winds" as opposed to "studying whether those changing trade winds have anything to do with climate change." The first is scientific analysis the later is attempting to fit data to a preconceived viewpoint. Unfortunately the later is indicative of supposedly objective climate research today. That is why so many skeptics remain.
"Changing global trade winds have raised sea levels in the South Pacific about a foot over the past 30 years, faster than elsewhere. Scientists are studying whether those changing trade winds have anything to do with climate change."
"Changing global trade winds have raised sea levels in the South Pacific about a foot over the past 30 years, faster than elsewhere. Scientists are studying whether those changing trade winds have anything to do with climate change."
7
What else could have caused it? It causes terrorism, cougar attacks in Alberta, hemorrhoids, etc. The list is endless.
1
I was very, very fortunate to have grown up on one of these amazing islands. We should do what we can to allow these very lovely people to live here. It is an investment in our world, and in a way of life that should be maintained. Please don't just look at the ROI for the U.S. - you probably aren't aware of the many billions of dollars we've spent building up and investing in Kwajalein. We owe these people far more than any of you probably realize. The impact of our strategic interests - from WWII through Bikini atomic tests to maintaining these islands as a strategic defense site and the little compensation we've given in return is pretty incredible and never really fully investigated or reported on. Thank you NYT for starting to shed a light but there is quite a lot more we could do both in terms of news coverage and in terms of addressing what will affect our children and grandchildren and beyond ... everywhere.
29
I also spent time with my family on Kwajalein and it was magical and beautiful. How tragic.
The irony is; these are the people we most need to learn from.
With a technology far in advance of the sea-faring skills of the Greeks and even Phoenicians - and social skills capable of maintaining a functioning society with severely limited space and resources- the Micronesians of 4,000 years ago knew how to live without destroying their environment.
We don't.
With a technology far in advance of the sea-faring skills of the Greeks and even Phoenicians - and social skills capable of maintaining a functioning society with severely limited space and resources- the Micronesians of 4,000 years ago knew how to live without destroying their environment.
We don't.
3
This is a beautifully written article. I have many questions, not about science, which is well grounded in spite of our ever present doubt and delay arguers (unfortunately, it's easier to do nothing, so they need do very little).
I don't think "saving" low-level islands is possible in the long term, which is tragic, but it is to some extent sadly something we all need to accept. Soon enough, many of the world's big cities and regions like Florida will suffer the same creep, if they haven't already. The conservative estimate by 2100 is 1.5 feet, but reality is supporting something more like 5 or 6 feet.
Action is necessary, but it needs to address the world's energy needs by developing, storing, and delivering clean renewable energy (and natgas is not "clean" just "cleaner", and that's only if you ignore many uncounted costs and side issues such as boom and bust, toxic waste, and earthquakes).
One can argue forever, but the big point is that we need to accept reality and get on with addressing the source of the problem. Time will not stop at 2100.
Here's a terrific short video about what is happening with the ocean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqXakbNspm8
A good source on sea level rise:
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
And a reliable overview:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
I don't think "saving" low-level islands is possible in the long term, which is tragic, but it is to some extent sadly something we all need to accept. Soon enough, many of the world's big cities and regions like Florida will suffer the same creep, if they haven't already. The conservative estimate by 2100 is 1.5 feet, but reality is supporting something more like 5 or 6 feet.
Action is necessary, but it needs to address the world's energy needs by developing, storing, and delivering clean renewable energy (and natgas is not "clean" just "cleaner", and that's only if you ignore many uncounted costs and side issues such as boom and bust, toxic waste, and earthquakes).
One can argue forever, but the big point is that we need to accept reality and get on with addressing the source of the problem. Time will not stop at 2100.
Here's a terrific short video about what is happening with the ocean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqXakbNspm8
A good source on sea level rise:
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
And a reliable overview:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
3
The good news is that some of the Marshall Islanders are taking pride in their heritage and looking at means of sustainable sea transport. Nuclear weapons testing made Bikini and Rongelap effectively uninhabitable, 'modernization' has taken away much of their culture, but they still fight to regain their heritage. Rising seas represent another challenge.
I have to say that I'm surprised at the doubting I see in the comments - there are many measures of advancing sea levels in the Marshalls.
I have to say that I'm surprised at the doubting I see in the comments - there are many measures of advancing sea levels in the Marshalls.
4
Take a look at these two articles. If you bother to look, you will see why today's NYT article does not sway the deniers.
Webb, Arthur P., Kench, Paul S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010). There are lots of write ups if you can't find the actual article.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-k...
Webb, Arthur P., Kench, Paul S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010). There are lots of write ups if you can't find the actual article.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-k...
1
The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing? Well duh, these islands have been above and below the water for thousands of years. These people's ancestors have been island hopping since the beginning. They have become static because of modern conveniences, (I.E. building materials, electricity, running water, automobiles etc}, the U.S. military is largely responsible since World War 2. They could dredge sand and increase the buffer zone, look what China has built in the Spratly Islands. To say that somehow the farce of global warming/climate change has anything to do with this is just more idiotic vitriol being spewed.
5
Re: "farce" - I'm wondering if you think carbon dioxide doens't absorb infrared radiation, or if you think the Earth doesn't emit any?
1
Small nations like this 'don't matter' to the world. That is, until as a result of global warming, your nice little tax haven disappears as well.
2
When the Atlantic begins to spread its waters on New Jersey, perhaps Christie will understand climate change a bit better.
3
Whatever deal is reached in Paris, it will be too late to help these islanders survive where they are living. Would any of the NYT readers care to live where their homes flood once a month (or more often)? The climate has already reached a point where sea level rise can't be reversed, only managed. The islanders will have to give up their entire way of life and relocate in a strange, unfamiliar land, totally disrupting their lives and bonds with one another.
All because of greedy oil corporations, who have long seen this coming, and politicians with their own political interests to protect. The Bible tells us to be stewards of the earth, and these powerful people have abused their positions of responsibility.
All because of greedy oil corporations, who have long seen this coming, and politicians with their own political interests to protect. The Bible tells us to be stewards of the earth, and these powerful people have abused their positions of responsibility.
2
I was particularly interested in the information about the US Military base. Thank you for an amazing article.The photography is stunning. Je suis un Marshall Islander!
2
The U. S. has an everlasting responsibility to assist the people of the Marshall Islands. We accepted that responsibility, after that location, during during World War II, was most valuable in our eventual victory in the Pacific, and must live by it. And, we must stand by its people now!
The developed world does, indeed, have an immense responsibility for our having used fossil fuels--and allowing Big Energy to profit from them--for years. In hindsight, nations built houses and villages in many of the wrong places--on barrier islands, in wetlands, near volcanic mountains and, yes, on remote islands. Its the classic case of "If we knew then what we know now..."
The City of Miami (alone) absorbed 126,000 refugees from Mariel, Cuba back in 1981. Those Cubans, like Germans, Scandinavian, Jewish, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. refugees before them have made valuable contributions to our nation in years past. And, no doubt, so will the Marshall Islanders, as well!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The developed world does, indeed, have an immense responsibility for our having used fossil fuels--and allowing Big Energy to profit from them--for years. In hindsight, nations built houses and villages in many of the wrong places--on barrier islands, in wetlands, near volcanic mountains and, yes, on remote islands. Its the classic case of "If we knew then what we know now..."
The City of Miami (alone) absorbed 126,000 refugees from Mariel, Cuba back in 1981. Those Cubans, like Germans, Scandinavian, Jewish, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. refugees before them have made valuable contributions to our nation in years past. And, no doubt, so will the Marshall Islanders, as well!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
29
and allowing Big Energy to profit from them...Where I live the Teachers Union pensions profited from them, should the Teachers be blamed?
1
The article observes: Under a 1986 compact, the roughly 70,000 residents of the Marshalls, because of their long military ties to Washington, are free to emigrate to the United States, a pass that will become more enticing as the water rises on the islands’ shores.
I observe: Ronald Reagan was president in 1986.
The article then goes on to note: “Our constituents are worried that the pledges you are committing the United States to will strengthen foreign economies at the expense of American workers,” 37 Republican senators wrote last month. “They are also skeptical about sending billions of their hard-earned dollars to government officials from developing nations.”
Once again, Republicans show themselves all too willing to negate American commitments internationally, including those made by their sainted leader.
Sure, I also would like billions of US taxpayer money to be put to work here in the US. I felt that way when Republican president George W. Bush committed not billions, but trillions, of dollars to war and failed rebuilding exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where were these 37 Republicans and/or their predecessors then?
I observe: Ronald Reagan was president in 1986.
The article then goes on to note: “Our constituents are worried that the pledges you are committing the United States to will strengthen foreign economies at the expense of American workers,” 37 Republican senators wrote last month. “They are also skeptical about sending billions of their hard-earned dollars to government officials from developing nations.”
Once again, Republicans show themselves all too willing to negate American commitments internationally, including those made by their sainted leader.
Sure, I also would like billions of US taxpayer money to be put to work here in the US. I felt that way when Republican president George W. Bush committed not billions, but trillions, of dollars to war and failed rebuilding exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where were these 37 Republicans and/or their predecessors then?
1
I think climate change is real, but I'm not sure the Marshalls should be its poster child. It is doubtless a component, but a number of Pacific islands suffer from long-term erosion and it's curious to see that "erosion" is not mentioned even once in the story,
3
I wonder if the 37 Senators who are objecting to help for those who have had their islands used as a nuclear testing zone are also opposed to supporting the current global Polio Vaccine inoculation program? US first has it's limits of sensibility in the face of human needs worldwide.
1
So, tell me, how much has the sea level risen around the Marshal Island? Erosion is a fact of life for any coastal area. These Island are all coast.
2
Sea level has risen 10-15 cm near the Marshall Islands, since 1980, according to this 2013 report from the Australian government:
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PC...
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PC...
1
So what if the Marshall Islands sink. Islands are formed and disappear all the time.
2
I thought about Venice when I read the article. The world would be a lesser place without it.
1
Two serious questions for liberals. First, do you even know where the Marshall islands are wo having to read the article? Second, do you believe global warming is the biggest threat facing this nation? Do you go to sleep thinking about global warming, ISIS or money concerns and your job?
1
Here's a question for you. Why do you listen more to the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign rather than the science?
2
That was three questions.
4
A question for you. How many inches has the sea level risen in the past 25 years?
1
I'd donate some $ to float their boat! Crowdsource!!!
It's nice to help people such as these poor islanders, who are perpetually vulnerable since they live at sea level. But the underlying premise behind the push to help them is absurd: The islanders are in danger of losing their homes because of the actions of rich nations--such as the United States. So, the U.S. is responsible for changes in the sea level. Of all the things America has been blamed for, this one stretches credulity.
Buried in this article's text is an inconvenient truth: The sea level in this region has risen about a food over three decades, but there's no evidence it's because of climate change. The projections of future sea level rises are where the real concern lies. Too bad virtually all the projections of the warmists so far have proven false. So, this article is a classic example of progressive demagoguery.
Buried in this article's text is an inconvenient truth: The sea level in this region has risen about a food over three decades, but there's no evidence it's because of climate change. The projections of future sea level rises are where the real concern lies. Too bad virtually all the projections of the warmists so far have proven false. So, this article is a classic example of progressive demagoguery.
1
Wind changes the sea level in unpredictable ways, sometimes water piles up on one coast and drops on another. The El Nino is one of the best illustrations of this. The predictions false? Only if you read a few select web sites and news agencies.
1
Susan,
Church and White (2011) finds statistically significant SLR rates of change in 1880, 1900, 1961 and then another more recently (only if they use the non tide gauge data from Jason/Topex), the tide gauge set shows no acceleration over the entire period, aside from the earlier ones, and no sign of any.
"from the in situ data.
The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from
1900 to 2009 is 1.7
±
0.2 mm year
-
1
and since 1961 is 1.9
±
0.4 mm year
-
1
. There is
considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a
statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009
±
0.003 mm year
-
2
and
0.009
±
0.004 mm year
-
2
, respectively. "
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/628/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10712-0...
Church and White (2011) finds statistically significant SLR rates of change in 1880, 1900, 1961 and then another more recently (only if they use the non tide gauge data from Jason/Topex), the tide gauge set shows no acceleration over the entire period, aside from the earlier ones, and no sign of any.
"from the in situ data.
The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from
1900 to 2009 is 1.7
±
0.2 mm year
-
1
and since 1961 is 1.9
±
0.4 mm year
-
1
. There is
considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a
statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009
±
0.003 mm year
-
2
and
0.009
±
0.004 mm year
-
2
, respectively. "
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/628/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10712-0...
1
Great article!!
1
Thank you for writing an important article. As mentioned, the photography is excellent in giving an impression of the geography of atolls. As one who called Pacific Islands home for eleven years, I know how vulnerable are the islets of atolls. The people who live on them are the first to feel the effects of rising sea levels.
Correction: The Marshall Islands are in the Northern Pacific Ocean; the text mistakenly identifies them as lying in the South Pacific.
Correction: The Marshall Islands are in the Northern Pacific Ocean; the text mistakenly identifies them as lying in the South Pacific.
3
Erosion happs all the time in coastal areas. The se Island are all coast. Obviously there is severe erosion. I doubt if it has anything to do with climate change. The Pacific is a big place, and someone who can't tell North from South should be treated with some skepticism.
1
It's interesting to see how the world around us changes. It has been changing for the 5 billion years that the earth has been in existence, yet to think that CO2 increasing from 0.03% to 0.04% of our atmosphere is causing this is beyond any rational argument. Further to believe that man can make any material difference in what the earth and the sun decide to do is infantile.
Let's stop the mass redistribution of wealth and growth of government that all of this climate change (formerly called global warming) rhetoric will cause merely to feed what in its simplest terms is the largest most invasive ruse ever propagated on a society.
Let's focus instead on adapting to whatever nature presents.
Let's stop the mass redistribution of wealth and growth of government that all of this climate change (formerly called global warming) rhetoric will cause merely to feed what in its simplest terms is the largest most invasive ruse ever propagated on a society.
Let's focus instead on adapting to whatever nature presents.
Come back in a couple of decades. While you ignore the problem that is becoming more obvious by the day, we will all suffer. You use so many government services, you remind me: "don't let government mess with my Medicare".
Please get rid of the limited vision and look wider afield.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
This visual feast is politics neutral, so perhaps if you don't accept NASA you might at least take a look:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/?eocn=topnav&eoci=home
Please get rid of the limited vision and look wider afield.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
This visual feast is politics neutral, so perhaps if you don't accept NASA you might at least take a look:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/?eocn=topnav&eoci=home
2
We've increased CO2, a known greenhouse gas by 40% and as a result we now have an energy imbalance. As James Hansen noted in a 2012 TED Talk: "The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391 ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to restore energy balance and prevent further warming."
3
"Let's stop the mass redistribution of wealth and growth of government that all of this climate change (formerly called global warming) rhetoric will cause merely to feed what in its simplest terms is the largest most invasive ruse ever propagated on a society." you must have really been scandalized by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Let's focus instead on adapting to whatever nature presents." Mankind has been remaking the environment for 50,000+ years and you want to go back to that now? Not of lot followers for that but somehow I think US Citizens would fall for it!
"Let's focus instead on adapting to whatever nature presents." Mankind has been remaking the environment for 50,000+ years and you want to go back to that now? Not of lot followers for that but somehow I think US Citizens would fall for it!
We should send the politicians who disregard climate change on an everlasting vacation to these island.
7
I agree. Along with the fossil fuel company execs who buy their denial, and the PR firms hired to deny the science.
Consider that the Pentagon recently "released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages."
And consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? Imagine the response if they were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lessor one) named IS?
Consider that the Pentagon recently "released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages."
And consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? Imagine the response if they were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lessor one) named IS?
1
Interesting conclusion to the story" "Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar of India listened to his pleas, then responded brusquely, 'So what?'"
That's a response I would expect from Americans, particularly on the political right. To put it more clearly: "They're far-away who aren't like us; why should we worry about them?"
We live in an era when human lives are just one more throw-away item. In that case, why should we expect anything significant to come out of Paris?
That's a response I would expect from Americans, particularly on the political right. To put it more clearly: "They're far-away who aren't like us; why should we worry about them?"
We live in an era when human lives are just one more throw-away item. In that case, why should we expect anything significant to come out of Paris?
3
Unfortunately, this country is not going to care until it's Manhattan island that's under water.
If you deny climate science, please make sure you tell your children and grandchildren what you believe. I want them to know who to blame when their lives are wrecked.
If you deny climate science, please make sure you tell your children and grandchildren what you believe. I want them to know who to blame when their lives are wrecked.
51
Manhattan Island will not be under water. Exactly which aspect of "cliamte science" makes you think this might happen?
You're right, of course, except for the boiling frog syndrome. Miami is already going under. It's not making a difference to deniers either.
I have long been a believer in the "significant social event" theory. Nothing except a genuine catastrophe that kills at least many thousands at a stroke will dent the wall of denial that too many people have erected around themselves. And then it will be too late. (It probably is anyway.)
I have long been a believer in the "significant social event" theory. Nothing except a genuine catastrophe that kills at least many thousands at a stroke will dent the wall of denial that too many people have erected around themselves. And then it will be too late. (It probably is anyway.)
2
Robert Orr: you seem to have missed Sandy. Of course not all of Manhattan, much of it is quite high up. The last time greenhouse concentration was this high, see level was something like 200 feet up from where it is now. It will take a while for the rapid escalation to result in its inevitable consequences, but this is not a good reason to ignore the problem. Many cities have large areas at 3-5 feet above sea level, which is arguably going to be vulnerable in 2 or 3 generations, depending on the rate of rise. Evidence is pouring in that this rate is accelerating ahead of the lowest estimates (Justin Gillis says a foot per century in his fine 12 questions, which ignores that the range is actually 1.5 - 6 feet by 2100). What part of acceleration don't you understand.
1
The problem you face living on an island in the middle of the ocean. Did these not think at some point the water would over run these island?
Wake up and face the facts its time to move somewhere else.
Wake up and face the facts its time to move somewhere else.
6
You've never known anyone born to circumstances that are hard to overcome? One is not to blame for one's habitation. So many poor people live in places that are less than hospitable, though I'd say you're right the Bangladeshis and Syrians might be considered less fortunate in their choice of birthplace and choice (sic) to be poor.
2
Sea level was stable for many thousands of years. That's why London was built at sea level 2000 years ago and that's why we know have hundreds of coastal cities at risk due to anthropogenic global warming.
2
People have been living on these islands for 1500 years. Wake up and face the facts that climate change is real.
2
These countries are right to ask for help from the nations that have helped cause their problem. Rather than passing debt onto their taxpayers, however, these nations should enact a carbon tax. It's the oil companies who should be paying the price, not the taxpayers.
13
The oil companies would not exist, unless they had customers. That's you and me.
2
Sorry, you are very much disinformed. Sea levels have been constantly rising for the past 12,000 years; humans have NOT caused any appreciable increase in the rate of rise. Even Wikipedia article on the subject would provide some enlightment to the panickers.
2
"A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise," John A. Church and Neil J. White, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006GRL (2006).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826
2
SO WHAT! Atlantis went under water. It happens
2
Atlantis??!!
2
So will all the nations of the world now step up to accept these victims of global warming into their midst as environmental refugees? Or will the message be "suck it up" and figure a way to survive or die? I'm looking eagerly to hear what the Paris Global Warming Summit leaders have to say in this regard. Obama has opined that he is optimistic about solutions in the long run. The Republicans at home have consciously distanced themselves from whatever promises or commitments that he makes. On this basis, I'm pessimistic about the chances for survival of the Marshall Islands population . . . and all of us. Which will it be . . . the end of existing life on the planet by global warming or by nuclear winter? The politician offer us bleak alternatives.
34
This is an old story that the climate change lobby fishes out every few years. I still remember the stories from 70's and 80s that said Bangladesh will disappear in 20 years with rising sea levels. Guess what, it is 40 years now and Bangladesh is still the same size and shape it was. Small island are formed and disappear all the time. Even if one disappears, you can be sure one appeared somewhere else. In fact the fear in the 1970's was Global Cooling. There was a Newsweek cover story in 1975 on Global Cooling. The link is here
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Global warming was invented by Margaret Thatcher's British Tories in 1979 to break the back of Arthur Scargill's Coal Miners Union by labeling coal as "dirty fuel". The truth was that British coal was uneconomical and the Tories wanted to shut the Coal mines besides striking a blow against their rival Labor party. The climate change lobby realized what a gravy train Global Warming was and they have been riding it ever since. Because there is zero consistent evidence of Global Warming or Global Cooling, the name was changed to climate change to capture everything Mother Nature dishes out. With helpful pushes from the liberal media and summit happy politicians who can use the story to distract from real issues facing the electorate, the bandwagon has been rolling ever since.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Global warming was invented by Margaret Thatcher's British Tories in 1979 to break the back of Arthur Scargill's Coal Miners Union by labeling coal as "dirty fuel". The truth was that British coal was uneconomical and the Tories wanted to shut the Coal mines besides striking a blow against their rival Labor party. The climate change lobby realized what a gravy train Global Warming was and they have been riding it ever since. Because there is zero consistent evidence of Global Warming or Global Cooling, the name was changed to climate change to capture everything Mother Nature dishes out. With helpful pushes from the liberal media and summit happy politicians who can use the story to distract from real issues facing the electorate, the bandwagon has been rolling ever since.
4
Coastal Bangladesh is in fact increasingly underwater and people with already precarious lives are displaced. The Marshall Island dwellers were put on their shrinking islands when the US removed them from the Bikini Islands to facilitate our weapons testing. Of course we owe them. The pace of climate change in an age of fossil fuel use is undisputed. Science is neither liberal nor conservative. Coal is dirty. Just examine the lungs of any long time miner.
dirty. Just ask any survivor of
dirty. Just ask any survivor of
13
To take one of your many incorrect points, "A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.
"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked."
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cool...
"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked."
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cool...
3
Yes coal is dirty but oil, nuclear, wind, solar energy all have their drawbacks including some of them being unreliable, inconsistent, uneconomical sources with huge hidden costs. The point of my post was that bad ideas can travel far given the right financial incentives. For most of earth's history, it was covered in sheets of ice in a series of ice ages that lasted 100's of millions of years punctuated by inter-glacial warming periods that lasted a few 1000 years. The sum total of earth's warming periods is not even 1 % of the time it spent in ice ages. The entire human civilization is less than 5,000 years, contained in the period where the earth emerged from the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Between 1200 AD and 1600 AD, the earth inexplicably started cooling and Europe slipped into its dark ages with the wheel of human progress moved into the hands of the Arabs and Muslims. There is a warming trend since the industrial revolution started 150 years ago but that is no guarantee that the next ice age is not around the corner. Despite what the Sierra club may tell you, stopping having children and letting the earth go back to nature is not going to change anything besides misguiding a few gullible souls.
1
The initial nuclear tests relocated only 167 inhabitants of the island. However, because of this, the United States now (rightfully so) must work to keep 50,000+ inhabitants of the Marshall Islands afloat. It's nice to see that we didn't just use their territory for experimentation and leave them to sink into the South Pacific. It's comforting to see that we are still reaching out to try and help the Islands that sacrificed so much of their natural beauty for us back during the Cold War.
3
The target they are trying to reach in Paris is 2 degrees C above preindustrial temperatures. Yet 2C will be a catastrophe according to a new paper written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields. The first line in their paper reads:
"There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today.”
The extreme storms that Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move. So our "safe" 2C target includes enough sea level rise to render all our coastal cities uninhabitable and unsurvivable storms and hundreds of millions of refugees.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
"There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today.”
The extreme storms that Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move. So our "safe" 2C target includes enough sea level rise to render all our coastal cities uninhabitable and unsurvivable storms and hundreds of millions of refugees.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
2
erik,
Thank you for pointing out the breadth and scope of the natural variation, norms and variables of the planet.
As it was warmer than even 2C globally 3 times since the Holocene began (within 3200 years of today), a 1C change is well-within Holocene norms.
The paper you refer to was widely criticized by even some of the most alarmed scientists.
"The backfire
The cited criticisms of the paper all make valid points. The criticisms of Mann and Trenberth are somewhat surprising to me, since I have seen them support papers that are at least as dubious as Hansen et al. Apart from the paper’s flaws, I suspect some of the backlash from these scientists is associated with the fact that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and is an integrative, interdisciplinary assessment that challenges the IPCC and other established assessment reports. Revkin cites Tad Pfeffer: “One of the things that troubles me most is that the rapid-fire publication of unsettled results in highly visible venues creates the impression that the scientific community has no idea what’s going on.” There is clearly a concern that such independent assessments, especially by well known and/or reputable scientists, can undermine the authority and messaging of ‘establishment’ assessment and scientists."
http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/
Thank you for pointing out the breadth and scope of the natural variation, norms and variables of the planet.
As it was warmer than even 2C globally 3 times since the Holocene began (within 3200 years of today), a 1C change is well-within Holocene norms.
The paper you refer to was widely criticized by even some of the most alarmed scientists.
"The backfire
The cited criticisms of the paper all make valid points. The criticisms of Mann and Trenberth are somewhat surprising to me, since I have seen them support papers that are at least as dubious as Hansen et al. Apart from the paper’s flaws, I suspect some of the backlash from these scientists is associated with the fact that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and is an integrative, interdisciplinary assessment that challenges the IPCC and other established assessment reports. Revkin cites Tad Pfeffer: “One of the things that troubles me most is that the rapid-fire publication of unsettled results in highly visible venues creates the impression that the scientific community has no idea what’s going on.” There is clearly a concern that such independent assessments, especially by well known and/or reputable scientists, can undermine the authority and messaging of ‘establishment’ assessment and scientists."
http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/
2
Thank you for linking to a fossil fuel funded web site. You've shown where you get your science.
2
Is it the writer who is uninformed, or is that his expectation of an audience hungry for "proof?" Atolls and barrier islands erode until they submerge. This phenomenon starts the day they are formed, and has been going on since the introduction of water on the planet. Rarely, given peculiar currents or unusual sea bottom configurations these formations may actually build up.
Are the editors so eager for a carbon tax that they will support drivel like this article by actually publishing it?
Are the editors so eager for a carbon tax that they will support drivel like this article by actually publishing it?
5
I'm surprised when lay persons like yourself think you know more about climate than the thousands of P.h.D climatologists who've studied this for decades.
Equally shocking, you think your readers are ignorant enough to listen to you.
Equally shocking, you think your readers are ignorant enough to listen to you.
3
" Atolls and barrier islands erode until they submerge. This phenomenon starts the day they are formed, and has been going on since the introduction of water on the planet."
Incorrect. Living coral keeps up with the erosion (up to a point) of the original seamount which is how Pacific Islanders persisted, thrived and voyaged for 3000 years. Ocean acidification and the speed of sea-level rise imperils the ability of the coral to keep pace with seamount subsidence and the islands are disappearing with speed.
As it happens, earth system processes are quite complex and require years of expertise to understand. Fortunately we have such experts, putting in the years of work, to develop our understanding. Those experts disagree with your opinion on climate change.
The difference is the experts have data and observations while you have ... what precisely?
Incorrect. Living coral keeps up with the erosion (up to a point) of the original seamount which is how Pacific Islanders persisted, thrived and voyaged for 3000 years. Ocean acidification and the speed of sea-level rise imperils the ability of the coral to keep pace with seamount subsidence and the islands are disappearing with speed.
As it happens, earth system processes are quite complex and require years of expertise to understand. Fortunately we have such experts, putting in the years of work, to develop our understanding. Those experts disagree with your opinion on climate change.
The difference is the experts have data and observations while you have ... what precisely?
7
When people bring politics and money into the debate about the exhilarated rate at which our planet is changing, leads me to believe they don't understand the very simple science behind the rapid change.
1
The content of this story is startling, to be sure, but I found the article amazing on another front--the photography used to illustrate it, especially the film footage. What an extraordinary way to convey the essence of the piece, motion pictures clearing demonstrating how waves crash down and erode unprotected waterfronts, or sea walls and adjacent structures rendered useless by the rising seas. Stunning reporting through photography; congratulations!
15
How we deal with relocating the people of the Marshall Islands can become a model for how we treat people in the 50 states when our relocation becomes necessary. We can learn to do it well or we can learn to do it badly.
This will help determine how difficult the problem will be on a large scale and how much social unrest it will cause.
This will help determine how difficult the problem will be on a large scale and how much social unrest it will cause.
6
Except The Marshall islands have a total population of 70K and already are pseudo US residents and don't exactly need your invitation to relocate here
1
We need to move any of the Marshall Islanders who wish to move to the US to come now. Why pour a terrific amount of money into a project that will before long be washed away? By moving now, the Islanders have a chance to start a new life before they become ill or worse, washed out to sea.
83
See levels in Hawai'i are decreasing; isn't it a more appropriate place to resettle the displaced islanders than Minnesota?
1
I agree. We are past the point of saving these islands (and most of the worlds coasts).
It is time to do what we can to save what we can- and acknowledge that we will have to abandon large areas which we used to call home.
We could have done something. We chose not to do so. We would rather save a couple bucks today,not paying higher electricity costs, and end up having our grandchildren pay for us.
And they will pay. And pay. And pay. Countless generations will pay for the greed and resource misuse of two hundred years.
It is time to do what we can to save what we can- and acknowledge that we will have to abandon large areas which we used to call home.
We could have done something. We chose not to do so. We would rather save a couple bucks today,not paying higher electricity costs, and end up having our grandchildren pay for us.
And they will pay. And pay. And pay. Countless generations will pay for the greed and resource misuse of two hundred years.
This article is an op-ed piece masquerading as journalism. The Times intones that The Scientists tell us this or that. We'll all be underwater in 50 years. And 50 years ago there were similarly alarmist pronouncements that we would all be underwater now. Which scientists? What kind? All scientists? Of course not. Instead, to the extent there is any consensus, there is widespread agreement among The Scientists that fossil fuel use contributes to global warming. And reducing emissions will help to curb global warming. Beyond that it becomes a religious debate. The right argues this climate change stuff is a crunchy granola plot to destroy the industrial world. The left suggests that having all Americans abandon fossil fuel transport and instead ride bicycles with little cabooses and safety flags will reverse or stop global warming. Maybe it will. Maybe not. But the Times does not linger over such inconvenient uncertainties. And where this becomes important is seen in this story. The Marshall Islands are sinking. OK. How fast? Not certain. When will they all be underwater? Not certain. How many people are affected? 70,000 very nice islanders who have a treaty right to emigrate to the US. And what do we do about it? Spend hundreds of billions over the next decade to fend off what might be the inevitable fate of these islands? This is religious fanaticism turning rational public policy on its head.
4
More propaganda on "climate change", the latest bogeyman scare tactic. The climate is changing because it has always changed.
5
Not at the rate it has been changing since 1950s. Are you trying to suggest that the pollution of billions of people does not effect the earth and its atmosphere? Beijing? Rio?
1
So because forest fires have started naturally by lightning means arson doesn't exist.
You aren't going to win any logic contests.
You aren't going to win any logic contests.
2
Authors,
You seem to be mistaken, I was sure you would want to note this as NOAA is the source.
SLR Marshall Islands is 1.91 mm.yr since 1950
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1...
No acceleration despite 65 years of human C02 emissions.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/595.rlrdata
This article is, therefore, based on what?
You seem to be mistaken, I was sure you would want to note this as NOAA is the source.
SLR Marshall Islands is 1.91 mm.yr since 1950
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1...
No acceleration despite 65 years of human C02 emissions.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/595.rlrdata
This article is, therefore, based on what?
7
Please read article.
2
The NOAA link you provide has data for Wake Island, nearly a 1000 miles to the NNW of the Marshalls. Without the meta data for the PSMSL data you provide, it's impossible to tell where these data are from.
2
Here's a better source on sea level rise:
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
And a reliable overview:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
And a reliable overview:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
2
Isn't it true that rather than a "long affiliation with the military", we have actually destroyed or co-opted their homeland? Aren't these islands under some kind of so-called "protection" by the U.S.? Why are these people allowed to live under such terrible conditions? Didn't we move them here at one time? Or, am I thinking of another group of people we just don't care about?
1
Why not just bring 'em all over to the good ol' USA? If its all our fault & these individuals are playing Gilligan and cannot get off the Island- the 'forced migration' is the next route for all our billions. Oh, but wait! This will help the economy!
2
"As the burning of fossil fuels increases heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere..."
This article fails to mention that animal agriculture is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Stop eating meat; it's the easiest thing for a regular person to do to help the environment. Methane is twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
This article fails to mention that animal agriculture is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Stop eating meat; it's the easiest thing for a regular person to do to help the environment. Methane is twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
1
That's open one piece of the picture. I agree that moderation is key, and red meat in particular is harmful in many ways, but the absolutism coming from vegans drives people away, and since we need everyone, I wish they would be less intolerant. Even vegetarians are unacceptable to vegans, and that unhelpful.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html
2
The Marshall Islands are coral atolls that rise and fall based on sea levels. This article is pure propagamda. So when sea levels vary by hundreds of feet have they have done in the past and will continue to do so, the Marshall Islands will adapt accordingly.
4
London was built at sea level 2000 years ago because for thousands of years sea level had been stable. We have hundreds of coastal cities that are threatened now. To lose functionality of all our port cities and have to deal with hundreds of millions of refugees will lead to economic collapse, making the planet ungovernable.
2
You are completely and entirely incorrect in your opinion of how coral atolls operate. The speed of sea-level rise compared to coral growth rate, particularly when further stressed by elevated ocean temperatures and seawater pH changes is the key factor.
These islands are being (have been) pushed beyond the threshold of adaptation.
Sorry, but that is the scientific reality.
These islands are being (have been) pushed beyond the threshold of adaptation.
Sorry, but that is the scientific reality.
6
erik,
London built sea walls in the 1920's to cope with the floods which were greater then than any time since, despite all the human C02 since and before the 1920's.
Sea levels past were not stable, in fact they have been much greater and much lesser over the centuries - the below castle was at the waterfront when built, now look:
"The Norman castle at Pevensey Bay is one of the most historic sites in Britain. It is built inside of a Roman wall, and was William the Conqueror’s headquarters. It was also used as a defense outpost by Brits and Americans in WWII."
It is currently several miles from the sea, but at the time when the Romans and Normans built the structures, the water lapped right up to the edge of the stone. The map below shows the bay 900 years ago, and the current seashore as a dashed line."
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMAG0413.jpg
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMAG0413.jpg
At present NOAA reports from closely examined tide gauges a SLR of 1.7 - 1.8 mm/yr, not accelerating.
London built sea walls in the 1920's to cope with the floods which were greater then than any time since, despite all the human C02 since and before the 1920's.
Sea levels past were not stable, in fact they have been much greater and much lesser over the centuries - the below castle was at the waterfront when built, now look:
"The Norman castle at Pevensey Bay is one of the most historic sites in Britain. It is built inside of a Roman wall, and was William the Conqueror’s headquarters. It was also used as a defense outpost by Brits and Americans in WWII."
It is currently several miles from the sea, but at the time when the Romans and Normans built the structures, the water lapped right up to the edge of the stone. The map below shows the bay 900 years ago, and the current seashore as a dashed line."
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMAG0413.jpg
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMAG0413.jpg
At present NOAA reports from closely examined tide gauges a SLR of 1.7 - 1.8 mm/yr, not accelerating.
1
The scale of the alarmism campaign that has been constructed by corrupt scientists, politicians and the media is astounding.
5
So every single major scientific body in the world has intentionally fudged the data from all around the globe to make it look like it's warming, gotten every single university and government in the world to go along, and managed to hide this fact from the world. Right.
If this is then case, then
Why are Greenland and Antarctica losing 120 cubic miles of ice every year? And why has the melting of ice from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica doubled since 2009?
Why did the 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park at its founding in 1910 melt leaving only 25?
Why are glaciers around the entire world under similar accelerating retreat?
Why does sea level rise continue to accelerate and why does the acidification of the ocean continue to accelerate?
Why are plants and animals moving higher in elevation or towards the poles if they can?
Why did 14 of the 15 warmest years in the historical record all occur this century?
Why is the extinction rate in the tropics now 10,000 times the background rate?
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy to get Americans’ tax dollars, wonder how we got the rest of the world to go along with our liberal tax scheme?
If this is then case, then
Why are Greenland and Antarctica losing 120 cubic miles of ice every year? And why has the melting of ice from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica doubled since 2009?
Why did the 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park at its founding in 1910 melt leaving only 25?
Why are glaciers around the entire world under similar accelerating retreat?
Why does sea level rise continue to accelerate and why does the acidification of the ocean continue to accelerate?
Why are plants and animals moving higher in elevation or towards the poles if they can?
Why did 14 of the 15 warmest years in the historical record all occur this century?
Why is the extinction rate in the tropics now 10,000 times the background rate?
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy to get Americans’ tax dollars, wonder how we got the rest of the world to go along with our liberal tax scheme?
2
It is very, very simple science. Everything predicted 3 decades ago is coming true.
Even Exxon admits climate change is real and human caused. How does that that fact square with your "alarmism campaign?"
1
Pacific Island Nations suffer disproportionate impacts from climate change despite contributing less than 1% to CO2 emissions that cause them. Rising sea level is just one threat. More extreme storms or hydrological events in the form of heavy rainfall during La Niña events, deep droughts during El Niño events, cyclones and storm surge all conspire to excellarate land loss, create food insecurity as well as place populations at risk of worsening endemic infectious disease outbreaks. This is especially true in urban Pacific Island environments where rapid rates of population growth have led to inadequate infrastructure and the building of unsafe homes in unsafe locations. 70% of health infrastructure in Pacific Islands are located within 500 meters of a coastline or river making them highly vulnerable to damage during storms or flooding. Smart adaptation development that assures infrastructure upgrades (safe water and sanitation), building codes and safe, adequate health infrastructure are needed. With limited economies of scale this is a tall order for Pacific Island Nations. The US and other big CO2 emitters need to step up to the plate and assist in the cost of building resilient urban communities through out the Pacific Region. We also need to ratify the UNFCCC once and for all. Pacific Islanders lives depend upon it.
6
Well put!
Eileen:
Below is a quote from your post - none of what you list is occurring and is not connected to C02 (aside from rhetorically), ENSO is a natural phenomenon as are its constellation of affects. While we have been warned about the issues you raise, they have not happened, when they do happen, they are not outside normal variation, and even the IPCC SREX (extremes) clarifies this.
"More extreme storms or hydrological events in the form of heavy rainfall during La Niña events, deep droughts during El Niño events, cyclones and storm surge all conspire to excellarate land loss, create food insecurity as well as place populations at risk of worsening endemic infectious disease outbreaks."
Below is a quote from your post - none of what you list is occurring and is not connected to C02 (aside from rhetorically), ENSO is a natural phenomenon as are its constellation of affects. While we have been warned about the issues you raise, they have not happened, when they do happen, they are not outside normal variation, and even the IPCC SREX (extremes) clarifies this.
"More extreme storms or hydrological events in the form of heavy rainfall during La Niña events, deep droughts during El Niño events, cyclones and storm surge all conspire to excellarate land loss, create food insecurity as well as place populations at risk of worsening endemic infectious disease outbreaks."
1
Your unsupported assertions are incorrect. "2015 Sets a New Record for Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes and Typhoons" http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/record-most-category-4-or-5...
And here is a link to a paper showing Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html
So yes, there is a connection to CO2.
And here is a link to a paper showing Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html
So yes, there is a connection to CO2.
So Republicans will fight US aid to submerged people on "behalf the the American taxpayer." How about a real tax on the corporations that have directly benefitted from the harmful emissions?
21
I thought it was global warming?
climate change is at best, questionable. In the light of historical global planetary fluctuations, this is quite normal. I'm sure though that isis terrorists make sure to wear sunblock.
climate change is at best, questionable. In the light of historical global planetary fluctuations, this is quite normal. I'm sure though that isis terrorists make sure to wear sunblock.
3
Call it anything you wish. Yes the planet has always been changing but not at this rapid rate.
Are you trying to suggest the pollution of billions of people has no effect on the planet and its atmosphere?
Very, very simple science.
Are you trying to suggest the pollution of billions of people has no effect on the planet and its atmosphere?
Very, very simple science.
1
It was Republicans who changed the wording. Since words are approximations of meaning, here's a more complete version:
The accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which results in disruption of our planetary circulation (climate change).
There, feel better?
The accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is increasing the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which results in disruption of our planetary circulation (climate change).
There, feel better?
1
Susan,
Said accumulation to take place most-especially in the area of the troposphere, here is the projections and predictions (which must be met to validate the AGW theory as postulated), versus observed measurement of actual data:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d0fb7bc5970c-pi
Models based on the IPCC projections, which flowed from the work of James Hansen, and Hansen's own models, overstate the warming by vast amounts, the same can be seen over the long trend since the LIA ended, or over the last 20 years, even in all the major data sets, further, with the troposphere failing to meet the 'simple settled physics' required by Hansen or the IPCC, if this were actual science, climate science would call 'all stop' till the matter was settled, as the lack of formulaic warming is a key underpinning of the thesis.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1995/to...
"when observation does not match experiment it is wrong"
Dr. Richard Feynman
Said accumulation to take place most-especially in the area of the troposphere, here is the projections and predictions (which must be met to validate the AGW theory as postulated), versus observed measurement of actual data:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d0fb7bc5970c-pi
Models based on the IPCC projections, which flowed from the work of James Hansen, and Hansen's own models, overstate the warming by vast amounts, the same can be seen over the long trend since the LIA ended, or over the last 20 years, even in all the major data sets, further, with the troposphere failing to meet the 'simple settled physics' required by Hansen or the IPCC, if this were actual science, climate science would call 'all stop' till the matter was settled, as the lack of formulaic warming is a key underpinning of the thesis.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1995/to...
"when observation does not match experiment it is wrong"
Dr. Richard Feynman
1
Migration is an integral part of human history. Peoples have reacted to changing environmental conditions and events or faced extinction. Volcanoes erupt, drought. disease, pestilence, war are all part of existence...Those that choose to remain die; those who adapt have a better chance of survival..I am sure that island life is not a human right living in a violent, changing environment. People groups migrated to North America...some theories show Pacific Islanders moved to South America. Marshall Islanders are no different..Refusing to leave a sinking ship is a sign of mental illness. My ancestors left Kansas for the NW after experiencing wildfires, cyclones, droughts, and Indian attacks....I am glad they did.
13
There are now hundreds of coastal cities in the world threatened by sea level rise. The cost of losing them is practically incalculable. Without a stable shoreline for centuries as the ice sheets melt we will have no port cities and hundreds of millions of refugees. Economic and state collapse would ensue.
Oh, and a recent bombshell paper by James Hansen notes that with continued high emissions this scenario will play out in a few decades.
Oh, and a recent bombshell paper by James Hansen notes that with continued high emissions this scenario will play out in a few decades.
2
"So what?" may as well be the short-sighted, "what's in it for me right now" theme of elected Republican officials. They will stand in the way of helping these people, to whom much is owed in support of the military the Republicans claim to revere.
3
I'm curious was the MOBIL sign at the start of the video, a touch of irony or purposeful and righteous slam at the "oil"igarchs.
Maybe using oil industry.tax breaks to relocate the islanders would help.
Maybe using oil industry.tax breaks to relocate the islanders would help.
2
Wouldn't it be an exquisite justice if the constituents of the 37 Republican Senators were to be faced with tornados, floods, drought, famine, wild fires, ,massive loss of jobs, etc. and the rest of the US told them "go it on your own"?
15
your religious alarmism aside, none of this is happening anywhere in the world in a way that is any different than past cycles
Consider that the Pentagon recently "released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages."
And consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? (and this also goes for those paying the bribes) Imagine the response if they were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lessor one) named IS?
And consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? (and this also goes for those paying the bribes) Imagine the response if they were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lessor one) named IS?
3
Not sure what your point is - if any?
1
What I find odd is, that the Cayman Islands which are even lower than the Marshall Islands are not experiencing the same issue and are seeing new construction spending rising. Could this be the nature of atolls?
12
Absolutely. It is a fact that atolls are always sinking. The uppermost part often stays above water because new coral grows as the underlying volcanic structure sinks into the earth's crust. However, sometimes sinking occurs too fast and the coral can't keep up, or there is a change in climate (for the cooler) and the coral can no longer survive.
1
You are incorrect. Easy to verify.
http://www.caymaninstitute.org.ky/pdf/sea_level_rise_report.pdf
http://www.caymaninstitute.org.ky/pdf/sea_level_rise_report.pdf
2
"Rising and falling sea levels over relatively short periods do not indicate long-term trends. An assessment of hundreds and thousands of years shows that what seems an irregular phenomenon today is in fact nothing new..." Dr. Dorit Sivan.
There are a variety of ways to measure sea level. Most of them are wrong. The seas have been rising since the last Ice Age. The trend has not accelerated. Sea levels are going down in Alaska, down in Sweden, down in Finland. Sea levels are going up in Louisiana, up in NYC. They're pretty flat in Hawaii, Australia, Uruguay. You have no argument.
Beachfront property - island property - is one day going to be inundated. It comes about because of a Natural Born Killer: Mother Nature.
There are a variety of ways to measure sea level. Most of them are wrong. The seas have been rising since the last Ice Age. The trend has not accelerated. Sea levels are going down in Alaska, down in Sweden, down in Finland. Sea levels are going up in Louisiana, up in NYC. They're pretty flat in Hawaii, Australia, Uruguay. You have no argument.
Beachfront property - island property - is one day going to be inundated. It comes about because of a Natural Born Killer: Mother Nature.
18
If you rip random quotes out of context you can present evidence for absolutely any argument. Your quote comes from this old article, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126101411.htm, which is entirely about sea levels in Israel and is not about climate change at all. Rather, it is simply about sea level changes in Israel's corner of the Mediterranean.
4
All you offer is unsupported and incorrect opinions. Sea level rise is accelerating. "Sea-level rise is accelerating, not declining as some have hoped, scientists said on Monday citing meltwater from Earth's ice sheets as the likely cause."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-sea-level-scientists.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-sea-level-scientists.html#jCp
3
erik,
NOAA's tide gauges show 1.7-1.8 mm/yr no acceleration.
" The variations in sea level trends seen here primarily reflect differences in rates and sources of vertical land motion. Areas experiencing little-to-no change in mean sea level are illustrated in green, including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. These are stations not experiencing significant vertical land motion. Stations illustrated with positive sea level trends (yellow-to-red) are experiencing both global sea level rise, and lowering or sinking of the local land, causing an apparently exaggerated rate of relative sea level rise. Stations illustrated with negative trends (blue-to-purple) are experiencing global sea level rise and a greater vertical rise in the local land, causing an apparent decrease in relative sea level. These rates of relative sea level rise reflect actual observations and must be accounted for in any coastal planning or engineering applications."
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.htm
NOAA's tide gauges show 1.7-1.8 mm/yr no acceleration.
" The variations in sea level trends seen here primarily reflect differences in rates and sources of vertical land motion. Areas experiencing little-to-no change in mean sea level are illustrated in green, including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. These are stations not experiencing significant vertical land motion. Stations illustrated with positive sea level trends (yellow-to-red) are experiencing both global sea level rise, and lowering or sinking of the local land, causing an apparently exaggerated rate of relative sea level rise. Stations illustrated with negative trends (blue-to-purple) are experiencing global sea level rise and a greater vertical rise in the local land, causing an apparent decrease in relative sea level. These rates of relative sea level rise reflect actual observations and must be accounted for in any coastal planning or engineering applications."
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.htm
1
People who vote against the fight to reverse climate change should be taxed a special tax - an ignorance and narcissism tax. And the money should be used to combat climate change and to change policy. Also, those of us with a functioning brain should not allow said ignorant selfish people to continue dictating the fate of the planet. We have the power to vote them out of office. Use your brains next year, people!!!!!!!!
67
And people who think we puny humans can 'reverse' climate change deserve the same ignorance tax. The Marshall Islands disappearing? What about Pompeii? Perhaps we should 'reverse' all volcanic activity, too? We can treat this planet much better than we do, but I will not sign up for a New World Order dictating what I can and cannot do. The answer is to use our technological brilliance to adapt. You really can't go destroying the global economy unless you have a love of an 18th century agrarian lifestyle.
7
This unwillingness to admit that we've caused the current problems is what's halting any attempts at change. You can't compare greenhouse gas emissions to volcanic eruptions. One is man made and can be changed, the other one is natural and out of anybody's control. How you can't see the difference is beyond me. Maybe it's too late to save small islands, but we can still slow down the process enough to save the bigger ones, if we only owned up to the fact that we're creating this mess, and not the occasional volcano. If we're not too "puny" to cause such drastic climate changes in the first place, then we're not too "puny" to correct our mistakes either. We just don't want to because ignorance is easier, and because our own homes aren't being flooded. I'm sure if you lived on the Marshall Islands, you'd be singing a different tune, but who cares if it's happening to somebody else... Selfish nearsightedness is the planet's worst enemy and what's dooming our future.
1
DH,
This is the hadCRUT4 entire data set.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0895c136970d-pi
There is just a slight bit of acceleration, and to get that, the set was warm adjusted over hadCRUT3 a couple of years ago.
Your fears are not warranted by the data.
This is the hadCRUT4 entire data set.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0895c136970d-pi
There is just a slight bit of acceleration, and to get that, the set was warm adjusted over hadCRUT3 a couple of years ago.
Your fears are not warranted by the data.
2
Talk about the short end of the stick. First these people get a US nuclear test site in their back yard and then they get flooded out of their homes by rising seas, in large part caused by the US emissions. I think we, as Americans, might owe them a few billion dollars to rebuild. Not that it can ever make amends for the loss of their homeland, but at least it would allow them to rebuild somewhere else.
106
SLR Marshall Islands is 1.91 mm.yr since 1950
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1...
No acceleration despite 65 years of human C02 emissions.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/595.rlrdata
Your position then is, therefore, based on what? Why again do we owe them these billions?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1...
No acceleration despite 65 years of human C02 emissions.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/595.rlrdata
Your position then is, therefore, based on what? Why again do we owe them these billions?
3
The US owes $0. These islands were essentially under US military control until the 1970s, so the nuclear testing was entirely legal. As far as emissions go, too bad - the liability simply isn't there. Of course, Obama is likely to stab the country in the back yet again and open us up to another unfunded mandate, but at least he is consistent.
2
It's always hilarious to hear anti-Obama folks complain about unfunded mandates. Medicare Part D, the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind....
1
Thank you for the video and pictures, a great addition to a story.
14
A guy walks up to you and puts a weight around your ankle, and tells you, "You have one year to get it off. Whether or not you do, I will throw you into the ocean."
Fifty one weeks pass, and still you wear the anklet. Hey, you've had other things to do, like make profits and wage wars. You suddenly realize that you've got one week to get the anklet off, but you can't. The only thing to do now is cut the foot off.
We're facing a situation where drastic measures are the only ones that will save us from ourselves. And you can believe that those with less are going to bear the brunt of those measures.
Fifty one weeks pass, and still you wear the anklet. Hey, you've had other things to do, like make profits and wage wars. You suddenly realize that you've got one week to get the anklet off, but you can't. The only thing to do now is cut the foot off.
We're facing a situation where drastic measures are the only ones that will save us from ourselves. And you can believe that those with less are going to bear the brunt of those measures.
26
Adam, let's make your analogy a little more accurate. You're standing at the shoreline with your small son and a guy puts an ankle weight on both of you and tells you that you have 100 years to get them off or both of you will drown because of rising tides. After 25 years he warns you again, sounding even more alarming, but you notice the shoreline hasn't moved and your still as dry as ever. Then inquiring more about his warning you find out that the shoreline might rise 1-4 feet over the 75 years. You and your son are both 6 feet tall. Do you 1) immediately cut off your foot? 2) Give the man your wallet and beg him to save you? Or 3) Tell him you don't believe him and ask him to please leave you alone and go about your life? Now let's add that you and your son aren't at the shoreline but working in your hardware store in Topeka, Kansas and he puts an ankle weight on you. Same 3 questions.
2
Rupe - they can't just walk inland?
1
Regardless of whether or not this type of compensation is justified, investing any of it on these islands is a waste. All the research is saying they're going under. Better to help these people rebuild somewhere else where unskilled labor jobs are available.
3
If we're going to relocate these folks, don't you think we might educate them as well? Teach them how to do something besides "unskilled labor jobs?" They're not ignorant, just poor and trapped!!
2
The moral of this story is, when the Intercoastal Waterway goes this way, all the weaponry in the world won't be able to protect the United States from The Atlantic Ocean.
39
Changing global trade winds have raised sea levels in the South Pacific about a foot over the past 30 years, faster than elsewhere. Scientists are studying whether those changing trade winds have anything to do with climate change.
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
4
It means that 'warming' is not the only natural force that can raise sea level...Living at 6' sea level is a risky proposition without consideration of sea level change...Typhoons can inundate low level areas. Why don't they move to islands that have higher ground?
9
It means that water at the planetary level doesn't level out the way water in a cup levels out. Winds, tides, the slight eccentricity of the planet's shape, continental drift and other factors affect the perceived height of the ocean relative to the land. In this case there appear to be changes in the prevailing winds. To tie that to climate change would require a workable theory and empirical evidence.
3
Some places have experienced increases, some decreases: such changes are very localized and cannot be ascribed to melting glaciers as the only source. Ocean floor and land altitude movements have always been part of Earth history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:NOAA_sea_level_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:NOAA_sea_level_...
9
If the Marshall Islands become inhabitable then part of New York, Miami, New Orleans, Houston and many other cities will be inhabitable as well. Climate change is a serious problem.
45
No it's not. People will just move. It literally is not the end of the world.
2
Wow, that's new on me. New York City and all coastal cities under water and they will just "move"?!! Not to mention the many other problems that come along with increasing climate chaos.
1
The population density in these pictures is astounding for these narrow pieces of land in the vast ocean. The climate talks will do nothing if we do not address human population growth. More people means more energy needed, which results in even greater misery when the inevitable happens.
If the problem is so bad, how comes that rich liberals continue paying millions for houses in Malibu beach and Martha's Vineyard? Shouldn't they be selling them at fire prices? No matter how much the media continues telling us about the catastrophic sea level rising the prices of beach front property only goes up. Although the rich are telling us that they believe in global warming and that we should repent and give them our money their actions tell us something different
18
Because if you have that kind of money if the neighborhood starts to go bad you just move and write the loss off your taxes.
4
Actually the rich buying those beach front properties aren't liberals, their the climate denying wealthy conservatives who will expect government help when their property floods from rising sea levels. Ridiculous? No more than your simplistic comment. You could ask the same of people who rebuild in any flood or other natural disaster prone area regardless of political affiliation. We encourage risk taking thru policies that compensate in the short term but eventually catch up. If you want a more true example of the veracity of climate change then look at how the insurance industry is planning for rising sea levels & other extreme events & George they not liberals by any means.
4
Because people of all stripes live in the moment? People who can do something, will? Money buys a lot of security to relocate?
None of this has anything to do with the reality of climate change, George.
None of this has anything to do with the reality of climate change, George.
1
Well, on the bright side, more water volume is more room for fish stocks. If I were a crab, I'd be jumping for joy, if crabs could jump.
4
actually, no. Fish nurseries in coastal waters and wetlands is where it counts, fishwise. But the sea walls that more and more countries are putting up to save their beaches and low-lying areas destroy that environment.
4
Ocean warming and acidification is having a serious effect on fish worldwide. It's quite a story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqXakbNspm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqXakbNspm8
2
Saving these islands now is a lost cause. There is no indication that we will be decreasing carbon emissions any time soon. The best scenario is only slowing the rate of increase. These islands are doomed. We might as well start moving these people out now.
77
Carbon Dioxide does not erode atolls. Water currents and waves do.
Actually Wanderer, Carbon Dioxide dissolving in seawater does erode atolls which are often on top of calcium carbonate piled up on shore from coral and coralline algae, from coral reefs. The reaction makes carbonic acid which dissolves carbonate rocks. And shells of mollusks, coralline algae, and corals themselves.
The process happens faster in the colder waters near the Arctic and Antarctic since temperature influences the rate of CO2 going into the water, as does salinity. The oceans have taken up most of the CO2 that came from burning oil and coal.
I agree that these islands are probably toast but you're right too, and we shouldn't just write them off.
The process happens faster in the colder waters near the Arctic and Antarctic since temperature influences the rate of CO2 going into the water, as does salinity. The oceans have taken up most of the CO2 that came from burning oil and coal.
I agree that these islands are probably toast but you're right too, and we shouldn't just write them off.
2
This is only the beginning of such disappearances, including lots of U.S. coastal properties. Buy one lot back, or maybe one block back from the beach, for your grandkids inheritances.
P.S. l loathe New York Times articles with GIFs in them. Please stop. We are not heathens, or 12 years old anymore.
5
Amazing videos! These are the first of their kind that I have seen embedded in a NYT story. They immediately bring me there, a place similar to many of the tropical countries we have been fortunate to travel to on bird watching trips.
People in these regions all over the globe are just trying to get by and because they are out of our eyesight (here in the north latitudes), we do not generally understand what daily life is like for them. The videos bring the story to life.
People in these regions all over the globe are just trying to get by and because they are out of our eyesight (here in the north latitudes), we do not generally understand what daily life is like for them. The videos bring the story to life.
43
I find it interesting that an article about "sea level rise" never references any specifics about the sea level. What is the current rate of sea level rise? What has happened over the past century? I didn't realize that the yardstick by which we measure sea level rise is billions of dollars in loss & damage. I guess the actual numbers aren't as compelling as the narrative.
The mean sea level trend is 2.32 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.82 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1946 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.76 feet in 100 years.
The mean sea level trend is 2.32 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.82 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1946 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.76 feet in 100 years.
18
You may also find this interesting...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-k...
9
Hondo, I really wish you were correct about this. The melting of glaciers, greenland and Arctic sea ice was not occurring 50 years ago. So, to include that data into your equation is faulty. That's why 98% percent of climate scientists would not agree with your individual assessment.
27
Great article. I remember 20 years ago when "Tuvalu is sinking!" was the global warming rallying cry. The way the media presents these stories is pretty simple: if it's bad it is due to climate change, and we have to do something right now! If it's good (or if the bad doesn't live up to the fear mongering) it could get worse due to climate change and we have to do something right now!
1
And it's thought, or at least preached, that if the major powers would only stop burning coal to generate electricity all will be saved...bloody amazing that.
2
Meanwhile China and India among others, keep building coal fired plants, cancelling the benefits of US carbon reduction.
John, these ancient Asian countries were once powerful and advanced civilizations, mindful of their environment, with built-in religions and philosophies that urged human beings to be respectful of their environment, Nature, Mother Earth. In ancient eastern mythologies bhumi or earth is a goddess, she nurtures and nourishes us. In contemporary cultures you see this kind of awe and respect for the earth in places like Hawaii where she is still worshipped, along with volcanoes and the oceans that surround the islands. Somewhere along human history, religions emerged that separated humans from Nature, separated God from humans, God was someone viewed as sitting up there in the clouds, dressed in white, sporting a white beard and in all descriptions, a white man. That kind of separation, ruined and messed up humanity, along with powerful forces like greed, power, religious conversions.
If India and China restore ancient beliefs of oneness with Nature philosophy, Indians and Chinese will treat the environment with respect, not foolishly like after the fact US carbon reduction proponents.
If India and China restore ancient beliefs of oneness with Nature philosophy, Indians and Chinese will treat the environment with respect, not foolishly like after the fact US carbon reduction proponents.
2
Legislation banning or crippling coal use in First World countries will by no means impact Third World cou tries nor will it make a measurable dent in perceived warming trend. That is not even the intent. It is part ofthe economic warfare on upper and middle class incomes in the First World so that Third World has more cash. However, it will fail to bring Third World out of generational poverty without tied to reforms and ambition. But they may have new companions in their misery as a result of so called Progressives' policies. Misery does love company!
“What I am hearing is that the heads of state are planning to clap each other on the back and say this is a very successful conference. If that is what happens, we are screwing the next generation, because we are doing the same as before.
“[A rise of ] 2C is definitely dangerous."
James Hansen has a long track record of accurate predictions. The following is from a 1981 paper of his that at the time hit the front page of the NY Times, all the predictions in it have either come to pass or are well underway. "Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage."
Too bad we didn't listen to him then. Too bad we're not listening to him now.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-coul...