Climate action too late to help Pacific islands.
By on Feb 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Climate action too late to help Pacific islands.
“International efforts to combat global warming will come too late to prevent the evacuation of Pacific islands sinking as a result of rising sea levels and severe weather, said Anote Tong, president of Kiribati. “We can’t out-move the changes in the weather and the sea level rise,” Tong told Bloomberg News. “We have to consider leaving rather than wait.” Most of Kiribati will be uninhabitable by the middle of this century because of weather damage and rising tides.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
And so it starts.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pmThirst?
February 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pmGlobal Warming is simply a tool the GOP is using to ensure destroy the “Blue States.”
Imagine the headlines in the year 2107: “Climate action too late to help eastern and western US coast states”
February 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pmThis is to be expected….after all, the Pacific Islands are well-known urban heat islands.
Isn’t that right, Jason?
<snicker>
February 16th, 2007 at 1:59 pmJust like Noah’s flood.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:00 pmFrom a conservative perspective, if they aren’t willing to help themselves, why should I care?
/sarcasm
February 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pmBut, but, but… Global Warming’s a myth invented by liberals.
:P
good call Krazny
February 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pmThe Kiribati Islands are just a comma on this earth….. nothing to get all hot and bothered about. Right Dubya??
February 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pmmy sister is in the peace corps, volunteering on the island of kuria, which is one of the kiribati islands. the pictures she sends of this place are extremely beautiful and it really is a shame that those views and the innocent indigineous people and their cultures will no longer exist. she had mentioned they were aware of this and the kiribati gov’t was actively negiotiating to relocate the local people to australia. there lives will probably be spared, but so much else is lost.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pm“A 0.74 degree Celsius (1.3 degree Fahrenheit) increase in the global temperature since 1901 has caused polar ice caps to melt, resulting in seas rising 0.31 centimeters a year since 1993.”
“The sea level around Kiribati has been rising 5.3 millimeters a year since 1993″
I obviously don’t understand this global warming. Isn’t sea level, sea level. It rises .31 centimeters a year in some places and 5.3 millimeters in others. Sincerely, help me.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pm“sinking as a result of rising sea levels and severe weather”
Is it sinking or are the sea levels rising? Is sinking caused by global warming? New Orleans is sinking. Is that due to global warming?
February 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pmFor Sale: Ocean Front property – Elko, Nevada
(gotta love capitalism!)
February 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pmWow, let’s spin our way out of this one Fox News. Islands sinking? That sucks.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pmThis is why I like living at 7000 feet above sea level. (among other things)
February 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pm#10-Paul,
Remember that there are three (3) dimensions (minimum) in our physical universe (Height, Width, Depth aka x,y,and z axis).
Then remember that the Oceans are fluid and as such are more fluent in the three axis. (remember tides?)
Finally, when you determine that this is a complex issue involving very sophisticated physics, then you will gain a profound appreciation for the scientists who the bush administration tend to treat like 1st grade math students.
The question is one of ability and credibility. Having the ability to analyze such complex situations requires decades of education, training, and research. Performing such in a manner that is consistent with proven and accepted scientific methodology and practices is what then supplies the credibility.
Of course, you can always just rely on some Gomer from Arkansas to tell you what he thinks based upon his interpretation of the bible, but that’s your choice.
Hope that helped.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmTuber,
Lex Luthor would be proud!
In Zod we trust?
February 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm14
You know why I like living around 5000 feet above sea level? I can go on walks without having to worry about oxygen deprivation.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmI obviously don’t understand this global warming. Isn’t sea level, sea level. It rises .31 centimeters a year in some places and 5.3 millimeters in others. Sincerely, help me.
Comment by paul — February 16, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
The concept of “sea level” is based on the average level over time, and is always specific to a particular location. The time period for averaging is not geologic, but simply long enough to smooth the effects of tides and waves. There is no universal level of the sea with respect to an absolute reference point, however. Currents, tides, and waves all cause water to pile up in some places and retreat in others. Local variations in gravity due to undersea topography also have an effect. So in reality the ocean surface has its own topography, which reflects these underlying forces. It may not seem like much, but the oceans are so huge that seemingly tiny things can have a huge effect. For example, much of the rise in sea level predicted by climate researchers is due to expansion of water as it warms, not just ice melting at the poles. Now you might wonder how much water expands if warmed 1 or 2 degrees, because you certainly can’t detect it in your bathtub at home. But if a two mile deep ocean expands by one-hundreth of one-percent, the level will rise about a foot on average.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pm18
Hey man, at least they had the guts to expose their own ignorance. No shame in asking questions.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pm#s 14 + 17
February 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pmThat’s why I moved to New Mexico, to get a jump on water front property up here at 7,500 above sea level. Water is fine, air is thin, and… what were we talking about?
I’m waiting for the ostriches to start chiming in with “B-b-but it’s cold here so there must no be any global warming.”
February 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pmOh, by the way, January was the warmest month of Jan in freakin (temp recorded) history.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:38 pmMust be a shitload of urban heat islands somewhere?
Tell the people who live in those places since before history that it’s a “natural cycle”. And give a heads up to those fundie loons down in FL that their turn is not far off.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pmVerbalKint
Currents, tides, and waves all cause water to pile up in some places and retreat in others.
If we blame high tides on global warming, what do we blame low tides on?
February 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pm#26,
The incredible vacuum caused by the void of matter between your ears.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pmWow, Pauli, your knowledge of lunar cycles is amazing!~
February 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pmSomething to do with planetary mass, gravity, you know, science stuff.
Sinking definition from the dictionary: “go beneath surface of liquid: to descend, or cause something to descend, beneath the surface of a liquid or a soft substance and become partly or wholly submerged”
Sinking according to Spudge_Boy: The sinking is the washing away of soil by rising sea levels.
Look up ‘Shoreline erosion’ while I ask you the question you asked me:
“Are you people really that stupid or are you just trying to be contrary to everything you hear?”
February 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pmYeah Paul, it must be all the clams partying at the same time, what with their drinkin and shit.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm#30,
“Moron” definition from the dictionary:
(a) a person who lacks the fundamental intelligence to comprehend even the simplest of realities.
(b) Paul
Don’t believe me, look it up.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pmSince I live in Honolulu in The Hawaiian Islands Chain, I better start taking lessons on how to live UNDERWATER from Lorelei the Mermaid and Byatis the Minion of Cthulhu…UNDER THE SEA…
February 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm“Lo! Death has reared himself a throne
In a strange city lying alone
Far down within the dim West,
Where the good and the bad and the worst and the best
Have gone to their eternal rest…”
Edgar Allan Poe, THE CITY IN THE SEA
ATLANTIS or MU, ANYONE?
Climate action too late to help Pacific islands. The story suggests that Kiribati’s 5.3 ml sea level rise (that you attribute to lunar tidal influence) is attributed to climate change. Is it lunar gravity or climate change? If it’s lunar gravity (as you suggest) we shoud probably leave Gore to the private sector. If it is not lunar gravity, please someone explain to me the variation and more importantly how it relates to climate change.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm#19 – VerbalKint,
February 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe spin of the Earth also has an effect on the redistribution of the gain in average sea levels. Along the equator, the circular speed of the surface is close to a thousand miles per hour while at the poles, it is zero.
If we blame high tides on global warming, what do we blame low tides on?
Comment by paul — February 16, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
This is a bizarre and nonsensical response to my post, Paul. I conclude that either you are a deeply stupid person, or you weren’t being sincere at all in #10, but were instead being a jackass. Maybe it is a bit of both (stupid and jackass).
February 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pmSpudge, you are right to call paul a dipshit. I really think that this clown is trying to be smart, as in smartass, but he keeps pooping on himself doing it.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pm26
Wow, are you f*cking serious? You know about like, the moon and stuff right? The 5.1 increase is a general trend that indicates warming. It’s 5.3 ml higher at high tide and low tide. If you’d ever been to the beach you’d know that tides are a daily cycle of huge water level increases because of gravity, you know what? No, just read this sh*t on Wikipedia, this is rediculous.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pmThe spin of the Earth also has an effect on the redistribution of the gain in average sea levels. Along the equator, the circular speed of the surface is close to a thousand miles per hour while at the poles, it is zero.
Comment by WaltTheMan — February 16, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
You are right, and I like the way you put it “redistribution of the gain in average sea levels.” I was trying to explain (not very well) that the dynamics of the ocean are not like that of water in a cup. Gravity is suffiicient to maintain a level surface in an undisturbed cup of liquid, but not on the scale of the oceans, over which gravity is not uniform, and other forces, e.g. centrifugal and Coriolis, have a non-trivial effect. A good example is the effect of persistent trade winds, which pile water up on one side the Pacific so that it is several feet higher than the other side. Global warming science predicts that the degree of warming will vary across the globe. These regional differences will interact with changing wind and sea currents under the complicated influences of gravity and rotation forces, so it isn’t the least bit surprising that rates of ocean rise will vary geographically.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#40,
That’s all a bit scientific. Can’t you just cite something from a religious text that will put this all in a clearer perspective?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:02 pm#41 Tuber,
God: BECAUSE I SAID SO!
February 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm#44,
I understand now!
So, why does god hate the world then?
Actually, scratch that question. In asking it I realized that god doesn’t hate the world, she is just in the process of repossessing it from its current grossly incompetent stewards.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pm43
You quoted the quote that comes after your post! It’s like magic!
February 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pmHmm, check out this link:
It’s an Australian gov’t sponsored program to monitor sea levels in the South Pacific. They’ve determined that the net sea level rise per year in Kiribati is 6.2mm, or approx 1/4″ per year. The IPCC report (2001 version) reported an “average” sea level rise of 1 – 2 mm, or .039″ to .078″
February 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pmSend Bush and Cheney into exile on Kiribati islands. That means eventually they will be washed out to sea and eaten by sharks.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pmOne of my assignments in Physics as to calculate the oblateness of the Earth based on the premiss that it was all water. Basef on that calculation, the pole to pole distance would be 6.5 thousand miles and the equator’s diameter about 8.7 thousand miles. I initally sliced the Earth into a thousand cylinders and had to go to a billion before before the deviation fell to a norm. It was one of those sigma things. You know, sum this thing from 1 to a billion. That was because we are speaking about volumn, a 1 in a billion volumn works down to .1% in distance.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:30 pmAdditionally, sea-level as measured by satellite (since 1992) is 2.8mm/yr, tidal gauge measurements showed 1.8mm/yr.
Check this, also from the IPCC (2001)
This shows that since the last glacier period (20,000 years ago) sea level has risen 120m, an average of 6mm/yr. The largest jump was between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago… a rate of 10mm/yr. Excluding that large rise leaves an average of 3mm/yr.
Lessee, the IPCC shows a rate of anywhere between 1mm/yr and 2.8mm/yr (depending on how you measure it)… and they ALSO show that sea level rise was 3mm for the last 20,000 yrs (or 6mm average, depending on how you measure it).
So, do you still think what’s happening in Kiribati is caused by human-induced global warming?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pm#44,
Yeah, I like to dance around this little thingy we call the space/time continuum.
Of course, I’ve already told you that five minutes from now.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:34 pm#48,
No, of course not silly!
It’s happening because of rising sea levels and global climate destabilizations CAUSED by global warming CAUSED by human activities.
Which, because god created man and man created global warming then it all comes back to god. Or the god that created god. Or the god that created the god that created god.
Something along those lines, I can never quite keep up with circular logic of religious dogma.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm#50… you missed the point… average sea levels as reported by IPCC is currently 2.8mm/yr, and average sea levels for the past 20,000 years is 3mm/yr, also reported by IPCC.
So it seems as if the average rise in sea levels for the past 10 years (or so) is no different than for the past 20,000 years. So how is it human-induced?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pm#51,
You’re a liar. The world was not around 20,000 years ago. I know that because Pat Robertson told me so…
February 16th, 2007 at 6:02 pmWow! I was able to move forward into time to then respond to someone before they posted? Or is it that I moved back in time to use an outdated numbering system. It’s all so confusing.
Thanks TP for the wonderful technical snafus that seem to always crop up like this. Don’t quit your day jobs! Oh, wait, this IS your day job?!?
February 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pmHey #34 Spudge_Boy Square Pants, You Cowardly repugnant-repub Queer, take your butt-boy Patrick Star-fish and go back underwater where you belong and sleep with the fishies!!!!! Don’t forget your cement galoshes! It is evident you don’t understand sarcasm or humour when you see it–typical right wingnut pointy-headedness!!!!!
February 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pmSpudge Boy is a repugnant repub queer right wingnut pointy-head?
When did he go over to the dark side? Heh.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:42 pmRaymond Funamoto,
Slow down chief. I was having an argument with a republican troll and your post dropped in between. But, if you think I am a right wing troll, then you must be reeeeeaaaaaaallllllllllyyyyyyyy new here.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pmSo now we see that in addition to being a right wing, Bush loving, Iraq war enthusiast, Dale is also a global warming denier. Surpise, surprise. What is it with these people and ignorance?
Dale, go peddle your junkscience.com factoids and third-grade reasoning elsewhere. Global warming deniers don’t do well here.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:58 pmSorry Spudge_Bob–my error.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:02 pm#57, so now the IPCC and South Pacific Sea Level and Climate report is “junkscience.com factoids and third-grade reasoning”???
February 16th, 2007 at 7:03 pmDale,
By the way, just in case you don’t realize it, Stephen Milloy is not a scientist, he is a lawyer by training and a tobacco company lobbyist by profession. He is paid to lie, and he does it well. Michael Chrichton is not a scientist, either. He is a fiction writer. And those wackos who call themselves things like “state climatologist”? Turns out those are made up titles, and the people using them are meteorologists, not climatogists. John Christy, a real scientist, finally threw in the towel and now accepts the theory. Richard Lindzen, also a real scientist, wrote some very embarrassing WSJ editorials about how there is a global cabal of scientists out to get him, suggesting to me that a mental evaluation is in order for Lindzen. So there you have it, Dale. Those of your sources of information about global warming. Embarrassed yet? Or do you need an intervention.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:07 pm#57, so now the IPCC and South Pacific Sea Level and Climate report is “junkscience.com factoids and third-grade reasoning�??
Comment by Dale — February 16, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Dale, that isn’t what I said and you know it. You are cherry-picking data here and there, and misusing it to make specious arguments. The data itself may be real, but the false presentation is very much in the style of Milloy. What I find particularly stupid (you might think it daring) is to cherry pick data from the definitive report of leading scientific experts, then draw a completely different conclusion that you somehow imagine makes the IPCC look wrong and silly.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:11 pm#61, Verbal, the *only* info I gave was from two sources; the IPCC and the SPSLC… and your reaction? To accuse me of “junkscience.com factoids and third-grade reasoning”. I never mentioned Stephen Milloy, or Michael Crichton. I only referenced those two sources, and only as regards to sea-level rise.
If my reasoning is wrong, then tell me how. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke and ignoring the data I presented.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:19 pmAnd by the way, if you do show how my reasoning is wrong, I won’t be embarrassed, I’ll just have a different view of things.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pmDale,
You are a global warming denier. We’ve seen plenty of them around here, and we know how they act. They cherry pick some data and misrepresent its context, then try to claim that they are arguing “based on facts” using data “collected by experts”.
Rather than “show you” that your “reasoning” is wrong (you will just move the goal posts if I do), I will say what I always say to deniers like you: the consensus on global warming and its anthropogenic origins is virtually unanimous among scientific experts. I have been a working scientist for over 20 years, and I can assure you that when consensus is as widespread and persistent as we are witnessing with global warming, the chance of the science being flatly wrong is nil. And I find it particularly absurd that know-nothing jackasses like you somehow think that you are in a position to challenge the science.
It must be getting mightly lonely in your little pro-war, global-warming-doesn’t-exist corner. Not only do most Americans accept the science, including nearly all educated ones, even most of the professional deniers belief it, as do most Republican Congressman, whether they publicly admit it or not.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWell, Verbal, nice sidestep… I was just posting the links to show that global warming most likely wasn’t responsible for this one incident, and you, in your usual all-knowing way, turned my two links into a denial on the whole global warming debate.
Nice.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pmWell, Verbal, nice sidestep… I was just posting the links to show that global warming most likely wasn’t responsible for this one incident, Comment by Dale — February 16, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Your links say no such thing.
and you, in your usual all-knowing way, turned my two links into a denial on the whole global warming debate. Nice. Comment by Dale — February 16, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
That’s because you’re too ignorant to even know what your own links mean or refer to. Care to actually refer to the IPCC documents, instead of your Seixon/Ignorant resources?
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Averages mean nothing if 99% of the change occurs in the first or last 1% of the time frame. Therefore your claim that there’s no difference now, than in the last several thousand years is irrelevant and dishonest. But who’s surprised that a conservative would be ignorant and dishonest about climate change?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:36 amDr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
“The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years.”
So says a director at the Max Planck Institute… unless you think he’s ignorant and dishonest?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pmunless you think he’s ignorant and dishonest?
Comment by Dale — February 17, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
No. It is you who are ignorant and dishonest. You argue like a Creationist, cherry-picking your data. Verbalkint already pointed out that much.
It doesn’t matter how much you deny it, global warming is happening and humans are having an impact. Here, from the article you linked to (which you seemingly didn’t read, or -again- cherry-picked quotes from):
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of “greenhouse gases”, such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth’s temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
In other words, human activity does have an impact on the climate. The only question that remains is how much, not if.
[Dr Solanki] says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.
In other words, a brighter sun is not responsible for the change in climate we are experiencing, but is definitely making a preexisting condition created by human activity even worse.
The rest of the article is no different: It does not shore up your point at all. It debunks you.
The only way you could possibly have thought it backs up what you say is if you cherry-pick, which is what you did with gusto.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pm