Atolls, in an undeveloped state, will always be just a few feet about sea level. They are the result of an equilibrium between deposition and erosion. If the sea level were to drop, an undeveloped atoll (without walls, paving, etc) would erode downwards because of greater wind exposure. Attempting to fix the level of an atoll by paving it will not work in the long term, regardless of what the climate does.
If your primary form of deposition (coral formation) breaks down, a lot of former atols will be sub-optimal investments, in the "under-water" sense that means being under water.
There are places like Marshall islands where relocation inland is not an option (unlike the millions of coastal population) and a significant sea level rise will simply eliminate them as dryland.
However, those places are comparatively small. Compared to the massive scale of anything we must start/stop doing to actually change global warming, for solving the particular issue of Marshall islands simply relocating the 70 000 people is the easiest and simplest solution with less impact on people lives.
A smallish military conflict displaces more civilians than that. In a sea level rise, the likely sea border disputes as islands disappear will impact far more people than those who live in atoll nations, their combined number of people is so tiny compared to, say, a couple coastal towns in Bangladesh.
The article does (quietly) mention that the sea level rise in the Marshall is due to changes in the trade winds. They also mention that they are not sure of the relationship between global warming and these trade wind changes. Over the last century the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen 4-8 inches.
The Marshall Islanders would be better served if the Paris meeting had been called off, and the millions that were spent for food, fuel, lodging, and security could be sent to keep their islands from capsizing ;-) not to mention the savings in CO2...
Just to keep things in perspective, the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands are 0.000721013% of the world population. if the Paris accomplishes anything positive at all, the impact would likely be larger than saving the Marshall Islands.
I'd be interested in an explanation as to why sea level would rise more some places than others. It seems to me it should raise pretty much the same everywhere because gravity.
Also, sea level is determined by a number of factors including astronomical and predictable, like moon, sun and other planets gravity influence, or random meteorological events like winds, low or high pressure systems and land mass configuration. All these contribute to the tide cycle and the sea level anywhere in the globle.
For example, there are places in the world with huge tide amplitudes like 12 m or so and other with no tides at all (excluding meteorological events).
The problem is the "mean sea level rise". The "mean sea level" is usually determined by and average of at least 19 years of measurements of the sea level, which is approximately the time it takes to complete a full moon cycle.
Apart from changes in sea level, sometimes the land is moving up, sometimes down. See for instance the still ongoing rebound of Scandinavia, taking place since the start of the current interglacial period (11,700 years).
Water temperature hasn't been mentioned -- though water famously expands as it freezes, at temperatures above about 4C, it undergoes normal thermal expansion. This means that warm equitorial waters show some of this effect as well.
Winds and tides are other significant factors, both of which can vary strongly regionally and globally.
Article says: "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."
Before that, it needs to be asked if it is even rising sea level in the first place, as opposed to land subsidence.
"It looks like Kwajalein is affected by a local subsidence induced by building construction (or some sea level “correction” in order to have it going up).
The Majuro records, for sure, contradicts any (sic:"and") acceleration claim; even a general “rise”.
I'd wager that gravity isn't 100% equal over the whole globe, the pull of the moon's gravity also isn't equal over the globe, and that the circulation of water across the world's oceans also isn't 100% (so there's different salinity, water pressure, various prevailing 'currents', temperature, etc...). Of course I don't study this, so I don't know the exact reasons, but I'm sure there is a reason...
I'm worried my tiny province in Canada (PEI) will be gone maybe in a 100 years or at least eroded substantially. About 224km (140 miles) long by 60km (37 miles) wide 140,000 people.
The island is all sandstone there is no native rock here the highest point is 142m (466 feet) but the average height I'd say is a metre/a few feet above sea level.
There are places around the island where 30m (100 feet) have washed away just within the last few decades. None of what washed away was replaced by the government it just keeps washing away never to return.
I did not expect to see another islander on here. I saw a tool or report a few years ago that would show how much of the island would remain with different sea level rises but I cannot find it now.
Does that matter? People live there, the fact that it is disappearing is relevant. "Well, those islands used to be totally submerged 115,000 years ago!" isn't really of use to the islands' inhabitants.
No one could have predicted this based on any kind of evidence tho so we best go about business as usual without making any changes to our way of life.
I would guess it is easier to float those atolls or put them on stilts. The ocean tends to get really deep fast in the Pacific, and the islands are small, giving them a high circumference to area ratio (=> you would need lots of wall per square kilometer of atoll)
That could work, but this is just a preview of more to come. That dutch firm would be kept very busy doing the same for Miami, Shenzhen, and many other coastal cities. There are also many coastal settlements who can't afford sea walls. It is doubtful that political entities that aren't interested in footing the bill to prevent such scenarios would be willing to help those settlements.
"The debate over loss and damage has been intense because the final language of the Paris accord could require developed countries, first and foremost the United States, to give billions of dollars to vulnerable countries like the Marshall Islands." [ from the NYTimes article ]
Hoo boy. This is going to have problems passing in the current U.S. Congress.
Apparently developing countries want the top nations to pay $1-2T (yes, trillion) to execute their own plans. There's also another $1-2T in damages being discussed.
There is something about a NYtimes online articles. They are such an appropriate blend of investigative reporting and proper adoption of new media. Wrapped neatly in nice typography and minimal advertisements.
Why do folks keep on getting suckered by this "everything is global warming" and "it's all our fault" scam? The satellite data means (the only trustworthy source) haven't changed in nearly 20 years of their 35ish-year existence. CO2 isn't even the main greenhouse gas, that's water vapor. The sun's variability and its effect on climate are poorly understood. Yet the sun is the driver. The claim that anthropogenic CO2 (an unknown amount of the overall carbon cycle) is in a positive feedback loop with other processes is unproven: that's why the models are doing such a lousy job of predicting the non-warming. If it weren't a near trillion dollar proposition to keep the scam going, this would all be more widely known.
This article fails to mention the aging Cactus Dome containing gratuitous amounts of radioactive soil that will breach containment soon and cause fukushimachernobyl9/11*1000 radioactive damage
> Watching what is done with these would seem to indicate the state's intent
What intent? There is nothing the federal government can do to stop increasing sea levels or erosion. Just like the inhabitants, when it becomes untenable, they will just move.
[+] [-] 23452436|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterisP|10 years ago|reply
However, those places are comparatively small. Compared to the massive scale of anything we must start/stop doing to actually change global warming, for solving the particular issue of Marshall islands simply relocating the 70 000 people is the easiest and simplest solution with less impact on people lives.
A smallish military conflict displaces more civilians than that. In a sea level rise, the likely sea border disputes as islands disappear will impact far more people than those who live in atoll nations, their combined number of people is so tiny compared to, say, a couple coastal towns in Bangladesh.
[+] [-] sawyerh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crispy2000|10 years ago|reply
The Marshall Islanders would be better served if the Paris meeting had been called off, and the millions that were spent for food, fuel, lodging, and security could be sent to keep their islands from capsizing ;-) not to mention the savings in CO2...
[+] [-] whyenot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noiv|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gweinberg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nusq|10 years ago|reply
Also, sea level is determined by a number of factors including astronomical and predictable, like moon, sun and other planets gravity influence, or random meteorological events like winds, low or high pressure systems and land mass configuration. All these contribute to the tide cycle and the sea level anywhere in the globle.
For example, there are places in the world with huge tide amplitudes like 12 m or so and other with no tides at all (excluding meteorological events).
The problem is the "mean sea level rise". The "mean sea level" is usually determined by and average of at least 19 years of measurements of the sea level, which is approximately the time it takes to complete a full moon cycle.
[+] [-] lobster_johnson|10 years ago|reply
There are other factors, such as the cold/warm water cycle creating very slow currents that push water towards certain landmasses.
But as I understand it, gravity is the main cause.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid
[2] http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it...
[+] [-] mkempe|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound#Vertical_...
[+] [-] dredmorbius|10 years ago|reply
Winds and tides are other significant factors, both of which can vary strongly regionally and globally.
[+] [-] nicwolff|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrScump|10 years ago|reply
"It looks like Kwajalein is affected by a local subsidence induced by building construction (or some sea level “correction” in order to have it going up). The Majuro records, for sure, contradicts any (sic:"and") acceleration claim; even a general “rise”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/31/the-marshall-islands-a...
[+] [-] Mikeb85|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xlm1717|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dghughes|10 years ago|reply
The island is all sandstone there is no native rock here the highest point is 142m (466 feet) but the average height I'd say is a metre/a few feet above sea level.
There are places around the island where 30m (100 feet) have washed away just within the last few decades. None of what washed away was replaced by the government it just keeps washing away never to return.
[+] [-] nkrisc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crispy2000|10 years ago|reply
Of course, in the 1200's when they started, they didn't have climate change conferences and carbon credits.
[+] [-] criddell|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tectec|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gd1|10 years ago|reply
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70052/IDO70052SLI.shtml
"Changing global trade winds have raised sea levels in the South Pacific about a foot over the past 30 years"
No.
[+] [-] tosseraccount|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phkahler|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
Why do people think this process has stopped? Or do they think we're at the peak sea level rise today? Why?
[+] [-] untog|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benten10|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehchromic|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] underwires|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggchappell|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xemoka|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlebrech|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zbyte64|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albemuth|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosseraccount|10 years ago|reply
Hoo boy. This is going to have problems passing in the current U.S. Congress.
[+] [-] caseysoftware|10 years ago|reply
Ref: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/30/439679/France-Paris-...
[+] [-] mgr86|10 years ago|reply
...Now only if I had the attention span.
[+] [-] eitally|10 years ago|reply
NYT article about it: http://futurenytimes.org/reviews/interactive-storytelling/
Venturebeat article about Storied: http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/12/storied-launches-publishin...
Storied site: http://www.storied.co/welcome
Comparative article about various immersive journalism platforms: https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/9-tools-for-journalists-to...
I think Immersive.sh is currently the most widely used: http://immersive.sh/rachelbartlett/itMsUweiM
[+] [-] kobayashi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ertyuiopas|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pocketstar|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] double0jimb0|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missil...
[+] [-] maratd|10 years ago|reply
What intent? There is nothing the federal government can do to stop increasing sea levels or erosion. Just like the inhabitants, when it becomes untenable, they will just move.
[+] [-] gd1|10 years ago|reply
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-t...
No one denies the science more than alarmists.